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.

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, I look at Bill C-5 as a positive piece of legislation. I understand the member's concerns with respect to dividing it, which is what the Bloc wanted to see, but overall I think it is important that we understand and appreciate judicial independence. The idea is that our judges need to have discretionary authority to deal with issues such as systemic racism, which is very real in our court system.

I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts with regard to that aspect of the legislation and how it would benefit that issue.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government's Bill C-5 would amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal certain minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. There are two parts to the bill. The first repeals 20 mandatory minimum sentences for offences involving firearms and drugs, and the second introduces the principle of diversion for simple drug possession.

First, I must say that the Liberals' bill is certainly well intentioned. However, the timing of its introduction is rather odd, given that gun violence is spiking and the federal government, which is responsible for managing our borders, is being criticized for doing nothing to stem imports of illegal firearms. Not a day goes by without this issue being mentioned during question period in the House. The number of gun crimes has increased considerably over time. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of gun crimes committed in Montreal rose by 15%, and the number of firearms seized increased by 24%.

In addition, the goal is to repeal certain mandatory minimum sentences for drug production, yet the opioid crisis is claiming more and more lives in Quebec and Canada. If I put myself in the shoes of the families who have lost a loved one to a shooting or to the use of drugs laced with fentanyl by an unscrupulous dealer, I am not sure this is the response they were hoping for from the government at this point.

The bill repeals several minimum penalties for second and third offences. While it is true that mandatory minimum sentences for a first offence may impact social reintegration, keeping certain mandatory minimum sentences for second or even third offences could be justified as a way of upholding the credibility of our legal system. Maintaining public confidence in our justice institutions is also a concern that should not be dismissed out of hand.

Let us remember that, under the Harper government in 2006, a number of mandatory minimum sentences were challenged. Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment in Canada, is often used as an argument against mandatory minimum sentences. Over 210 constitutional challenges have been filed. According to the Minister of Justice, 69% of the constitutional challenges involving mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences and 48% of those for firearms offences were successful. To be honest, we cannot call that a success.

That said, we are supporting Bill C‑5 despite being somewhat dissatisfied with it. My esteemed colleagues from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and Rivière-du-Nord repeatedly asked the government to split the bill in two, because we believe that tackling substance addiction and abolishing mandatory minimum sentences are two fundamentally different issues. Unfortunately, the government rejected our request, so here we are now.

We are disappointed with the part about mandatory minimum sentences, but we agree on the principle of establishing diversion measures as introduced in Bill C‑5. With respect to mandatory minimum sentences, the Bloc Québécois wants the legal system to adopt an approach that enables rehabilitation and reduces crime.

Considering that mandatory minimums have few benefits and introduce many problems, such as the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prison, in addition to increasing system costs and failing to deter crime, the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of repealing certain mandatory minimum sentences.

However, we believe this is a bad time to repeal mandatory minimums for firearms offences, because many Quebec and Canadian cities are seeing a firearms epidemic, due in part to the Liberal government's failure to implement border controls.

Repealing mandatory minimums without strong action by the federal government to counter the illegal importation of firearms at the border sends the wrong message. Although the Bloc Québécois can get behind repealing mandatory minimums for a first offence, we believe that keeping these sentences for second and even third offences can be justified, as this would maintain the public's trust in their justice institutions and the rehabilitation process.

Believing in second chances does not mean that people's actions do not have consequences. It is a question of common sense.

Although we think it is defensible to repeal mandatory minimum sentences for firearms possession, the fact that the bill repeals mandatory minimums for certain offences involving firearms, such as discharging a weapon with intent and robbery or extortion with a firearm, seems to contradict the government's claim that they are being maintained for certain categories of serious crimes.

During the last election campaign and during the debate on Bill C-236, we expressed support for the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession. However, I would remind the House that such a measure will only be effective if investments are made in health care through transfers to support health care systems and community organizations, which need ways to support people grappling with addiction and mental health problems. They are doing amazing work on the ground, and they need resources to carry out their mission.

We have said it before, but it bears repeating: The Bloc Québécois and the Quebec government demand health care funding. I think we have said this 572 times, but we want health transfers to cover 35% of the system costs. Unfortunately, the government has failed to respond. It is silent in the face of the unanimous demands of Quebec and the provinces. Those demands have been reiterated every year since the Liberals came to power, in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and today in 2022.

Will they have the audacity to keep saying no until 2023? I hope not.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by reassuring my colleague. I did not say that she was illogical; I said that I was having a hard time understanding her logic, which is not the same thing.

That said, the Bloc Québécois stands up every day to tell the government that Bill C-5 is not enough and that we need to fight organized crime and create a registry of criminal organizations. Given what the hon. member was saying about borders and the current shortcomings in the fight against organized crime, I presume that she supports our bill and will vote for it.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, this past December, the Liberal government revived Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The government has claimed that the purpose of this act is to root out systemic racism in the criminal justice system and address the root causes of substance abuse in light of the worsening opioid crisis. Conservatives have another view. We have outlined the dangers in the government's Bill C-5 with regard to violent criminals, lessening sentences for gun crimes and the removal of mandatory minimum penalties, among other concerns.

The Liberals are eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. They are doing this because they feel these laws are unfair. They are more interested in standing up for criminals than defending our communities. Tell that to the families of victims in my own riding of South Surrey—White Rock. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia and as a mother, I know illegal drugs are a scourge in our society.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal too many mandatory minimum penalties, allowing for a greater use of conditional sentences and establishing diversion measures for simple and first-time drug offences that are already in place. B.C. already has drug courts.

Mandatory minimum sentences are not used for simple possession now; they do not exist. Despite what the Liberal government has said about Bill C-5, the Supreme Court did not declare all mandatory minimums unconstitutional. The courts have struck down some, but these punishments have been on the books for decades. In fact, a majority of the mandatory minimums were introduced under previous Liberal governments. For example, the mandatory minimum penalty repeal for using firearms in the commission of an offence dates back to the Liberal government of 1976.

While the government claims to be undoing the work of the former Conservative government, it would truly be undoing the work of many former Liberal governments as well. This Liberal government is maintaining many of the mandatory minimums were introduced or strengthened by the former Conservative government.

In Bill C-5, the government is eliminating six mandatory minimums under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that target drug dealers: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance schedule I or II, like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth. The government is claiming this is solely to help those who struggle with addictions, but instead, the government is removing the mandatory minimums for those criminals who prey on those with addictions.

Imagine what parents go through when their child is addicted to fentanyl. It is so addictive that it is only a matter of time before the person overdoses. With carfentanil, young people take it once; their first hit is their last, and their heart stops before they hit the floor.

The bill allows for greater use of conditional sentence orders, such as house arrest, for a number of offences where the offender faces a term of less than two years' imprisonment. The offences now eligible include trafficking in, or exporting or importing schedule III drugs. That includes mescaline, LSD and others.

What exactly is being done right now by the government to crack down on the drug trade? Why is the government not tackling the massive issue of supply in Canada?

According to Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, which has strategically allocated resources to investigate organized crime groups with a higher threat level, there are over 1,800 OCGs in Canada. Larger OCGs do not generally restrict themselves to one illicit substance and are importing an array of illicit substances.

Around 75% of OCGs analyzed by Criminal Intelligence Service Canada are involved in cocaine trafficking. The legalization of cannabis has done little to disrupt or displace OCGs due to the fact that 97% of them involved with importing cannabis are also involved in multi-commodity trafficking.

It was noted that organized crime in Canada has grown due to an increase in criminal entrepreneurs who have harnessed the anonymity of the Internet to perpetrate crime. In addition, the dark web has given rise to an increasing number of criminals who are operating independently to implicate themselves in the fentanyl market and rapidly growing meth market due to the relative ease of obtaining precursor chemicals used in their production and synthesis.

In addition to OCGs, there have been increasing threats observed from outlaw motorcycle gangs. For instance, the Hells Angels is an outlaw motorcycle gang with global ties to other active OCGs in Canada.

The organization has expanded across the country, and 50% of organized crime can be attributed to its operations. Hells Angels has increased the number of its support clubs from 40 to 120. This expansion has resulted in approximately double the amount of criminal activity. Hells Angels uses that coordination to ship fentanyl and methamphetamine together, contributing to the trend of polydrug trafficking.

Their operations vary in terms of sophistication but pose a threat to public safety nonetheless. Violence surrounding OCGs is increasing and is commensurate with the increase in firearms-related crime in Canada, the expansion of illicit handguns westward from Ontario and the escalating use of social media to facilitate the illicit drug trade. It was noted that many key players from the largest OCGs have been killed in the past 18 months, both domestically and while brokering drug deals abroad.

With respect to importation of illicit substances in Canada, existing OCGs with networks and smuggling routes for cocaine and heroin from Mexico are shifting focus. There has been a large increase in fentanyl and methamphetamine smuggling from Mexico. Favouring profitability, OCGs are moving away from heroin and toward fentanyl. As meth becomes less expensive to produce, its street value is declining, leading to increased demand for meth, as people who use drugs shift away from more expensive drugs to meth. Notably, Canada has been identified as a global transshipment country for fentanyl. Currently, there is a five-to-one import-export ratio, with 300 different OCGs involved in importation.

The government has this woke view of criminal justice, that if people are kept out of prison, they will reform and all will be okay. I think drug dealers need to be in prison, not on house arrest where they can continue to ruin children’s lives and families' lives and devastate communities. Those most vulnerable in our society must be protected. I believe that is not in question.

In my home province, according to preliminary data released by the B.C. coroners service, the toxic illicit drug supply claimed the lives of at least 2,224 British Columbians in 2021. Lisa Lapointe, the chief coroner, stated, “Over the past seven years, our province has experienced a devastating loss of life due to a toxic illicit drug supply. This public health emergency has impacted families and communities across the province and shows no sign of abating.” In 2021 alone, more than 2,200 families experienced the devastating loss of a loved one.

In the past seven years, the rate of death due to illicit drug toxicity in our province has risen more than 400%. Drug toxicity is now second only to cancer in B.C. for potential years of life lost. Fentanyl was detected in 83% of samples tested in 2021. Carfentanil was present in 187 results, almost triple the number recorded in 2020. Illicit drug poisoning is now the leading cause of death among B.C. people aged 19 to 39, people in the prime of their lives. For men, the toxic drug crisis has been so severe that overall life expectancy at birth for males has declined in recent years in B.C.

The townships that experienced the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths in 2021 were Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria. For me, representing and living in South Surrey—White Rock, these are not just statistics. We live it every day in B.C.

I feel for those families that have lost loved ones to drugs. For that reason, I cannot support this government bill. Members can characterize me as they will, but six lives will be lost in British Columbia to drug overdose today, and I do not think Bill C-5 does a thing to deter drug dealers from killing my constituents. It makes their lives easier while they destroy those around them.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the last part, I agree that this is a fundamental reason that Bill C-5 needs to pass, but I will expand on it.

The problem with the Liberals voting down Bill C-216 is that while there may be a jurisdiction like British Columbia which is very open to reaching agreements with the federal government, there will be other jurisdictions like Alberta that refuse to do that. While the agreement with British Columbia is a great thing, what about all the Canadians in other provinces who do not have progressive premiers? They have to wait for the law to be changed and they are out of luck. That is the problem. That is why it is shameful that the Liberals voted against Bill C-216.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member gave a thoughtful speech, as thoughtful as his colleague from Courtenay—Alberni and the bill that he had to decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs. The first reaction to the bill that the House did pass was from Alberta, saying that what was happening in B.C., which was an agreement with B.C., is not good and it will not happen in Alberta.

I would ask the member to reflect on that and Bill C-5, which again attempts to allow local jurisdictions to consider local circumstances and have judges make the appropriate judgment on what kinds of penalties should apply.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand and speak to Bill C-5 at report stage. I would like to start by thanking all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the work they did in reviewing this bill and reporting it back to the House. As a former member of that committee, I know it is no easy task. I used to be a member, back in 2017. The bills that come before the justice committee are usually quite serious in nature. They demand a certain amount of responsibility to take up the task and make sure that the amendments we are making to the Criminal Code have in fact been vetted and that all of the implications of their passage are fully understood.

This being Bill C-5, my remarks today, of course, are going to concentrate on two themes. One is on the question of mandatory minimums and whether they still serve any kind of useful purpose in our criminal justice system. The second theme is on the incredible harm that is a result of Canada's current federal drug policy, and not only the harm that is meted out to people who are arrested and have criminal records that they have to deal with for the rest of their lives, but also the lack of action in tackling the root causes of the opioid crisis that I have heard members from every political party and every region in Canada speak so passionately about.

Bill C-5, like any piece of legislation, is not going to solve those problems by itself and I would argue that much more needs to be done. This is one small step on the path that we need to take, but it is nonetheless a step forward. That is why I will be supporting this bill and ensuring that the Senate receives it so that it can one day make its way to the Governor General's desk and be signed into law.

It is important to set up the context, especially when we are speaking about mandatory minimums. I do not need to argue about the harms that they cause our society. It has been well documented by many, including none other than the Correctional Investigator. The statistics are there, for indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians, on their share of the population in Canada and their extreme overrepresentation in our criminal justice system.

What is more is that there is simply no credible evidence that mandatory minimums work in any way to deter crime. That is a fact. I have had to sit in this place through question period after question period, listening to colleagues from the Conservative Party talk and deliberately misstate what is going on with this piece of legislation. The Conservatives are trying to weave a story for Canadians and trying to infect them with fear that with the passage of Bill C-5, somehow every person who is charged with a serious criminal offence is suddenly going to be placed on house arrest or released on the streets. Nothing could be further from the truth. What it speaks to is a distrust, among members of that party, in judges having the ability to make the right decisions for the cases that come before them. Mandatory minimums are a blunt instrument of justice. They do not allow a judge to take in the circumstances of a case and to look at the circumstances of the individual who has been charged with a crime.

Furthermore, in all of the arguments I have heard from Conservatives on this bill, the part they leave out is that even though these sections in the Criminal Code are being amended, the maximum penalties are still in force. While the mandatory minimum penalties are being taken away, many of these serious offences carry prison terms of up to 10 years and of up to 14 years. There is no doubt in my mind that if a repeat offender has committed very serious criminal acts under the sections of the Criminal Code covered by Bill C-5, that person will receive jail time.

A judge's solemn responsibility to society is public safety and ensuring there is justice for the victims of crime. Judges are always balancing society's best interests when a case comes before them. We have to trust them in that process. There is a reason that our legislative branch is separate from the judicial branch.

We have to trust in these men and women who are so very learned in law and who can appreciate all of the fine differences in each case that comes before them. We have to trust that they will always make the right decision. There are ways we can hold our judges to account. There are courts of appeal, and we can continue going up the judicial ladder until we reach the Supreme Court of Canada. I cannot accept the arguments that are being made against mandatory minimums in this place, because they are being made in bad faith.

I want to turn to the main part I really want to hammer out here, which is the important amendments that are being made to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I was very honoured to stand in this place with my friend, colleague and neighbour, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, and vote in favour of his bill, Bill C-216. It would have essentially decriminalized personal possession. It would have set up a process of expungement. It would have set our country forward on a path of setting up a national strategy to deal with the opioids crisis.

Unfortunately, there were only a few members who were brave enough to stand up for that bold, game-changing policy and trying to put this country on a path forward. Even though we lost that battle, I think that vote and the conversation we had have been important milestones for this country's evolving laws toward drug policy. I am certain that in the years ahead we are going to see some fundamental reform in this area.

The main thing Bill C-5 would do with respect to our drug laws is set up a declaration of principles. We are at report stage now, but important work was done at committee. I have to take a moment to recognize the amazing and incredible work of my colleague and neighbour to the south, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. His knowledge of law, his expertise in that area and the diligent and hard work he has done at committee resulted in some very substantive amendments to Bill C-5. One of them in particular, although it is not going to be called expungement, is expungement by a different name.

One of the main harms we have had to people who have criminal records for personal possession amounts is that those records follow them throughout life. They can affect one's ability to get into certain lines of work, affect one's ability to rent a home and very severely affect one's ability to travel. The amendments that were made by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and accepted by a majority of the committee are essentially going to make sure that Bill C-5 would ensure that after two years those records are sequestered from the main records of that person, and no longer will anyone be able to find those records and hold them against that person.

It is important, and it is certainly not as bold of a step as we would have wanted, but I think it goes to show that this small caucus of New Democrats has been able to make monumental reform to a pretty important government justice bill. I think this is going to leave a lasting mark for people who have been negatively affected by this.

I will conclude by saying that when it comes to mandatory minimums, it is important for us to remember that the Criminal Code is a massive piece of legislation. There are already sections within the Criminal Code, specifically section 718.2, the sentencing principles, that allow a judge to increase or decrease a sentence based on aggravating factors. The sentences that are spelled out in the Criminal Code for the specific sections of Bill C-5, in fact, could be lengthened, if there were aggravating factors. If a crime was committed against a person with a disability or if racial hatred and bias were involved in a crime, judges could take that into account.

I could say much more, but 10 minutes goes by very quickly. I will end by saying that Bill C-5 is a small step. We did our job to make it better. I will be pleased to vote in favour of this bill to send it to the Senate and hopefully into law in the very near future.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, at report stage. It is sponsored by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, the current Minister of Justice.

Bill C-5 acts simultaneously on two complementary fronts: It repeals mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, for certain offences in the Criminal Code and establishes diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. Indirectly, Bill C-5 also seeks to counter systemic racism by addressing the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the prison system.

My colleagues may know from my background that I was a criminologist. Far from me to claim I am an expert in the matter, but I can say that establishing diversion measures for these offences and repealing mandatory minimum penalties is fully consistent with many of my views and opinions.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, let us define the important terms we are using today. Too many people, including most of us, confuse decriminalization, legalization and diversion. First, mandatory minimum penalties are legislated sentencing floors where the minimum punishment is predetermined by law. I am reiterating this because I believe that there is some confusion in our colleagues’ remarks. Second, decriminalization is the act of removing from the Criminal Code an action or omission that was considered a criminal offence, or the act of reducing the seriousness of an offence or removing from it any of its so-called criminal or penal nature. Diversion means the suspension, in the normal course of events, of criminal justice mechanisms at every step of the decision-making process. These can include incidents settled within the community, cases not referred to the justice system by the police, conciliation before reaching trial, and so on.

Overall, the Bloc Québécois supports the provisions proposed in Bill C-5. However, there are a few points about which we have serious reservations, but I will get to that later.

First, with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, the Bloc Québécois advocates an approach that involves rehabilitating offenders, a term our Conservative colleagues do not appear to be familiar with, reducing crime and easing the burden on our penal and justice systems.

MMPs, which became harsher under the Harper Conservative government, are totally useless. No empirical study has ever shown that these penalties reduce crime. First, they increase the burden on the criminal justice and correctional systems. Second, they cost taxpayers a fortune. Third, they undermine any chances of reintegration for many minor offenders after their first offence for a minor crime, such as simple drug possession.

Although we agree with the principle, we must point out this is not the right time to eliminate MMPs for firearms offences. As I stand here addressing the House, a number of cities in Canada and Quebec are experiencing a veritable epidemic of firearms, mainly because of the government’s inaction when it comes to border control. Without the firm and concerted action of the federal government to stem the illegal importation of firearms across the border, repealing MMPs for firearms offences is sending the wrong message.

With respect to diversion, obviously the Bloc Québécois supports it, and I am personally very eager to see it happen, because I firmly believe in the concept of rehabilitation. Diversion considers drug problems to be mental health and public health issues. That is important. Diversion measures are intended for persons with addictions, those who would normally be prosecuted for simple drug possession under Canada's Criminal Code.

The aim of diversion is to remove individuals struggling with problematic substance use, and who do not pose a risk to society, from the justice system.

It is important to understand that diversion is not inconsistent with criminal prosecution. Diversion simply offers offenders the choice of a different path, an alternative to prison. Options for diversion include treatment information sessions, fines, community service and many more. Diversion is therefore not a solution to the criminality associated with the sale of illicit drugs; it is a solution to social and public health problems.

Earlier, my colleague referred to Portugal, which gives us one of the best examples of the benefits of diversion. Faced with a serious drug problem in 2001, that is the path Portugal opted for.

Diversion led to a decline in drug use. Incarceration rates for drug-related offences decreased as well, and the number of fatal overdoses like those we are seeing in British Columbia, for example, fell sharply. Another benefit was that the incidence of HIV-AIDS among drug users also plummeted.

I think it is crucial to point out this achievement, which is attributable to a combination of diversion measures and Portugal’s massive investment in health care. The current bill does not contain anything about this second component, namely investment in health care.

I would like to remind members that every Canadian province, including Quebec, is asking the federal level to cover 35% of their health spending so that they can support their health care systems, which are in dire need of funding. Another good reason to increase health transfers, as Quebec wants and is calling for, is to again move towards adopting an approach that would closely follow Portugal’s.

In short, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-5. We support the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession offences. We also support the repeal of some mandatory minimum penalties. I say “some” mandatory minimum penalties to avoid falling into demagoguery.

However, I will reiterate that the government is making a mistake when it proposes to repeal mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences without doing anything about the source of the problem, namely the free movement of thousands of illegal firearms across our porous border with the United States.

I will therefore vote for Bill C-5, but if the government really wants to make a difference, if it wants to ensure that repealing mandatory minimum penalties and establishing diversion measures will yield all the benefits we can expect, it must do two things. First, it must immediately implement all of the measures proposed by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia to reduce firearms violence. Then, it must immediately increase health transfers to the provinces to cover at least 35% of their spending.

If it does that, I can guarantee the Liberal Party that Bill C-5 will have an extremely positive impact. If it continues to turn a deaf ear to the Bloc Québécois’s proposals, it will once again have missed a great opportunity.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, what we are continually hearing from the NDP and the Greens is very frustrating. They want to change the story and turn the page on what Bill C-5 is all about.

Bill C-5, for the last time, is not about simple possession. This is a news release to the House: It is not. I am not going to respond—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I reflect on this often, and I often hear from government members, NDP members and Green members that we Conservative members can all calm down because the bill would keep communities safe. They say we can trust our judges to always do the right thing. However, judges come from various backgrounds, which is why we have a myriad of different judgements from across this country, from coast to coast to coast. There is no consistency in sentencing.

In answer to the question, as a former prosecutor over the last two decades and previous to that as a defence counsel, I have repeatedly seen abuses by defence counsel who were properly retained with illegal funds from trafficking, etc., who shop for a judge, as there are judges who are more lenient than others. Bill C-5—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-5 at report stage. I am profoundly disappointed as a parliamentarian and deeply ashamed as a former Crown attorney that this seriously flawed, reckless and dangerous bill has made it this far in the process.

I left behind a proud and rewarding legal career as a public servant for the Province of Ontario, a career defined by holding criminals accountable for their actions, which ranged from mischief all the way through to and including first degree murder. It was a career further defined by advocating for victims' rights, which is a concept that is completely alien to this virtue-signalling government. Neither this bill nor Bill C-21 makes any reference to the rights and protection of victims.

I was frustrated as a Crown attorney that the judicial system was out of balance. The proverbial pendulum over my career was significantly shifting in favour of the accused at the expense of protecting victims of crime. There must be a balance.

The government will repeatedly make statements in the House that it cares deeply for victims and that their rights matter, but it is simply talk with no action. An example of this lip service is the fact the government has not replaced the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, a position left vacant since last October 1. It is shameful.

It is time to dispel the myths and misinformation coming from the government whenever its members speak about this bill.

Number one, this is not legislation targeted at low-risk offenders. Use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a firearm with ammunition, weapons trafficking, importing and exporting of firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, reckless discharge of a firearm and robbery with a firearm are indeed extremely serious violent offences for which judges across this country routinely impose significant jail sentences and often prison on the offenders.

These are not the types of people described by our Attorney General when the bill was introduced. We all remember that story: We are to imagine a young man who has too many pops on a Saturday night and decides to pick up a loaded gun and shoot into a barn. According to our Attorney General, we should feel sorry for this individual, as it would be a cruel and unusual punishment to impose a mandatory minimum penalty.

Number two, this is not legislation that would reverse former PM Harper's Safe Streets and Communities Act. Several of the charges outlined in Bill C-5 include mandatory minimum penalties that were introduced by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1977 and Jean Chrétien in 1995, two Liberal majority governments.

Third, according to the government and supported by its NDP partners and Green Party members, mandatory minimums are ineffective in reducing crime or keeping our communities safe. The simple fact is that if they actually believed this, instead of virtue signalling to Canadians, they would table legislation to remove all mandatory minimums. There are 53 offences that would remain in the Criminal Code if this bill passes. This includes impaired operation of a vehicle. Apparently it is important to hold drunk drivers accountable while allowing criminals and thugs to terrorize our communities by shooting up our streets.

The fourth point is that according to the government, courts from across this country, including appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, are striking down mandatory minimum penalties as being contrary to the charter. For reasons previously described, mandatory minimums introduced by previous Liberal governments have been upheld by various courts for over 40 years.

Five, this is not legislation targeting people charged with simple possession. Bill C-5 would eliminate six mandatory minimums under the CDSA, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These include the very serious offences of trafficking, importing, exporting and production of controlled substances. Drugs such as fentanyl and carfentanil are the most deadly and lethal form of street drugs, and an amount the size of a grain of salt is capable of killing an elephant. These drugs are not serious enough for the government. These are the same drugs that are causing an opioid crisis that results in daily overdoses and deaths. Do these killer criminals deserve mercy from the Liberal government? What has this country become?

Finally, this legislation is supposed to address racism and reduce the over-incarceration of Black Canadians and indigenous offenders.

The Alberta minister of justice, Kaycee Madu, a Black Canadian, noted:

While Ottawa’s new justice bill...contains some reasonable measures, I am deeply concerned about the decision to gut tough sentencing provisions for gun crimes...

Removing tough, mandatory penalties for actual gun crimes undermines the very minority communities that are so often victimized by brazen gun violence. I also find it disingenuous for Ottawa to exploit a genuine issue like systemic racism to push through their soft-on-crime bills.

I have prosecuted in the trenches for close two decades, unlike the Attorney General and members of the Liberal government. I can state on authority that the overriding sentencing consideration associated with the crimes relating to Bill C-5 are denunciation, deterrence and separation from society. In other words, it does not matter one's gender, ethnicity or race. Upon conviction, criminals are going to jail, period. It is time for the government to be honest with Canadians and accept that Bill C-5 will not substantially address the over-incarceration issue.

Throughout the entire time this bill has been debated, I and other colleagues, most notably the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, have argued that there is a compromise for the government to consider. A constitutional exemption to all the charges outlined in the bill would give trial judges the legal authority to exempt criminals from a mandatory minimum penalty if they belong to a vulnerable population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and who are disadvantaged with regard to sentencing. This exemption would preserve the mandatory minimum penalties, but give judges the flexibility to craft an appropriate sentence. My amendment to this bill at committee was summarily dismissed by the Liberal chair as outside the scope of the study, which is shameful.

Brantford police chief Rob Davis, the only indigenous leader of a municipal police service in Ontario, testified at committee: “With Bill C-5 and the proposed changes now, we are going to see sentencing become a joke”. He continued, “With...turning sentences into conditional sentences...the justice system is being brought into disrepute. People will operate with impunity and the victims' rights are going to be given away [for] the rights of the criminal.”

Chief Davis also said, “Victims of communities will live in fear of gun violence and fearful of retaliation by armed criminals, and people will continue to overdose”.

The committee also heard from Chief Darren Montour from the Six Nations Police Service, whose testimony was clear. He stated:

...proposed conditional sentences for violent offences will not deter offenders from committing further crimes. We are not in a position to continuously monitor sentenced offenders to ensure their compliance with...restrictions handed down by the courts. Police services across the country, and especially those within indigenous communities, are significantly understaffed. We are continuously asked to do more with less, and we cannot sustain this workload.

He also stated that he can appreciate the statistics regarding the over-incarceration issue, “but along with the rights of offenders, victims and victims' families deserve rights as well.”

Hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast signed the petition on my website, which I recently presented in the House. They called on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-5. Here is a news release for the Liberal government: Canadians are terrified at the prospect that criminals convicted of sex assault and kidnapping will also enjoy serving that sentence in the comfort of their homes, the very same homes in which they committed their crimes. It is deeply shameful.

The number one priority for the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. The government has been derelict in its responsibility.

I, together with my Conservative caucus members, will always stand on the side of victims and keeping our communities safe by holding criminals accountable for their actions. I will be very strongly voting against this bill, and I encourage all members in the House to do the same.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his commitment to the justice committee, which has been dealing with this issue. All I want to say on that is that the government is targeting the wrong sector of people with this particular bill.

I have given the numbers here in regard to the drug crisis in Canada. I want to say that I was going to add that Bill C-5 is not about reducing mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession. In fact, mandatory minimums for simple possession do not even exist. We also know that in constituencies such as mine, the RCMP is spread very thin, and I mentioned the lack of resources for policing.

My colleague from Lakeland passed her motion to conduct a study on rural crime, and that is the one on which the Liberals on the committee used their majority and turned the report into a one-page report that was void of any substance.

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

Madam Speaker, I note that my good friend was not at committee for the study on Bill C-5, but there was at least one amendment that we did accept, and we worked, I would say, collaboratively to make sure that we strengthened the bill, so I reject the premise that we did not work together on this measure.

I want to ask him about the notion of systemic racism and whether he thinks it exists within the criminal justice system. If so, what would his solution be for that, and does he not feel that this bill addresses one of the core issues that we are trying to deal with?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today to Bill C-5.

In the same month the Liberal government introduces legislation that specifically targets law-abiding firearms owners, the House is now debating a bill that eliminates mandatory minimums for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, willfully importing or exporting illegal firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences, possession of an illegal firearm and possession of a firearm obtained illegally.

As people say, we cannot make this up. No one in my constituency has called me to tell me they want mandatory minimums repealed for these serious crimes. People are furious, and rightly so.

As Sergeant Michael Rowe of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said at the justice committee, “The police in Canada support the primary objectives of mandatory minimum penalties to ensure consistency in sentencing, to protect the public and to discourage others from engaging in similar conduct.” He also mentioned that these mandatory minimums “hold significant value when addressing public safety and gang-related violence: the use of a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence”.

The government is not even listening to the recent report published by the public safety committee right here in Parliament. Recommendation 11 states:

That the Government of Canada recognize that serious crimes involving firearms and drug trafficking should bear serious penalties given the threat to public safety, and that violent offenders should be kept off our streets to protect the public, while a public health response should be adopted to deal with people suffering from substance abuse.

I have always believed that serious violent offences that are committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison time. It is astonishing that the Liberals want to weaken the punishment of these crimes in Canada. I also have grave concerns with the Liberals' proposal to allow criminals to serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including those involving sexual assault, human trafficking and kidnapping.

This bill is soft on crime and puts communities and victims at risk. The sad irony of the Liberals' plan to make our streets safer is, in fact, going after trained Canadian firearms owners, while at the same time reducing penalties for those who commit violent gun crimes and sell hard drugs. Bill C-5 is sending the wrong message to criminals and organized crime.

I doubt any of these criminals are watching CPAC at this very moment, but I can assure members that law-abiding firearms owners are watching. The government is insulting hundreds of thousands of law-abiding firearms owners, who are being blamed for the government's lack of action to tackle gun smuggling and organized crime.

Gun violence has gone up significantly over the past seven years of the Liberal government. That is a fact. It is also a fact that most guns used in violent crime are smuggled in from the United States. According to CBSA's departmental results report, almost 20,000 illegal firearms and prohibited weapons were confiscated before coming into Canada. Those are just the ones that were confiscated, and just the illegal ones we know about. No one knows how many slipped through the cracks and were used in a violent crime. Gun smugglers and gun traffickers are directly responsible for the murder of too many innocent Canadians.

As the president of the National Police Federation said at the justice committee, “Bill C-5 strikes down some mandatory minimum penalties related to weapons trafficking and firearms offences. This is inconsistent with the expressed intent of the government to reduce firearms violence in Canada.” He went on to say that if the Liberals are going to repeal these mandatory minimums, they must provide “additional deterrence measures to address criminal activity, such as providing more resources to stop the import of illegal drugs and firearms at the border.”

Through Bill C-5, the Liberals are proposing to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for the very crimes that are putting illegal firearms on our streets in the first place. Tell me how the Liberals can justify placing heavy restrictions on law-abiding citizens while removing them for violent criminals on the streets. The short answer is they cannot. Let us not forget that last year, the same Liberals voted down a Conservative bill that proposed making the punishment harsher for criminals using smuggled guns.

I received an email from John Schneiderbanger the other day, who asked me to share his comments in the House of Commons. Before any of my Liberal colleagues start smearing John as some sort of firearm lobbyist, let me tell his story.

John proudly served in the Canadian Armed Forces and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He was posted to CFB Shilo, which I am honoured to say is in my constituency, where he served as base commander. He is a firearms expert and has decades of experience and a wealth of knowledge of which we should take heed.

While Bill C-5 repeals mandatory minimums for actual criminals, the Liberals are going after sport shooters in his case. If the Liberals get their way, they will be impacting legitimate shooting sports such as Cowboy Shooting Action, International Practical Shooting Confederation, 3-Gun, IDPA and Cowboy Mounted Shooting.

Many of these competitors participate in high levels of competition, some of them around the world, and there are governing bodies at the provincial, national and world levels. They are legitimate and organized sports that are recognized around the world and would no longer exist in Canada due to the Liberal government's inability to focus on correct root causes of violent crime committed by criminals with illegal guns.

As John said, these shooting sports will wither away quickly as the current membership becomes older and leave the sport, as other sport shooters cannot replace the competition handguns over time. No new members will be able to join these activities, as there will be no legal handguns available to acquire.

If the Liberals will not take my advice, they will at least listen to one of Canada's finest, Mr. Schneiderbanger, who also knows the Firearms Act inside and out.

Along with eliminating sentences for gun crimes, this Liberal bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for serious drug-related offences. These include sentences for drug trafficking as well as importing, exporting and producing drugs such as heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth.

Canada is in the midst of an opioid crisis. We all know that. In 2020, the opioid crisis claimed the lives of 6,306 people. That is the equivalent of 17 opioid deaths per day. The volume of police calls related to suspected overdoses has also been increasing. As of right now, police services across the country are dealing with an average of 687 calls per month of suspected overdoses. One would think the Liberals would have proposed some solutions in the latest budget to help, but they did not offer a single new dollar to assist police services with this increased demand.

It gets worse. The Liberal platform promised $250 million in 2021-22 and $625 million in 2022-23 for a Canadian mental health transfer, but none of those dollars have materialized. While provinces and municipalities are in dire need of help, once again they were promised action but given platitudes. My Conservative colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has repeatedly asked why the Liberals did not keep this promise, and all he has heard back is useless talking points.

I know my Liberal colleagues care about this issue; I just do not know why they are not holding their own government's feet to the fire. Why are they letting the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance get away with this broken promise and then voting in favour of Bill C-5, which is going to lessen the penalties for the gangs and organized crime that are peddling the opioids?

I want my Liberal colleagues to know how bad drug-related offences are under their watch. Cocaine trafficking is up 24% since 2016. Trafficking of drugs other than cocaine and cannabis is up 73% since 2016.

Contrary to Liberal talking points, Bill C-5 is not about reducing mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession. In fact, mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist.

In closing, I want to say that it is unfortunate that the Liberals on the committee used their majority and turned the report into a one-page report that was void of any substance—

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which returns to the House after having been studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Today, I propose to focus my remarks on the very important changes that the bill proposes to make to the conditional sentence regime in the Criminal Code. What we have seen consistently throughout the debate on this bill is that there remain some significant misunderstandings about the important function served by conditional sentence orders, or CSOs, in our society. In order to explain the importance of Bill C-5's amendments in this area, I would like to take a moment to speak about how and why CSOs came to be.

CSOs allow an offender to serve a term of imprisonment of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, including house arrest, curfew and court-mandated treatment for offences that are not punishable by a mandatory term of imprisonment. They were enacted by Parliament in 1996 in response to the well-documented problem of the over-incarceration of indigenous people. The aim of the CSO regime was to promote the protection of the public by seeking to separate the most serious offenders from the community, while providing that less serious offenders could remain in the community if they adhered to important conditions.

Amendments to the Criminal Code over the subsequent 15 years, however, significantly restricted the availability of CSOs. They were made unavailable for all offences punishable by maximum terms of imprisonment of 14 years or more, as well as some offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum term of 10 years of imprisonment. The reform also introduced a list of ineligible offences to the CSO regime, including such offences as non-violent property crime.

It is uncontroversial at this point to acknowledge that systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system have resulted in the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black persons and members of marginalized communities in the criminal justice system. One only needs to look at the country's track record to see the pressing need for change. Indeed, recent data from the Office of the Correctional Investigator demonstrates that indigenous people make up 32% of the federal prison population despite accounting for less than 5% of the total population. Indigenous women, meanwhile, account for 48% of the population in women's prisons.

Members of the community who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system have long called for reform to address the systemic racism and discrimination they face at all stages, from their first contact with law enforcement through to sentencing. Indeed, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Parliamentary Black Caucus have specifically called on the government to revisit the restrictions placed on the conditional sentencing regime in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-5 would make more offences eligible for community-based sentences while maintaining the importance of public safety in all circumstances. Let me repeat that last statement, as this point is too frequently lost in discussions about the proposed amendments. Removing these restrictions on the availability of CSOs will not negatively impact public safety. This is because in order for a court to impose a CSO, it must first be satisfied that this sentence would not endanger the safety of the community. If the offender represents a danger to public safety, then the court is precluded from imposing a CSO.

In addition, a court must be satisfied that a sentence of less than two years is appropriate in the circumstances, and that the community-based sentence would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code. That is the law, and the proposed amendments would not change that.

Moreover, the amendments proposed in Bill C-5 would not indiscriminately render all offences eligible for the CSOs. Currently, all offences that carry mandatory minimum prison sentences in the Criminal Code are ineligible for a conditional sentence, and that would not change. Similarly, all offences that are linked to terrorism or organized crime, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years of imprisonment or more when prosecuted by way of indictment, are ineligible for a CSO. This too will not change. The bill would also render the offences of torture, attempted murder and advocating genocide ineligible for a CSO.

The evidence shows us that allowing low-risk offenders who do not jeopardize public safety to serve their sentence in the community under strict conditions is more effective at reducing criminality than institutional incarceration. This is because serving a sentence that maintains an offender's access to employment, family, community and health-related support systems allows them to avoid the stigma and trauma of a prison sentence and provides them with a prosocial alternative to criminal offending once their sentence is complete. Indeed, evidence gathered after the original enactment of CSOs supports this finding.

Within the first few years of the implementation of CSOs, recidivism rates declined and incarceration rates decreased by 13%. During the bill's study at the justice committee, the committee heard from experts and stakeholders in the field of criminal justice in Canada. Many of these witnesses, including the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the HIV Legal Network, Dr. Julie Desrosiers of the faculty of law at Université Laval, the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the Canadian Bar Association, indicated that these reforms to the CSO regime represented a step in the right direction. I could not agree more. I firmly believe that these amendments strike the right balance between providing alternatives to incarceration where appropriate, while maintaining and prioritizing public safety where serious offending is at issue.

This legislation is an important component of the government's ongoing efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black persons and members of marginalized communities in our criminal justice system, and would afford more opportunities for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. I urge all members to support these important reforms.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. I think the best way to fight crime is often through education. This applies to both issues Bill C‑5 deals with and, moreover, to young offenders, those who have already committed a crime, to make them understand the consequences of their actions.

The Conservative strategy is to treat them like criminals. When we look at the statistics in western Canada, compared to Quebec, we can see that the Quebec approach, namely social reintegration, works better.

Why should we not be looking at this from the perspective of educating people to understand the consequences of their crimes, rather than a criminalization perspective? I cannot get my head around that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, at points in my hon. colleague's speech, and he may have misspoken, he seemed to suggest that Bill C-5 would mean there are no punishments for these horrific crimes.

I support Bill C-5. As a matter of fact, as the member will know, I put forward amendments to include other crimes that now have mandatory minimum sentences.

The key point here, and it has been taken up by governments around the world, is that mandatory minimums are not a deterrent to violent crime. They have perverse results, in that they promote the district attorneys and prosecutors having more power than judges, in that they are able to force plea deals, because the mandatory minimums are so severe and a threat to people who have not been shown to be guilty of the crime.

We are looking here at making criminal justice fairer and at ensuring the punishment fits the crime, but no one is suggesting these violent criminals should not be punished. We think that judges should decide.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague referenced Bill C-5 and how it would impact the trafficking of very serious drugs like fentanyl, carfentanil, cocaine and crystal meth. Bill C-5 would take away the mandatory minimum penalties, and it would also open up the possibility for conditional sentence considerations and house arrest.

Knowing what we know about drug traffickers plying their deadly trade in the comfort of their own homes, how do you feel the government's narrative with respect to community safety is now being compromised?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today and certainly, it is a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons. It is nice to see you again, as well.

I stand today to speak to the utter hypocrisy of the Liberal government and to shine a light on the utter disrespect for law-abiding Canadians and victims of crime. The government, with the prop-up support of the NDP, is attempting to push through Bill C-5, which would see the removal of mandatory minimum sentences for serious criminal offences in this country. Let me be clear on this. The Liberals are eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings.

The Liberals' argument is that they are doing this because they feel these laws are unfair. I cannot make this up. What would the victims of these crimes consider unfair? I surely think they would feel that the person or persons who traumatized them through violent acts now being set free by the Liberal government is what is actually unfair.

Can members imagine being the victim of a drive-by shooting, losing a loved one or being robbed or held at gunpoint? Let us imagine this. These are the mandatory sentences that the government is trying to get rid of. The Liberals are more interested in standing up for criminals than actually defending our communities. The blatant hypocrisy is apparent with the fact that they willingly want to let gun crime perpetrators free sooner so that they can go out into our communities and wreak havoc again, and yet, they stand in righteous defence of enacting gun laws in this country that only serve to punish law-abiding citizens.

Let us look at some of the offences for which the Liberals feel the punishment is unfair. Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory minimums relating to gun crimes. Here they are: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in commission of offences; and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking.

When we hear the list out loud, as parliamentarians we must ask ourselves, is this seriously what the government wants for Canadians? Can a government seriously think that mandatory sentences are unfair for these types of crimes? We might ask ourselves if we are actually living in Canada or if any of this is real to begin with. Sadly, this is real and the members of this House have to stand and speak to this. Quite frankly, it is making our country unrecognizable.

The Liberal government believes the sentences are unfair. That is how it is putting it. The Liberals have no concern for the victims of these crimes. Their only concern is actually for the criminals who perpetrated the acts to begin with.

There are a few other examples of who the Liberal government feels are being mistreated by the justice system. The Liberals would eliminate six mandatory minimums in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that target drug dealers. Here they are: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting; production of a substance schedule I or II. Let me say that last one again: production of a substance schedule I or II. Examples here would be heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

If I were not standing here as the member of Parliament for the great riding of Miramichi—Grand Lake and I was actually home in the community, maybe at Tim Hortons having a coffee, upon hearing this, I would think that it had to be wrong and there could be no way that any of this was true. What government could ever think that someone who produces a poison like crystal meth should be considered treated unfairly because they had to serve a mandatory sentence for their crime?

Crystal meth is pure poison. It is creating rot and decay in every community, including all across rural Canada. The problem is so vast in the region of Miramichi that the public is left scratching their heads on a good day. Law enforcement clearly does not have an answer for it at present. It is very complicated. This issue is really complicating life in Canada. How can we not give the people who produce it mandatory sentences? They are just going to keep doing it.

The members opposite who vote for this bill should be utterly ashamed when they go back to their home communities knowing the plague and rot of crystal meth abuse is rampant across the country. It would be in their backyards too, because it is everywhere in this country. The evil individuals who prey on their fellow man with the production of this drug should do every minute of time we can give them to keep them off our streets and hopefully keep them from enslaving more people with this highly addictive poison.

Canadians will have to try to mentally process how the government can feel that a meth producer is being treated unfairly. At the same time they also must process how the government feels about other criminals. Again, I want to say that as members of the opposition, we are obviously not supporting this. We want people who are going to produce these types of poison to be behind bars, because that is where they should be, and if you are going to commit crimes with weapons and firearms, then you need to have mandatory sentences as well.

The House resumed from June 1 consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5, in and of itself, is an interesting bill, but we get the feeling that it comes with a poison pill, which bothers me. Two bills that do not necessarily have anything to do with one another are being lumped together to get the less popular one passed.

As the government House leader, the member is responsible for the government's strategy.

Why is the government trying to hand us poison pills yet again? Why can we not have transparent debates in the best interests of Canadians on issues that affect them?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member keeps perpetuating the same myth. He mentioned Newt Gingrich and former prime minister Stephen Harper. The mandatory minimums that would be eliminated in Bill C-5, and it is important for Canadians to know this, are not from a Conservative government. They are from a Liberal government. I do not know why Liberals cannot accept that part of their past.

The mandatory minimums for extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, and robbery with a firearm were introduced by Liberal governments. I know the hon. member served with former Liberal MP and parliamentary secretary for justice Marlene Jennings. He knows her. She said, “It was a Liberal government that brought in mandatory minimum sentencing for gun-related crimes. This is a whole category of them, where currently it is a minimum of one year. There is a second category of designated offences where it currently is four years. Liberals sought to increase the one year to two years and the four years to five years at committee.”

Is the hon. member suggesting that Marlene Jennings does not know what she is talking about?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much support Bill C-5. I agree with everything the hon. government House leader has just said about the importance of criminal justice actually being effective in deterring crime and not resulting in the disproportionate convictions of people of colour and indigenous people in this country, which is clear on the record.

My concern is about using time allocation. It is true that it was started under the previous Conservative government, but I have to say that it has been pursued with a vengeance by the current Liberal government. I do not see any difference in how frequently time allocation is being used. My concern is, as it is with everything in this place, that those things that start as bad habits quickly become rules. We are essentially saying time after time that parliamentary debate and our Standing Orders for how legislation proceeds through this place are just inconvenient and slow things down.

I am not without sympathy for the government's point of view, because of the obstruction from other parties, but I will say this. I do not think we have an election looming. The Liberal-NDP confidence and supply agreement does not suggest that if we do not get this bill through before the end of June we will have a terrible calamity in getting the bill to the Senate.

I would ask the hon. House leader to reconsider the routine use of shutting down debate in this place.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are very important things in Bill C-5 in the reduction of mandatory minimum sentences, which have terrible impacts on indigenous and racialized Canadians. However, I have to correct the record for the Conservatives and the Bloc members, who seem not to have paid attention to what happened in committee.

We did work collaboratively in committee, and government members accepted two amendments from the NDP, which have strengthened the bill. One of those amendments would get rid of criminal records for personal possession of drugs within two years, and the other strengthens the accountability mechanisms through record-keeping when police use their discretion to avoid charging people. Those are two important improvements in the bill.

When they talk about how Parliament is supposed to work, that is exactly how it worked in committee. We got a better bill, a stronger bill, and today I am going to support this motion for time allocation, because we have to get this done on behalf of those Canadians who suffer from the mandatory minimums that were introduced at one time by the Liberals but also, primarily, by the Conservatives.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could talk about Bill C-5 and provide a detailed explanation as to why we should spend more time discussing it, but that is not even the issue anymore. It is as though we were starring in Groundhog Day, revisiting the same scenario over and over again. The government is bombarding us with gag orders day after day and limiting time for debate.

Members of Parliament are supposed to fine-tune the bills tabled by the government. On top of that, this is a minority government. It needs to be said: Quebeckers and Canadians gave this government a minority mandate so that members of Parliament can do their work properly, rein in the government when necessary, work together, and make the government understand that any bill can always be improved. However, that is not what we are seeing here today, and the Bloc Québécois can only deplore it.

I have a simple question. When will this never-ending string of gag orders stop?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again we are privy to a front-row seat to the decline in democracy. Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, has gone through committee, and there have been thousands and millions of dissenting voices on this bill. There have been advocates and stakeholders, and there have been police chiefs and police forces across Canada that have spoken against this bill, because it does diminish mandatory minimum sentences.

Just to give an example, Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and weapons trafficking excluding firearms and ammunition. This would only embolden criminals, make them more brazen, in our communities in Canada.

The Liberals have been aided and abetted in this time allocation, this motion of closure, by their puppy-dog partners in the NDP. They have pulled the choke collar on the New Democrats to get them to conform and sit and be good partners in this. This decline in democracy, this assault, will not make our communities safer and will threaten the lives of Canadians across the country.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Mr. Chair, when I was speaking with the minister earlier about the problems of circumventing the Cannabis Act, the minister mentioned that Mr. Lucas could provide us with a document outlining what has been done and what needs to be done. I would like that document to be tabled in committee.

Next, I would like to come back to a point that was raised earlier on Bill C‑5.

In all likelihood, this bill, which includes an important component for fighting drug addiction, should be passed. It introduces diversion measures. We agree that addiction problems must first and foremost be linked to public health and not strictly be a matter for the justice system.

Let's take Portugal as an example. Architect Dr. Goulão said that if the necessary resources weren't put on the front lines, if there wasn't any investment, if there were no means to carry out this diversion process, it would be better to leave it in the hands of the justice system.

The bill will be passed. Have you started discussions with the provinces, territories and Quebec on how to implement it, or are you going to leave people to fend for themselves?

This is a good example of why we need increased health transfers. The bill is about giving more responsibility to people on the ground and to front‑line workers.

Are we going to leave drug addicts on the street, without a criminal record, without them being prosecuted? This will not solve anything.

Where are the discussions on that? If you haven't started, when are you going to?

Bill C-5—Notice of Time Allocation

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, let us hear what Stephan Fogaing, a member of Montreal's Black community, has to say about Bill C‑5: “In short, when the federal government contemplates doing away with some of the minimum sentences in the Criminal Code, we can only wonder whether they are more interested in protecting criminals than the public and victims of crime.”

Given what these people had to say, is the Prime Minister interested in listening to them, or does he prefer to protect criminals over victims?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a 12-year-old girl found herself right in the middle of a shooting in Montreal. She was traumatized, of course. This is happening in our streets in Quebec.

Instead of tackling the problems of street gangs and illegal arms trafficking, this Liberal government is doing the opposite with its Bill C‑5. It is eliminating mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes.

How can this government be so disconnected from reality that it is doing the opposite of what is obviously common sense?

Public Safety

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share what I heard from the representative of a community that this government claims it wants to help. She says that eliminating these minimum sentences is not only a bad idea masquerading as a good one, but an idea that will further jeopardize the communities this initiative is supposed to protect. That is what we heard from Murielle Chatellier in a parliamentary committee.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister is abolishing mandatory minimum sentences with Bill C‑5; on the other, he does not mention victims of gun violence even once in Bill C‑21.

Why is the Prime Minister so intent on helping criminals rather than victims?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a question about crime. I want to talk about Bill C-5 and mandatory minimums, and I want to offer a very personal story.

When I was a small child, my mother practised law in northern Alberta. She did a lot of legal aid work and the overwhelming majority of her clients were indigenous. She would take me to court and sometimes she would take me with her to reserves, and I saw first-hand how our criminal justice system treats indigenous peoples. Our government is fixing that and everyone in the House should be supportive of that.

Bill C-5

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week, a coroner’s inquest has begun into one of the worst cases of multiple partner violence in Canadian history.

Basil Borutski murdered Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam, and Carol Culleton in separate incidents on the morning of September 22, 2015 in Renfrew County. Borutski was well known to all of his victims and to police for a long history of violence. He was a dangerous serial offender with a history of beating women. Now, the three families, and our entire community, are reliving the horror of that event through the inquest.

Bill C-5 is a radical left-wing bill that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties. It sends the wrong message to women who live in fear of domestic violence. It sends the wrong message to the courts. In this case, a violent offender who openly ignored court orders that were part of his probation was released anyhow. Bill C-5 is a slap in the face to every woman in Canada by a Prime Minister consumed by his own toxic masculinity.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the estimates. Several important steps are being taken by the government to support the effective and efficient functioning of the justice system, in particular regarding access to justice for youth, indigenous and Black persons and those who are economically disadvantaged.

As the House is well aware, our justice system has been faced with mounting challenges in recent years. Some of these challenges, such as the increasing length and complexity of trials, preceded the COVID pandemic. Other challenges, such as the need to conduct trials virtually, were generated by the pandemic. Some of the justice system's challenges were felt most acutely by our provincial partners, as they bear the responsibility for the administration of justice, including the increased costs of technology and other public health measures.

Of course, many of these challenges affect not only governments, but also individuals. These include the many individuals who struggle to afford legal assistance when they need it. Many of them also experience systemic disadvantages and discrimination. In some cases, these individuals come into contact with the justice system.

Through the budget, our government made multiple investments to support the justice system to ensure that it treats those who come before it in a fair, equitable and effective manner. Budget 2021 announced an ongoing annual $43.3-million increase in funding for the youth justice services funding program. New six-year funding agreements for the April 21, 2021, to March 31, 2027, time frame were successfully negotiated and are now being put into place with the provinces and territories to implement this funding.

This funding will enable the expansion and sustainability of critical youth justice services and programs delivered by the provinces and territories. Priority funding areas under the youth justice services funding program include diversion and alternatives to custody programming, which will allow more youth to stay out of the formal youth criminal justice system and/or custody. This new funding will allow jurisdictions to further develop and expand the range of culturally safe and responsive programming available to better support indigenous youth and other racialized youth populations overrepresented in the youth criminal justice system. This is particularly true for diversion programming, for which an increased demand is anticipated resulting from the implementation of former Bill C-75.

While we are all pleased that there has been a downward trend in youth crime rates over time, this new funding is needed, as there has not been an increase in funding since 2006, when the Harper government came into power and implemented its failed criminal justice policy that did not focus on rehabilitation or diversion. We are fixing that through many measures, including budgetary measures such as this one and Bill C-5.

The general youth population is increasing, which is expected to affect the demand for youth justice programming and apply additional pressures on the provinces and territories. There is a need to respond more effectively to the diversity of risks and needs of today's youth population. The new funding will therefore enable the sustainability and expansion of critical and more responsive youth justice services and programs.

Our government also re-profiled $40 million in funding for criminal legal aid, provided through the 2020 fall economic statement to 2021 and 2022-23. The COVID pandemic generated significant multi-faceted and long-term impacts on legal aid in Canada. It also produced socio-economic conditions that foster high demand for legal aid, while simultaneously complicating the delivery of legal aid services and limiting non-governmental income sources such as law foundations. This additional investment of $40 million in criminal legal aid funding provided over two years is allowing legal aid plans to better align themselves with the reopening of the courts and provide services to accused people whose cases are backlogged. The additional funding also addresses deficits resulting from decreased law foundation funding and supports legal aid plans in fully implementing technological innovations and ensuring interoperability with the courts.

Vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals and women, have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In view of their mandate to help the disadvantaged, some legal aid plans relaxed eligibility guidelines early in the pandemic to support individuals facing job loss.

As the courts reopen, they are dealing with backlogs of cases accumulated during the pandemic. The additional funding for criminal legal aid will enable jurisdictions to meet increased demand, thereby reducing the number of individuals who self-represent. Self-represented accused people cost the system both money and time because of adjournments, multiple court appearances, a lack of information and confusion about proceedings. We are continuing to provide additional needed support to the legal aid system to address these systemic pressures so the justice system remains accessible to all Canadians.

The past decades have seen a criminal justice system characterized by the increasingly disproportionate representation of indigenous and Black persons and vulnerable persons such as those experiencing a mental health and/or substance use disorder. The 2020 fall economic statement announced $6.6 million over five years, followed by $1.6 million annually, to support the implementation of impact of race and culture assessments, or IRCAs, nationally. From this, $1.3 million is available for 2022-23. IRCAs are better pre-sentencing reports that help sentencing judges better understand the effects of poverty, marginalization, racism and social exclusion on the offender and their experience with the criminal justice system.

Federal funding will support the development of training curricula for IRCA writers, professional development programs for criminal defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors, and education programs for judges on IRCAs and on the preparation of IRCA reports for eligible racialized accused. The Government of Canada is committed to providing fair and equal access to justice for Black individuals and other racialized people by addressing systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system and overturning a decade of failed Conservative criminal justice policy.

Building on previous investments, budget 2021 also announced an investment of $26.8 million for 2021-22 to support the delivery of immigration and refugee legal aid services. This funding supports access to justice for economically disadvantaged asylum seekers by ensuring that provinces delivering immigration and refugee legal aid have the capacity to maintain service delivery levels. This includes the processing of many asylum claims from individuals who arrived in Canada prior to the pandemic-related border closures, those who made asylum claims from within Canada during the pandemic and those who are now arriving at Canada's borders.

Additionally, the 2020 fall economic statement provided $49.3 million over five years, starting in 2021, and $9.7 million in ongoing funding to increase the application of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and address systemic discrimination. As the House is aware, Gladue principles seek to ensure the systemic or background factors that may have played a part in bringing an indigenous person in contact with the law are considered in criminal justice decision-making, and that community-based, culturally appropriate restorative and traditional indigenous justice supports are available to help individuals meet the conditions of their sentences and implement healing plans.

This investment includes funding to support the development and expanded use of Gladue reports, including the training of Gladue report writers, and will support community-based and indigenous-led post-sentence Gladue aftercare. This funding will also support projects focused on addressing systemic barriers and bias in the criminal justice system. The implementation of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system is also a key federal initiative in the Government of Canada's federal pathway to address missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

Finally, building on the success of our existing work to address overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, and to improve indigenous people's access to justice in all areas of the justice system, budget 2021 provided $27.1 million over three years for indigenous community-based justice programs to address long-standing program integrity needs and to provide trauma-informed training on working with victims of crime. Funding will also help indigenous families navigate the family justice system and access community-based family mediation services.

Among other objectives, these efforts seek to prevent crime and protect victims by addressing matters before they escalate. They also aim to help decrease the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care across the country and allow these children to remain with their families where appropriate and connect to their communities and culture where possible. In tandem with support for the implementation of Gladue principles, this work will further support the Government of Canada's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada, eliminate systemic discrimination from the justice system and respond to the MMIWG final report's calls for justice and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Through the main estimates, we are seeking to access the funding to support these initiatives this year. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the critical steps we have taken to support the justice system, and I hope that all members of the House will support these estimates to advance this important work in criminal justice reform.

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

Madam Speaker, that may be a first. It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, especially on such an important night in this Parliament. Every day is obviously important, but when we discuss important motions, when we talk about money and confidence votes, it is an extremely important day.

Today we are talking about Department of Justice estimates. One thing I want to discuss from the get-go, to lay the groundwork for what I am about to say, and this will likely build upon some of what my colleagues have had to say, is about justice versus criticizing the judiciary. I believe that all of us here want the same thing. All of us obviously want a safe Canada. I cannot look at any member here and think that anyone does not want a safe Canada. That would be nonsense.

There are times, though, when I look at the Supreme Court and some court decisions, and I may not agree. There are times when I could look at the court's decisions and I understand how it got to the decision, and while I respect that, I may not agree with the ultimate conclusion. There are times when I look at the court's decision and the logic is unassailable, and it is clear that the right decision was made. Then there are obviously going to be times when we look at a decision and we say to ourselves, “I just do not understand how we got to that decision.”

Our role as parliamentarians is unique, because we have this separation of the legislative branch and the judicial branch, but the two go hand in hand. When I was doing my first law degree, one thing I was taught, and I know that some judges do reject this, was that Parliament and the judiciary are in a dialogue, so to speak. The way that this dialogue typically happens is between the courts and Parliament. Generally what will happen is that there is impugned legislation, that legislation is challenged, and if that legislation is challenged and upheld, then there is no dialogue to be had because the courts have said that Parliament got it right.

Then there are situations where the court strikes down the legislation, sometimes with a sunset clause, saying there is one year to fix it, or other times when the legislation is simply struck down, saying why the legislation did not meet the constitutional bar. That is where that dialogue frequently happens. Parliament acts, the court interprets the laws, and then it is incumbent on Parliament to act again.

The distinction that we are talking about, though, is Parliament acting. How should Parliament act? Some people may say that is criticizing a decision. My respectful view is that it is not, because what we are doing here is that we are actually part of that dialogue, part of that law-making component that is so special and so central to this place.

This is my recollection, and I think I'm going back to 1994 here, when I was still in high school, but that is how section 33.1, which was struck down a little while ago, actually came to be in its form that was, again, struck down. Again, we are going back 15 or 20 years, so please do not quote me on that law.

I am also mindful of the Chief Justice's recent comments about the politicization of the courts. We need to be able to have a candid discussion about what legislation should flow from the Supreme Court's decision, perhaps not about the merits of the case but whether we are comfortable with the outcomes of a decision that is predicated on the legislation.

I gave an intervention a week ago and that intervention was about the fact that I thought Parliament should be acting because there was a decision that offended my sensibilities when a seven- or eight-year-old was abused by a parent. That mother avoided jail and was given a community-based sentence. In doing that, my goal was not to necessarily say what this judge should have done, and I did not name the judge for a reason. I do not think that is the way we should be doing it.

The point was to ask whether we should be looking at the legislation that led to this outcome. This outcome is based on legislation. There is a question, and a very live question in my mind, about whether we should be questioning that. That is one of the issues I have today. The point is this: How should Parliament respond to these decisions that some may agree with and some may not agree with?

The cases I am going to look at are the Sullivan and Brown grouping of decisions. Those are the extreme intoxication decisions. There is a case about consecutive sentences for parole eligibility, although I think the extreme intoxication cases are a little different from my view.

Right now, we do not have a law in place because it has been struck down, but the upshot is that, based on the court's decision, a person can avoid criminal liability based on extreme intoxication. This was always the case for murder because a person has to specifically intend to kill somebody or cause grievous bodily harm and be reckless as to the outcome. That is a specific-intent offence.

The point is that a person who voluntarily consumed drugs no longer in this case could have the intent to kill or intent to have any criminality. This is what I find interesting and this is what I want to focus on. The courts have acted. How should Parliament respond?

In my view, the court, at paragraph 12, laid out a road map for us, and it said:

Parliament did not enact a new offence of dangerous intoxication, nor did it adopt a new mode of liability for existing violent offences based on a proper standard of criminal negligence. With the utmost respect, I am bound to conclude the path Parliament chose in enacting s. 33.1 was not, from the point of view of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, constitutionally compliant.

What I found interesting on my reading of that, and others may disagree and that is fine, is that it is almost as though the court is giving us a road map here of criminal negligence. That is what it seems to me. I have not watched the debate, but it is something I want to do and I was recently encouraged to do it.

This very point, from what I can gather, was hit on about the foreseeability of these consequences of self-induced intoxication, followed by subsequent violence. I hope we all agree in this place that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The problem is that it has not yet been addressed.

I was one of four signatories on a letter to the government saying we will work with the government to address this and to address it as soon as possible. Frankly, I would have liked to see legislation tabled within a week or two of this. I am mindful of the justice minister's comments saying that they are looking at it, but this is critical.

A lot of victims groups and women's groups have sounded the alarm, and for good reason. This is an important issue that really needs to be dealt with. Sometimes we talk about virtue signalling. This is one case where we, as a united House, should be signalling to the public and to potential victims that we are prepared to cover this legislative gap.

I will close with this. If the government does wish to act, I will be prepared to help in a non-partisan way. I believe the other three signatories would be prepared to act in a non-partisan way. We are expending hundreds of millions of dollars when it comes to the administration of justice. This is one area that I have chosen to focus on that, in my view, has a gap.

There are other gaps that we can get into, like Bill C-5 and things like that. However, this is one of the areas that I invite the government to consider when it is considering its spending and what it is doing in its legislative agenda.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member hit the nail on the head. What we have is a situation where law-abiding firearms owners are not the problem. However, once again, as we have seen over the past couple of decades, law-abiding firearms owners are the target of the Liberal government. Meanwhile, with Bill C-5, jail time is being eliminated by the government for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized and discharging a firearm with intent, all of which are offences that used to carry with them mandatory jail time.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has listed some things, so I will note that we have a vacant position for a victims ombudsman. When the offenders ombudsman position was vacant, it was filled the next day. For the victims ombudsman position, it has been months since it should have been filled.

In a very short period of time, we have had a Supreme Court decision that says if someone drinks enough, they might be found not guilty of a serious offence. We have had the striking down of a law that valued every life for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. We have also had Bill C-5, which says that for serious gun crimes and serious offences against other individuals, a person can serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home. That is just in the last month that we have been dealing with these things.

It is time for the government to reverse course, drop Bill C-5 and respond to these Supreme Court decisions.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister of Justice to listen to the following quotation: “while the federal government is using the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and people of diverse backgrounds in our prisons to justify abolishing many minimum sentences, it seems to forget one important fact: Members of these same communities are equally overrepresented among the victims of these armed crimes”.

This quotation came from Murielle Chatellier, who is a member of Montreal's Black community.

Would the Prime Minister like to discuss Bill C-5 with her, or does he think she is racist, too?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, shootings are happening more and more often in the greater Montreal area. Fear is taking hold in some neighbourhoods, and children have been traumatized by shootings in broad daylight.

What is the government doing to address this? With Bill C-5, it is eliminating mandatory prison time for armed robbery, armed extortion and weapons trafficking.

What is the world coming to? Why is the government so soft on crime?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not all mandatory minimum sentences have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill C-5 punishes legitimate gun owners and gives violent criminals a ticket back to ruining more lives. In Surrey, two men, including one wanted on a Canada-wide warrant for human trafficking, have been charged after Mounties seized a loaded handgun in a traffic stop.

Violent repeat offenders should be taken off the streets. What does this government not understand about protecting victims and putting violent criminals behind bars?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, under this government, Canada is becoming less and less safe. The Liberals have brought in Bill C-5, legislation that is soft on gun crime, while the Supreme Court has ruled that one can drink one's way out of a conviction for a serious crime and receive a discounted sentence for multiple murders.

It is about time the Liberals put victims first. Will the government provide a legislative response to these court rulings?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding and many across the country are rightly concerned about the dangers that Bill C-5 would cause to our communities. As we know, the bill would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum penalties for significant, serious, violent gun offences and drug offences. It would also eliminate mandatory minimums for dangerous fentanyl dealers. Canadians are afraid that those who commit criminal harassment, sex assault, kidnapping and human trafficking will be under house arrest instead of traditional jail time, meaning they will be back in our neighbourhoods.

Sharing their concerns, I am presenting a petition that calls on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-5 and stop favouring criminals at the expense of law-abiding Canadians.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that Bill C-21 does nothing to tackle gangs and organized crime. It is no surprise, because the Liberal government always fails to get tough on hardened criminals.

Under Bill C-5, they are removing mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes committed with firearms. In a recent access to information response, it was revealed that the Liberal government cut funding to combat gun and gang violence by more than half, failing to spend over $150 million targeted to fight crime.

Why is the government reducing sentences for violent criminals and slashing funding for fighting crime?

Public Safety

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those are more words and no action.

Contrary to the government's claim, Bill C-21 is not about getting tough on crime and it is not targeted at the gang members who are shooting up our streets. On the one hand, the Liberals try to increase the maximum penalty, yet they push eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for a number of serious gun crimes under Bill C-5. Also, let us not forget that last year they voted down the Conservatives' bill that proposed making the punishment harder for criminals using smuggled guns. It is shameful.

When will the Prime Minister put the rights of victims first and commit to ending his soft-on-crime agenda?

Justice

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, two days ago, a 42-year-old man was gunned down in the middle of a crowded restaurant in Laval, Quebec. It happened in broad daylight in front of children. According to reports, police have linked this shooting to organized crime.

Bill C-5 would mean that the criminal and gang member who did this could face a reduced sentence and be back in their community sooner than they would be without the Liberals' new soft-on-crime bill. The reality is that street gangs and criminals will become more emboldened if there is little price to pay for shooting up our streets.

How can the Liberals justify this?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think many of my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are ignoring important facts about Bill C-5, the bill they are planning to support.

Under this bill, 11 serious criminal offences involving firearms will no longer be subject to mandatory minimums. We are talking about robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent and using a firearm when committing crime.

Why does the Prime Minister, with the support of the other opposition parties, think that it is more important to protect armed criminals than their victims?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleague opposite in welcoming you in your return to the role of Speaker. It is wonderful to see you there. I almost cannot see you because of the monument. I guess it is a homage to Fenway Park. It is our own green monster that has been constructed in this chamber. I can kind of see your head over it. It is wonderful to see you back in this place and in such fine form and good health. Welcome back.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, the budget legislation, which was reported back to the House from the finance committee yesterday. I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for their hard work on getting it back so quickly. Tomorrow afternoon, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Our priorities for next week will be report stage and third reading of the budget bill, and Bill C-5 regarding mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, June 7 shall be an allotted day.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the victims, and we are working on improving the justice system to help victims and Canadian society.

With Bill C-5, we are tackling the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and Blacks in the system, in cases where it does not put public safety at risk. Conditional sentences and the elimination of certain minimum sentences will help us to attack the real problems by helping victims and society.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to make fine speeches about the safety of Canadians, but he clearly has a rather lax attitude about it.

For example, as a result of the changes he made to the parole board, a violent criminal was released, which led to the murder of Marylène Levesque.

Federal inmates now have access to syringes, and drug trafficking in penitentiaries is on the rise. Bill C‑5 will allow dangerous criminals to serve their sentence at home instead of in a penitentiary. The Prime Minister rolled out the red carpet to criminals.

What has he done lately for victims?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative MPs would welcome an honest discussion about how gun crime has gone up every year since the government was elected. The fact is that its legislation, Bill C-5, would eliminate mandatory jail time for violent gun crime and allow criminals to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes, something their victims can no longer do.

Why is the government so committed to putting criminals ahead of victims?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced Bill C-5 to attack the systemic overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our criminal justice system. It would attack mandatory minimum penalties and allow conditional sentence orders where public safety is not in danger and where incarceration is not best for the community, the victim or the perpetrator.

With respect to violent crime, we have increased penalties with respect to gun trafficking and guns. As has been pointed out, we have also introduced bold legislation capping handguns in this country.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are urgently calling for help with rising gun crime rates, but the Liberals' Bill C-5, to be perfectly clear, will put repeat offenders of violent gun crimes back into Canadian communities.

In light of out-of-control gun violence, will the Liberals abandon their soft-on-crime Bill C-5?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal police suspect that organized crime was involved when suspects entered a restaurant in Laval last night and shot a man to death while he was having dinner. Criminals are becoming more brazen, yet the Liberals still want to make sure that repeat offenders of violent crime will not face mandatory jail time with their soft-on-crime Bill C-5.

Will the Prime Minister abandon this soft-on-crime agenda and abandon Bill C-5?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there was another murder this week in Laval, in the middle of a restaurant, right in front of diners. People are afraid. Criminals no longer fear the police, who in turn feel abandoned by the Liberal government.

Instead of sending a strong message to armed criminal gangs, with Bill C‑5, the Prime Minister announced that they will be able to serve their sentences at home. Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1976 understood the need for minimum sentences for armed criminals.

Why do today's Liberals want to make life easier for criminals?

Public Safety

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are less safe today than they were when the Liberal government took office.

The Liberals are not trying to keep communities safe, and they are not making an effort to keep dangerous criminals in jail. The Liberals' dangerous Bill C-5 eliminates mandatory jail time for violent crimes like weapons trafficking and possession of a weapon that was illegally obtained.

The Liberals do not seem to have a clue when it comes to what to do with serious issues like gun violence. The Liberals are telling Canadians that Bill C-5 reverses Conservative policies, but this bill actually repeals laws that were established under previous Liberal governments. The government has in fact kept most Conservative laws on the books.

The changes to the Criminal Code imposed by Bill C-5 are a radical shift away from long-standing and bipartisan values and will make communities in Canada less safe. Victims, their families and communities are asking the government to abandon Bill C-5.

Criminal Code

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. One thing I find most interesting is that when Liberal members are talking about guns, we hear they are always trying to crack down and ban guns that have already been banned for 45 years. We hear this every day. They blame every problem that happens on guns.

I want to note to the Canadian public what Bill C-5 is doing. It eliminates a number of mandatory minimums relating to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking, including firearms and ammunition; importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of offences; possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking; and discharging a firearm with recklessness.

The bill would eliminate the mandatory prison times for these firearm offences. It is very simple. There is a great hypocrisy in what is happening here in this country. We have a government fixated on guns, but now it is letting off criminals who bring illegal guns into this country, the illegal guns that are killing children and innocent people in their homes and on their properties. It is letting them off without mandatory prison time.

Now explain to me how Liberals can be bleeding hearts and against guns when they are allowing them to be trafficked into this country and are allowing people to get away with no mandatory prison sentences based on the very guns they are trying to convince the public they are banning and that were already banned 45 years ago. This is a clear example of the government firmly believing that Canadian citizens do not know anything about guns and that Canadian citizens want people who committed crimes with weapons to have lesser sentences. Imagine the hypocrisy in our country in this very bill.

A majority of the above mandatory minimums were introduced under previous Liberal governments, most notably the government of the Prime Minister's own father, contrary to the narrative from the Liberals that they are undoing Conservative legislation. This is yet another hypocrisy. To be clear, the Liberals would eliminate mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. That is shameful.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

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.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee.

He and I obviously do not agree on Bill C-5, but one thing I hope he would agree with me on is the mandatory minimums being repealed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Liberal government likes to speak about simple possession. Mandatory minimums would be eliminated for the offences of trafficking, importing or exporting controlled drugs and substances or the production of schedule I or schedule II drugs, which are cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth. Would he categorize those offences as “simple possession”?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work of my friend opposite in supporting and strengthening Bill C-5.

I do want to pose a question for him with respect to the issue of sequestration of simple possession. I know it is an issue that he fought very hard for.

As he knows, the Minister of Public Safety is also mandated to ensure that there are reforms to the pardon system. Could the member opposite reflect on how important it is to make sure that issues such as simple possession and the records surrounding it are addressed within this bill?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-5 today.

Sometimes the debate strays away from what is actually in the bill and goes into a lot of other things. I would just like to remind everybody what the bill is doing.

It is attempting to attack systemic racism in our criminal justice system by eliminating 20 mandatory minimum penalties, all of those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and a few relating to firearms and tobacco offences. It also expands access to conditional sentences through things like house arrest and serving time on weekends, which is important in rehabilitating people who, for whatever reason, became involved with the criminal justice system. The third thing it does is provide more discretion for police to provide warnings and diversion instead of charging people, who then end up in jail. All of these three things are key steps in reducing the impact of systemic racism.

In our corrections system, nearly 35% of those who are imprisoned are indigenous, but indigenous people make up less than 5% of our population. We know that about 7.5% of those in prison are Black Canadians, but they only represent 3.5% of the population. Something is clearly going on here in a systematic manner that produces these much worse outcomes for racialized and indigenous people.

Who is in favour of this bill? This is something nobody else has really been talking about here. I know why some people do not raise this point. Most important to me is that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is in favour of this legislation, because they know that mandatory minimums do nothing to make communities safer.

Two other organizations I want to mention that are very much in favour are the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. These are two very valuable non-profits that work with those who have served time to help re-integrate them back into the community. They gave very powerful testimony at committee about the impacts of mandatory minimums.

Who is opposed to them? The Conservatives and the Bloc are clearly opposed to this bill that would reduce mandatory minimums. They often fly off into what I would call a fantasy world, where the idea is that if we take away mandatory minimums, somehow people would not get prison sentences and somehow serious criminals would not end up in jail. That is not what would happen with mandatory minimums or their removal. Judges would still assign serious time for serious crime. That is not what we are talking about here.

The fact is that mandatory minimums—and most of those that would be removed are of less than two years—would result in people going into provincial corrections systems, which have very limited rehabilitation programs. It also means, when we take into time served for good behaviour and other facets of our criminal justice system, that people would serve only a few months. Even if there was an addiction treatment program, even if there was a skills training program, the time is too short for those to be successful.

However, the time is not too short to make sure that people lose their housing. The time is not too short to make sure that people lose their job. The time is not too short to make sure that people's families are put at risk. Often the people who go under mandatory minimums are the sole providers for their families, so their kids are at risk of apprehension while they are in prison. All of this contributes to huge social problems that are not necessary.

If we do not have a mandatory minimum, we could use conditional sentences. Someone could stay in their own home, maintain their job, serve their time on weekends, and actually become a productive member of society again, rather than having their whole life turned upside down, which would put them on a path that only leads to further addiction and further crime.

We know that is the record of mandatory minimums. The academic studies all show the same thing: Mandatory minimums, if they do anything at all, actually make recidivism worse, because people have fewer options as a result of serving those mandatory minimums. The evidence is quite clear: They do not work.

Should the government have done more? Yes; as a New Democrat, I agree it should have done more. The government should have done more earlier today when it had the chance to vote on our bill, Bill C-216, which would have decriminalized personal possession of drugs. That would have helped to address systemic racism, because we know that Black Canadians and indigenous Canadians are overcharged and charged at much higher rates for personal possession of drugs when their rates of drug use are not in fact higher. It would have helped tackle that.

I do not think it is enough to say that we are going to reduce mandatory minimums; the government should have voted for Bill C-216. We should have made better progress.

I am happy to see the government grant an exemption to British Columbia under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and I think it will lead to great success in tackling the opioid crisis, but I just do not understand why the government was not prepared to do that for the more than 70% of Canadians who live outside of British Columbia. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say, in answer to a question, that the Liberals are prepared to consider other exemptions, and certainly New Democrats will be asking them to step up when that time comes.

What was in Bill C-5, as I said, was modest, and so I wish the Liberals had done more on Bill C-216, but I also wish they had done more on the bill, and that is why I proposed two amendments at committee, which I thank the government for accepting.

The first of those, to me, is the most important. It is an amendment that says not only do mandatory minimums cause problems in racial injustice, but the resulting criminal records make things much worse.

There are 250,000 Canadians who have a record for personal possession of drugs. What does this mean? It means that sometimes this record affects someone's hiring. Very often it affects their housing, whether it is social housing, which does not allow people with criminal records, or whether it is landlords who refuse to rent to them. It prevents people from getting bank loans and mortgages. It forces them into the hands of what I call loan sharks, otherwise called payday lenders. It prevents people from travelling.

However, the one I have heard the most in my community is that a criminal record prevents someone from volunteering with kids or seniors, even though it may have been a personal possession charge from 20 years ago and has nothing to do with the way the person has turned their life around. In fact, some of those people might be the perfect people to volunteer with youth and show them a positive way forward.

I thank the government for agreeing. What we agreed on is what it calls a sequestration of records, meaning they will be held separate and apart and will not show up in criminal records. Within two years, we will be wiping out the records of 250,000 people, and I think that is enormously important for rehabilitation and building safer communities.

The second amendment I moved had to do with the expanded discretion for police. Here, New Democrats had a worry that was shared by many in the community, because discretion by the police is often subject to that very same systemic racism. The bill originally did not require record-keeping at all for the use of discretion; my amendment suggests that the police have to keep records on who they grant diversion to and who they warn. Then we will be able to see if this discretion happens just to privileged white folks or is being used fairly among all Canadians.

The second part of that amendment says we will keep records, but those records cannot be used in future proceedings against individuals. Why say that? It may seem counterintuitive. If it is really a warning, then it is a warning, not a conviction, and so it should not be used in future criminal processes. It will make warnings much more powerful for people who get them and diversions much more powerful for people who get them.

If someone successfully stays out of trouble with a warning or they successfully complete drug and alcohol counselling as part of their diversion, then this will never come back to haunt them again. It will encourage success in those programs. I thank the government for supporting those two measures. I fail to understand why the Conservatives and Bloc oppose those two amendments, but I also fail to understand why they are opposing this bill altogether.

I know time is running short, but I want to go back to what I think is most important here.

I have to say that I know people like to put forward their records as prosecutors and as police when they are talking about these things. I taught criminal justice for 20 years and I worked very closely with the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society on the question of rehabilitation of people, and we know what works.

We know that when people can stay with their family and when people can have a job and maintain their employment, all of those things push them out of the criminal lifestyle and into the community. This is an important initiative in making all communities safer.

Despite people saying that the bill removes mandatory minimums on serious crimes, I say no, the judges will still give out serious time for serious crime. What it does is take away the injustice of those mandatory minimums falling most heavily on indigenous people and racialized Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-5. I find this bill important but disheartening at the same time. The way in which the bill was presented is deplorable, and that is very sad. Bill C‑5 is really two bills in one. The first decriminalizes certain offences, and the second establishes diversion measures while also abolishing minimum sentences. These are two very different issues.

We are comfortable with the elimination of certain minimum sentences. Generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois believes that minimum sentences are not a cure-all. We think that they can actually be harmful in many cases and that we should trust the judges overseeing criminal trials. However, we believe that minimum sentences can be useful in some circumstances.

It would be especially unfortunate to eliminate them at the wrong time. Right now, gun violence is on the rise in Montreal and many other Canadian cities, and people want the government to do something. The government proposed Bill C-21 in an effort to control the circulation of legal weapons. However, the bill does nothing about the illegal weapons being used by street gangs to commit crimes and shoot people in the streets.

The Bloc says that this problem needs to be addressed, and we have some suggestions. For months now, we have been standing up in the House and talking about the need to identify organized criminal gangs and include targeted measures against members of criminal gangs in the Criminal Code. We have proposed a joint task force to stem the trafficking of illegal guns through indigenous reserves. People on the reserves have agreed to work with us on this plan. We have proposed more funding for border controls, to no avail. All of these measures would help curtail shootings, but the government has done nothing in this respect.

Now we have Bill C-5, which not only does nothing to fight gun violence committed with illegal weapons, but which also eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that I believe are pretty serious. I hardly consider armed robbery to be a trivial matter. Armed extortion is not a trivial matter either, nor is discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure. The government wants to eliminate the minimum sentences for these crimes just as the public is expressing concern. People want the government to do something to reassure them. Not only is the government responding by doing nothing, but it is eliminating the minimum sentences for these crimes. I am appalled.

At the same time, the government is establishing diversion measures for certain offences involving illicit substances. It is offering diversion for possession of substances for personal use. Rather than sending a person with drug addiction to prison, we will provide treatment. We will help the person regain control of their life and become a useful member of society again. That is a good thing.

However, these are two completely different subjects. The government is taking Parliament hostage by saying this is a package deal. Members are being forced to decide whether they are totally for it or totally against it. I find that appalling. In my opinion, that is a way of muzzling democracy.

I would have liked to hear my colleague from the governing party speak to this aspect of the issue. Why did his party refuse to split the bill from the beginning, as we requested? That would have made it a lot easier to work on. In any case, we have to live with it now. It is what it is.

Getting back to what I was saying about minimum sentences, there is a major problem with some of the offences. We tried to find solutions. The Bloc Québécois is against many things, but we are also in favour of certain things. Above all, we try to improve the bills that come through the House. Whenever we can make them acceptable and make sure they reflect the values and interests of the people we represent, we are happy to do so.

In this spirit, we made a suggestion. Now is not the time to abolish minimum sentences, because this would send the wrong message. Not only would it not reassure the public, but it would worry them even more. We therefore suggested maintaining the minimum sentences and adding clauses stating that the court could override them under exceptional circumstances.

That is the system used in other jurisdictions, and it works, as an expert told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We proposed adding a clause requiring judges to state, if applicable, that the case they are trying is an exceptional case and that, under the circumstances, they will override the mandatory minimum sentence for such and such a reason. The clause would provide guidelines and ensure that justice is taken seriously.

Our proposal was so good that the Liberals changed two or three words and proposed it themselves. I was very happy about that, since I feel no need to take credit for the amendments to Bill C-5. However, when the time came to put the Liberals' amendment to a vote, none of them rose to present it, so I did it for them. I am dismayed by these sorts of games, because I think they are anti-democratic. They do not serve the interest of voters, either in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. I am appalled by these tactics, and I would like to hear what my colleague across the aisle has to say about this.

That being said, there is also the whole diversion component, which is important to us, as I mentioned earlier. That is why I feel torn today. I do not know what to do. We will have to live with our decision, and it feels a bit like choosing between the plague and cholera. Whichever way we vote, we will be partly disappointed and partly happy.

However, we could have been completely happy if everyone here could have come to an agreement, because we basically want the same thing. I do not think that the members across the aisle, or my Conservative and NDP colleagues, are acting in bad faith. I simply think that we have different ways of looking at things and that, if we work together, we can find solutions that will satisfy our interests, our prerogatives and our respective voters. Unfortunately, we were unable to find common ground.

The opioid crisis is affecting Rivière‑du‑Nord, and it is a major problem. We have a great many other problems that we would like to solve using rehabilitation.

The Quebec government has already adopted diversion measures for criminal offences. It tries to rehabilitate people rather than make them stand trial and send them to prison. We try to help them reintegrate into society and become active contributors again, as most of them used to be. For whatever reason, these people had experiences that set them on a path they would not otherwise have chosen, any more than we would have. In Quebec, we believe that we can help them and rehabilitate them.

I applaud diversion efforts, and so does the Bloc. I think that it is the right solution, for the same reason that we previously voted in favour of the NDP's Bill C-216 along the same lines. We need to work with these people and help them. They do not need jail time, they need help. Drug addiction is a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. We therefore applaud this measure.

However, we are torn over the idea of abolishing minimum sentences. This would send a message that I dare not describe in the House. I will say just that it is completely out of touch with reality because, day after day, people are shooting up day cares and apartment buildings. Just this morning, I read in the news that a stray bullet found its way into a senior's apartment. Fortunately, she was not hit.

Members will recall that someone shot up a day care last week. That is not even organized crime. It is just delinquency. I am not a criminologist, and I cannot say any more on this subject, but we need to address this problem. Gun control falls under the federal Criminal Code, but the federal government is not doing anything. On top of that inaction, it wants to abolish the minimum sentences for these offences. I think that is just terrible.

We will see how we vote on the bill, but I will admit that we are torn. This is not a good day for democracy.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve during which Bill C-5 is coming to third debate, I do want my friends opposite to reflect on the notion of systemic racism. It is something that has been central to this bill. I really do invite members, especially the opposition, to read the report by the Auditor General from yesterday that talks about systemic barriers within Correctional Service Canada.

It is a very profound report. I know that the Office of the Correctional Investigator, for many years, has been putting forward reports after reports after reports. However, this is coming from the Auditor General who has, I think for the first time, empirically demonstrated that systemic racism does, in fact, exist within our criminal justice system. It is something that I take very personally.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on what happened just before we started this debate on Bill C-5 because there are some modest measures in Bill C-5 that would help address the opioid crisis, but the government just defeated Bill C-216, which would have decriminalized personal possession of drugs.

The Prime Minister said earlier today that, in reference to the section 56 exemption for British Columbia, he would be prepared to work with communities who are interested in such an exemption. Is the government really telling us today that, instead of just eliminating penalties for possessions, it will work positively with communities to grant exemptions in addition to those in British Columbia?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. The problem is that a number of times I heard the words “simple possession”. The issue is that this is not what Bill C-5 deals with.

The mandatory minimum penalties being repealed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act have to do with trafficking, importing or exporting controlled substances, or the production of schedule I or schedule II drugs, that is, cocaine, heroine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

Would the hon. member maintain that production, trafficking and importing are “simple possession”?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Let me begin by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.

At the outset, I would like to thank my colleagues at the justice committee for their diligent work in improving this bill and moving it forward and the many witnesses who came forward to speak about their lived experiences.

Bill C-5 addresses systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system by promoting a fairer and more effective justice system that, among other things, would provide courts with increased judicial discretion at sentencing through the elimination of some mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonments and of restrictions on the imposition of conditional sentences of imprisonment. Further, the bill promotes alternatives to charging and prosecuting individuals in cases involving simple possession of drugs.

We see again here the opposition attempting to reinstate mandatory minimum penalties in the legislation when we have clearly seen that MMPs do not work. I am proud of the announcement our government made Monday to crack down on illegal and dangerous firearms in Canada, including raising maximum penalties for many firearm offences. Together with this bill, we would be restoring discretion to judges, ensuring that their fair sentences can be applied and that serious crimes would still receive serious sentences.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has now concluded its study of the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House of Commons with four amendments, which I believe strengthen the bill.

Bill C-5's amendments would provide space to treat the simple possession of drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one, as it should be, and is consistent with the announcement made by the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for British Columbia yesterday. The bill requires police and prosecutors to consider alternative measures, including diverting individuals to treatment programs, giving a warning or taking no further action, instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple possession of an illegal drug. Further, it would provide a declaration of principles to guide police and Crown prosecutors in the exercise of their discretion.

Among other principles, the bill would recognize that scarce judicial resources should be reserved for offences that pose a risk to public safety and that criminal sanctions imposed in respect of the possession of drugs for personal use are not consistent with established public health evidence.

The principles enacted under Bill C-5 do not condone the sale of drugs, as that may result in the death of the purchasers, including purchasers who may be youths and first-time users and who are at greater health risks from consuming highly concentrated drugs. Condoning the sale of drugs would be contrary to the government's ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis and deaths. Further, such an approach would also be contrary to the harm reduction and prevention pillar of the Canadian drugs and substances strategy.

Let me be clear that Bill C-5 is only one part of a larger government strategy to fight the ongoing opioid crisis. On May 31, 2022, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health announced the granting of a time-limited exemption, under subsection 56(1) of the CDSA, to exempt the application of the simple possession offence to the personal possession of small amounts of controlled substances, which is commonly involved in overdose deaths by adults 18 years or older in the province of British Columbia. The exemption is part of the province's comprehensive approach to address the overdose crisis and is intended to reduce harm for people who use drugs and promote better access to life-saving health services in the territory.

Before I go into the other parts of the amendment, I do want to highlight the report by the Auditor General of Canada to Parliament from yesterday. When I speak about the need to avoid prison sentences for those who pose virtually no threat to the public, particularly from racialized communities, and indigenous and Black communities, it is because we know that systemic racism is prevalent within many parts of the criminal justice system.

The report by the Auditor General from yesterday makes it crystal clear that there is a disparity in the manner in which we treat indigenous and Black offenders. For example, and I would like to read parts of the report, it says, “Indigenous and Black offenders...faced greater barriers to a safe and gradual reintegration into society” than other incarcerated groups.

The report goes on to say, “Indigenous and Black offenders remained in custody longer and at higher levels of security before release.” Essentially, Correctional Services categorizes offenders based on low, medium and high risk, and it is clear that there is a disparity in the manner in which it classifies indigenous and Black offenders. For example, the report continues, “We found that Indigenous and Black offenders were placed at higher security levels on admission into custody at twice the average rate of other offenders.”

The report then says:

We found that, although the majority of offenders were released on parole before the end of their sentences, fewer Indigenous offenders were released when first eligible. In fact, more Indigenous offenders remained in custody until their statutory release and were released directly into the community from higher levels of security.

This means that they did not obtain the right level of support for them to go into the community and integrate. The report continues, “Indigenous offenders served longer portions of their sentences in custody than the average, placing them at a disadvantage to access early release or parole.”

I believe this report is important to the discussion today because, when we speak about ensuring that we minimize those going into the criminal justice system, we are not saying that we treat everyone the same. We are saying that, if a person poses no risk and is a low-risk offender who does not belong in jail, then they have other alternatives. As a government bill, Bill C-5 would address some of the root causes of both mandatory minimum penalties and avoiding jail sentences, which we know from the Auditor General's report does have adverse impacts on indigenous and Black Canadians, particularly indigenous women and young Black men.

I will now talk about the amendments that Bill C-5 would make.

The first amendment would be to clarify the kind of information to be kept in the police record on warnings or referrals, the use of such records and to whom they may be disclosed. For instance, once amended, any information contained in the record of warning or referral may be made available to a judge or a court for any purpose relating to offence proceedings for the preparation of a pre-sentence report but limited to circumstances to which the record relates. These changes address the concerns raised by several witnesses that records could be improperly applied, which would frustrate the objectives of the bill to promote diversion while recognizing that police officers are legally and ethically bound to keep notes to facilitate various operational requirements of the criminal justice system.

To address these concerns, a second amendment would provide a mechanism to reduce the stigma associated with convictions for simple possession of drugs by specifying that past and future convictions must be kept separate and apart from other criminal convictions after a certain period of time. These new measures would need to be implemented two years after the coming into force of the bill in the case of convictions that occurred before the bill came into force, two years after the conviction or completion of an offender's sentence, or in the case of conviction after Bill C-5 is enforced.

The third amendment would provide an express provision to clarify that no social worker, medical professional or service provider would be committing the offence of simple possession when they come into possession of a controlled substance in the course of their duties when they have the intent to, within a reasonable period, lawfully dispose of it. We believe that this particular amendment is covered in the “innocent possession” common law defence, and we were able to work with the opposition in order to strengthen the bill to have a bit more clarity, which is incorporated herein.

The last amendment from Bill C-5 would require a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the bill to be undertaken by the House on the fourth anniversary of the bill coming into force.

In conclusion, Bill C-5 is a very important step forward in addressing common sense criminal law reform. Mandatory minimum penalties, in many cases, have not had a positive impact on communities, particularly indigenous, Black and other racialized communities, and this bill is a very important step forward in addressing the systemic racism that we have within the criminal justice system.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so grateful to be acknowledged at this moment, because it allows me to follow up on the question from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and clarify for the hon. member for Fundy Royal that no one voting for Bill C-5 thinks that guilty parties should have no jail time.

What we are arguing for, based on the evidence, is that we do not put an additional cost burden on the provinces by putting more people in jail. The provinces have to pay the costs of what was an omnibus crime bill in a previous Parliament, Bill C-10. We do not want to see people who are innocent get so worried about a mandatory minimum that they take their lawyer's advice and take a plea deal because they do not really want to take the chance of letting the judge use his or her discretion, having heard all the evidence, and we do not want people to get lesser sentences because they did not go through the process where a judge had the discretion to decide how they should go to jail.

The punishment must fit the crime, and the cookie-cutter approach of mandatory minimums is a failure.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the member opposite raised this issue because, for a number of the offences within Bill C-5, such as weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, and possession of a weapon obtained in the commission of an offence, the government said last week that people would not go to jail at all, and this week, in Bill C-21, for those very same offences, it has increased the maximum penalties. It cannot have it both ways.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-5 at report stage. It is actually hard to believe that a bill this reckless with the safety and security of Canadians has even gotten this far in the legislative process.

This bill seeks to make changes to the Criminal Code in order to make life easier for criminals charged with violent firearm offences and criminals who are fuelling the opioid crisis in Canada. The Liberals have made themselves dizzy by the amount of spin they put on Bill C-5, but today I want Canadians to hear just the facts about this dangerous piece of legislation.

Most of the offences we are discussing today, for which the Liberals want to get rid of mandatory jail time, are crimes that involve firearms. However, the Liberal government has chosen to leave in the Criminal Code many of the mandatory minimum penalties, particularly some escalating ones around gun violence that came in under the previous Conservative government.

I want to make another point before I get too far into my speech. The charges for which the government is removing mandatory jail time are not for an otherwise innocent individual who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. This bill specifically allows repeat offenders to avoid mandatory jail sentences. These are hardened criminals who have already made the choice to live outside the law and have not made an effort to change their behaviour. These are the people the Liberals are helping with Bill C-5.

In the government press release announcing Bill C-5, there was not a single mention of guns or gun violence. How, then, would the average Canadian know that this bill would eliminate mandatory jail time for criminals charged with robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting knowing that a firearm is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, just to name a few? These are the very offences that are ripped from the headlines today, the stories that we are hearing in many of our large cities of gang crimes and drive-by shootings. These are the types of offences for which mandatory jail time would be removed in Bill C-5.

Why would the Liberals keep Canadians in the dark about getting rid of mandatory jail time for these serious offences? I am sure they are familiar with these mandatory prison sentences, as most of them were actually introduced by previous Liberal governments. The Liberal Party used to recognize that public safety should be a key factor.

In 2007, Roy Cullen, the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, said that the Liberals “support mandatory minimums for gun related crimes because the research shows they work.” It was Marlene Jennings, the former parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, who correctly stated, “It was a Liberal government that recognized minimum mandatory penalties in very targeted areas could send a clear message and could be effective in the sense of removing the offender from the community and ensuring that the victim and the community were not re-victimized.” In the 2006 election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada, under the Right Hon. Paul Martin, ran on a promise to increase mandatory minimum sentences.

The version of the Liberal Party that we see today is not using Bill C-5 to reverse Conservative policies. The Liberals are using Bill C-5 to turn away from their own party's long-established values.

Unfortunately, Canadians are seeing the same disregard for foundational beliefs among the members of the NDP as well. It was not so long ago that the former NDP leader, the late Jack Layton, ran on a platform that promised to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession, sale and importation of illegal arms such as handguns, assault rifles and automatic weapons. He also promised to add mandatory minimum sentences to other weapons offences. It is hard to believe how in such a short time, the Liberals and the NDP have turned their backs on the principles and values that were deeply held by their predecessors.

I want to be very clear: The changes to the Criminal Code imposed by Bill C-5 are a radical shift away from long-standing and bipartisan values and principles held by members of this House when it comes to public safety.

The Liberal members and the government across the way cannot pretend that they have not recognized the rising rate of violence in Canadian communities. They have seen it first-hand in their own ridings. While support for this bill would indicate otherwise, I am sure many of the Liberal members are aware of the tragic firearms incidents that are happening weekly in their own ridings. We are talking about gun violence on the streets of Canada's big cities every day.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville would be aware of the increasingly bold behaviour of violent firearm offenders. In April, a young person was rushed to a hospital in life-threatening condition following a shooting at a townhouse complex in her riding in the middle of the afternoon. The member for Laval—Les Îles is well aware that in his riding, less than a month ago, a young man was shot just after 1 o'clock in the afternoon. Just a few weeks ago, on May 11, the Montreal police announced that the city's ninth homicide this year had taken place shortly after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. That shooting occurred in the riding of Papineau.

Criminals carrying firearms are become more brazen, and it is happening right in the Liberal members' own backyards. Instead of coming down hard on these violent offenders, the Liberals are rewarding their behaviour by giving them changes to the Criminal Code as proposed in Bill C-5.

André Gélinas is a retired detective sergeant with the Montreal police service with years of experience, particularly with gang violence in Montreal. We have all seen the headlines out of big urban centres like Montreal and the rising gun and gang violence terrorizing communities within Canadian cities. The retired sergeant told the justice committee, in no uncertain terms, that “anything remotely related to firearms trafficking must continue to be subject to mandatory minimum sentences.” He called Bill C-5 “a race to the bottom.”

Anie Samson is a former municipal councillor and mayor whose jurisdiction included the most multicultural neighbourhood in Montreal. Unfortunately, this neighbourhood had a very high crime rate. It was also in the top 10 of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada. Ms. Samson has shared heartbreaking stories about youth and even young children being victimized and targeted by organized crime in her community.

When Ms. Samson spoke to our committee last month, she told us that not only would Bill C-5 fail to protect the young people in her community from getting involved in criminal activity, but abolishing certain mandatory minimum penalties would actually increase the feeling of impunity for criminal behaviour that we are seeing every day in the headlines.

She went on to say that criminal organizations are becoming more bold in our communities and have less regard for the law and for the implications of getting caught and facing some kind of consequence. Bill C-5 makes that stark reality even worse. In other words, Bill C-5 gives gang members licence to continue to terrorize her community, a community that already faces a multitude of hardships.

I should also mention that the borough of Montreal that Ms. Samson represented as mayor also happens to be in the home riding of the Prime Minister. Over the past seven years, it has become increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister does not prioritize the safety and security of Canadians in general, but it is particularly disappointing and even cruel that he would disregard the safety and security of his own constituents.

In contrast, justice committee members were privileged to hear from individuals and organizations who care very deeply about the safety and security of all Canadians, in particular those who have been victimized by violent crime or have lost a loved one due to some of the offences where punishment will be reduced by Bill C-5.

In this bill, the Liberals are making more criminal charges eligible to receive conditional sentences, also known as house arrest. There may be cases where house arrest is acceptable, but house arrest should never be made available to dangerous offenders and criminals whose actions have victimized an innocent person or family.

The fact of the matter is this: The crimes that would become eligible for house arrest under the Liberals' Bill C-5 are not victimless crimes and are, in fact, dangerous. Should a criminal who abducted a child under the age of 14 be eligible for house arrest? The Liberal government says yes. Should a criminal who benefits financially from the scourge of human trafficking be eligible for house arrest? The Liberal government says yes. Should someone convicted of kidnapping get house arrest? The Liberal government says yes. Should criminals charged with sexual assault be able to serve their time back in the same community of their victims? I would argue absolutely not, but the Liberal government says that it is absolutely appropriate.

The Liberals are trying to expand house arrest for those charged with prison breach. In what world does one reward people for trying to break out of jail by offering them a sentence of house arrest? This is just one example of how the Liberal government is trying to make a complete mockery of the Canadian justice system.

I will wrap up my remarks. I will be very strongly voting against Bill C-5, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are five motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-5.

Motions Nos. 1 to 5 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

The mover of the motion as well as the two members who had submitted an identical notice have indicated to the Chair that they do not wish to proceed with Motion No. 1.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Justice

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the legislative measures set out in Bill C-5 do nothing to stop police from charging people or prosecutors from pursuing convictions. What these measures do is ensure that criminals face serious penalties while addressing the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system.

I know Anie Samson, the former mayor of my borough, very well, and I can safely say that she is also concerned about the plight of Black and indigenous youth who find themselves unfairly caught up in our criminal justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, Anie Samson, the former vice-chair of the City of Montreal's executive committee and now the head of public safety, said, “There is concern about the fate of our criminals in prison, when at the same time there are hundreds of families mourning the loss of a loved one.”

If the Liberals continue with their reckless strategy, even massive injections of money from the provinces to crack down on guns will be ineffective. If Bill C‑5 is passed, Canadian communities will no doubt see an increase in violence.

Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for that?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Prime Minister's Bill C-5 will severely threaten the safety of families, children, mothers and vulnerable communities, because Bill C-5 would allow criminals who commit serious and deadly gun crimes to serve house arrest rather than go to jail, meaning these dangerous criminals will be kept in the communities they have terrorized, which will disproportionately impact Black and indigenous communities. It is sick.

Why is the Prime Minister prioritizing dangerous criminals with guns over the safety of our communities?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, gun violence has gone up significantly over the past seven years of the Liberal government. That is a fact. It is also fact that most guns used in violent crime are smuggled in from the United States. Gun smugglers and gun traffickers are responsible for the murder of innocent Canadians in our cities, such as Toronto, Montreal, Regina and Edmonton.

Why is the Liberal Prime Minister removing mandatory jail time for people who smuggle guns into Canada under Bill C-5? Why is he letting them off the hook?

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

I would echo the sentiments that were expressed by Senator Harder with respect to the need to get down to doing some more concrete work and doing it expeditiously. I reiterate that it would be extremely prudent to Canadians, to the people we represent, to wrap up that work prior to the inquiry's concluding its work. I think that is what Canadians expect of us. I would reiterate exactly what Ms. Bendayan just expressed in terms of repeated efforts on her part and the part of others on our side of the House to make sure we are doing just that.

I would reiterate, going back to the reason for the cancellation of the previous meeting and a comment by Mr. Brock that something that happened at the justice committee was as a result of efforts by Liberals to prevent an adjournment of a meeting. That meeting was dealing with a bill called Bill C-5, which is a bill that many are familiar with in this committee room, and many Canadians should be familiar with. We would not adjourn proceedings at that committee in order to prolong committee deliberations under a bill that needed to be addressed, in what it represents in terms of curing mandatory minimum penalties that disproportionately affect black and indigenous men, predominantly, in this country.

That is why that committee meeting dragged on, preventing this committee meeting from happening last week and preventing this work from occurring.

Thank you.

Public Safety

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is misleading Canadians. Bill C-5 and the other measures by the Liberal government are failing to keep our communities safe. They are putting them at risk. If they wanted to stop gun violence, they would put more resources to border agents to stop gun smuggling. They would put more resources to police to stop violent criminals with guns. They would put more resources to anti-gang community groups to divert youth from a life of crime.

That is how we stop gun violence, not useless gun bans or bills like Bill C-21 that will do nothing to stop gun violence in this country. Is that not right?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that violent gun crime has only gone up under the Prime Minister. Actually, it has gone up significantly since he has formed office, and the data proves this. He has failed to keep Canadians safe from gun violence in cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg. At the same time, he has been weak on violent crime and soft on criminals by allowing them to avoid jail time with bills like Bill C-5.

When will the Prime Minister drop his failed approach, stop putting our communities at risk and go after dangerous criminals with guns?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true that we moved forward to present legislation that, once passed, will make it no longer legal to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada. At the same time, Bill C-5 would not stop police from charging people with gun offences or prosecutors from pursuing convictions. What it would do is make sure that criminals face serious penalties, while addressing the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous people in the criminal justice system.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we saw the Liberals engage in a game of smoke and mirrors. On one hand, they are banning handguns. On the other hand, they are pushing through Bill C-5, which tells criminals not to worry; if they are convicted of a gun crime, they can just hang out at home for their sentence. This is not keeping communities safe and it is not reassuring to moms and dads who are worried about their kids.

Will the Prime Minister get serious about keeping vulnerable communities safe, scrap Bill C-5 and legislate tough penalties for gun criminals?

Justice and Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On amendment 15, this would require—and this exists in a lot of Criminal Code legislation—a review of the legislation on the third anniversary of the day on which it comes into force. This would allow us as parliamentarians to have an understanding of the impact on our communities of the passage of Bill C-5, should it pass.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-5 addresses the problem of over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and other racialized Canadians in some modest steps, I would say. Over-incarceration carries with it another obstacle for those who have been incarcerated to reconnect with their community, their family, employment and housing. That's because, once you've been incarcerated, of course you come out with a criminal record.

Criminal records quite often have large effects on child custody cases and access to social housing—access to any housing, as landlords quite often insist on criminal record checks. Perhaps most importantly, criminal records can make it very difficult to get re-employed. All those things make it hard for those who have already been incarcerated to reform and get back in contact with their community.

What this amendment essentially proposes is an automatic removal of all criminal records for personal possession of drugs that have taken place in the past. This would take place within two years. The second thing it does is ensure that future records for convictions for personal possession that result in a record would be removed two years after the completion of the sentence.

It does so without requiring an application process. We all know that application processes for pardons or suspension of records, as they're called, are quite often very difficult to get and quite often very expensive. Even more importantly, lots of times people don't even know that they need to have a criminal record removed. Landlords certainly don't phone people back and say, “Oh, by the way, you didn't get the place because you have a criminal record.” Employers quite rarely say, “Well, I chose someone else because you have a criminal record”, so people may not even be aware of the ways in which they're being disadvantaged by criminal records.

Remember, this is only for personal possession of drugs, not for trafficking or involving violence. This would remove those records.

There are other things I personally would rather see. We know that Bill C-216, a private member's bill calling for the decriminalization of all personal possession of drugs, had its second hour of debate in the House today. We don't know the fate of that bill. We will be voting on that as a House, as a whole, when we come back.

What we have today is an opportunity to do something more than just reduce the mandatory minimum penalties, and that is to contribute to the reintegration and rehabilitation of people who have been imprisoned for personal possession, by making sure that those criminal records don't affect their families, housing or employment. I'm urging members to support this amendment, which takes this bill a little bit farther in attempting to repair the damage from the over-incarceration that indigenous people, Black Canadians, other racialized Canadians and many poor Canadians have already suffered as a result of incarceration for personal possession of drugs.

The bill reduces mandatory minimums. This would take away some of the stigma that goes along with that by removing those criminal records.

Thank you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, this is simply a division of the original NDP-2 into two separate parts so that (a) was in the one we just previously defeated, and (b) is in this one.

The concern that we've heard quite often in this committee and that I've heard quite often in both my previous times on the public safety committee is that, in our criminal justice system, discretion is important. We have discretion for prosecutors and for police that already exists, but we don't have any way to monitor how that discretion is used. If one of the major purposes of Bill C-5 is to make sure that we're combatting racial injustice and the disproportionate incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians, other racialized people and, in fact, poorer Canadians as well, then we need some mechanism to find out how that discretion is being used.

The bill as it stands doesn't require keeping records, so my amendment says that records shall be kept so that we can use them for research purposes and for accountability purposes in seeing how the discretionary power that police will have, which will be greatly increased here, is used and make sure that the discretion doesn't always go simply to the most privileged in our society.

At the same time, there is always concern that, if we're trying to divert people and we're creating a record, this will somehow be used against people in the future, so my amendment in the second part says that it does not, in fact, include any information that would identify individuals to whom the warnings or referrals relate, unless that information is necessary for public safety.

In other words, my intent there is, yes, you can use it in the case in which they were being diverted because you need that for public safety to carry out the conditions, but, no, you can't use it in future legal proceedings. That's why there are two pieces to this, requiring police to keep records and then allowing that those records can be used for research and accountability but not in future court proceedings.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 18)

We have Green Party amendment 42. I'm going to have to rule this inadmissible, as section 9 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 20)

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Continuing the discussion from my colleagues, I think the introduction of this aspect to Bill C-5 just smacks of the Liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the substantive issue. The substantive issue and the elephant in the room, as my colleague Mr. Cooper has addressed, is the opioid crisis.

I just did a quick Google search of the Liberal platform in the last general election, as follows:

The opioid overdose epidemic has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tragically, in 2020, there were 6,214 opioid overdose deaths in Canada.

To save lives, we need a whole-of-society approach to the opioid epidemic that addresses the main causes and supports...who use drugs with the respect and dignity they deserve.

That particular framework is not unlike the framework of the Conservative policy in the last election. Punish the trafficker, not the addicted. To that, I think, we are consistent. Although that language isn't as clear as I just addressed, when the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada says to address the main causes, the addicted rely upon the traffickers. They rely upon the mules who are transporting the drugs across our porous borders.

What kind of horrible message is the federal government sending to Canadians? The number one priority of a federal government is to protect Canadians, not to continue to cause death. In my view, the Liberal government has blood on its hands. Quite frankly, they are talking a good game when it comes to the opioid crisis. There's very little mention of that in the current budget. They're not doing enough. Let's face facts here. How do traffickers conduct their business? They conduct it from the comfort of their own homes. This federal government with Bill C-5 is now giving licence to the traffickers to serve the sentence in the very same place in which they do business.

We've heard from several witnesses at this committee that conditional sentences do not work, notwithstanding the Liberal government narrative that it assists in their rehabilitation. Traffickers need to be punished. Importers, exporters and distributors of drugs need to be punished. They need to be removed from society, not be given a legal licence to ply their trade where they're conducting their trade before their arrest.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In many of our ridings, and indeed across Canada, there is a serious crisis when it comes to drugs. Much has been said about Bill C-5, about so-called simple possession. Again, in the same vein as the mandatory minimums, simple possession of drugs is not what is contemplated in this piece of legislation. In fact, it deals with importing, exporting, trafficking and the production of schedule I and schedule II drugs, which include heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.

These are, first, serious drugs, and second, serious crimes. They have absolutely nothing to do with simple possession. Bill C-5 eliminates the mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking, importing, exporting and distribution. Our amendment, CPC-12, maintains a six-month mandatory minimum penalty for importing and exporting illegal substances. As has been the case with many of the Conservative amendments, there is an attempt to bridge the divide between us and the government, which is seeking to eliminate many mandatory minimum penalties. We feel there is a place for them when we are talking about taking drugs off our streets and going after the people who are causing this scourge in our society.

This would maintain a six-month mandatory minimum for importing and exporting illegal substances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

My interpretation from our clerk is that any member of Parliament can submit, but it would have to be moved by a member of this committee. If he or she subbed in, then they're deemed a member at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

We're going on to Green Party amendment 40. The chair rules that this is out of scope. In the opinion of the chair, prohibition orders are a type of order not contemplated by Bill C-5 and are, therefore, beyond the scope of the bill. Accordingly, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

(On clause 14)

We have Green Party amendment 41. I believe Mr. Morrice would like to.... No? Okay.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 16)

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code by repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties. Conservative amendment 11 seeks to amend paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which deals with principles of sentencing.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, amendment of the principles of sentencing in the Criminal Code goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code by repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties. The amendment, BQ-5, seeks to add a new section in the Criminal Code that would allow the court to waive any minimum punishment of imprisonment under exceptional circumstances.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, allowing the court to waive any minimum penalties in the Criminal Code goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Health-based Approach to Substance Use Act

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the opioid and toxic drug supply crisis is heartbreaking and has taken a tragic toll on the families, loved ones and communities of those we have lost across Canada. I would like to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his advocacy on this critical issue and for prompting this important debate in the House of Commons.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the overdose crisis is one of the most serious public health threats in Canada's recent history. This unprecedented crisis is having devastating effects on people, friends and families, as well as on communities across the country.

Unfortunately, the most recent national data shows that there were 26,690 apparent opioid toxicity deaths between January 2016 and September 2021. Fentanyl and its analogues continue to be the primary causes of the crisis. Up to 86% of accidental apparent opioid toxicity deaths over the first nine months of 2021 are tied to fentanyl.

Our government recognizes that problematic substance use is, first and foremost, a public health issue. Since 2017, our government has moved forward with significant action, investing over $800 million to address the overdose crisis and substance use-related issues. We have improved access to treatment and harm reduction, improved access to a safer supply, reduced regulatory barriers to treatment, strengthened law enforcement, developed educational products and tools for health care providers, as well as the public, and advanced research and surveillance to build the evidence base.

These key investments include $282 million for the substance use and addictions program, which provides grants and contributions to other levels of government and to community organizations in order to address the illegal supply of toxic drugs and substance use issues.

Treatment is an essential way to help people struggling with problematic substance use who want to stop using drugs and live a healthier life. We have invested $200 million over five years, with $40 million ongoing each year, to improve the delivery of culturally adapted substance use treatment and prevention services in first nations communities.

Our government has also provided one-time funding of $150 million to the provinces and territories through the emergency treatment fund in order to improve access to evidence-based treatment services. The provinces and territories are also contributing an amount matching the federal funding beyond the first $250,000.

The evidence clearly shows that harm reduction measures save lives. Since 2017, supervised consumption sites in Canada have received more than 3.3 million visits and reversed almost 35,000 overdoses without a single death at a site. These sites also provide access to supportive and trusted relationships for people who use drugs, including opportunities to access treatment.

These sites made more than 148,000 referrals to social services and health care services. Since January 1, 2016, our government has increased the number of approved supervised consumption sites from one to 38. We also increased access to naloxone, a life-saving medication, including in remote and isolated indigenous communities.

Improving the safe supply will also be critical to saving lives, and we are investing more than $63 million to extend access to a safe supply of pharmaceutical-grade alternatives.

Treating addiction as a public health issue means we are also committed to diverting people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and toward supportive and trusted relationships in health and social services.

In December 2021, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Among other measures, the bill would have the police and prosecutors consider alternative measures, including diverting individuals to treatment programs, giving a warning or taking no further action, instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple drug possession.

Our government also facilitated the passage of the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act in May 2017.

In August 2020, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada released guidelines for prosecutors indicating that alternatives to criminal prosecution should be considered for simple possession for personal use, unless there are serious aggravating factors.

We also recognize the different approaches that cities, provinces, territories and other organizations are taking to address the opioid crisis, including how they are approaching the potential decriminalization of personal possession in their communities. We continue to work with these partners, many who are pursuing comprehensive, regional decriminalization proposals for their jurisdictions.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act generally prohibits such activities, including personal possession of controlled substances, unless those activities have been specifically authorized through regulations or an exemption under the act. Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gives the minister broad powers to exempt people for controlled substances from the application of any of the provisions of the act for medical or scientific purposes or if otherwise in the public interest. Currently, the federal government is reviewing requests for section 56 exemptions for the decriminalization of simple possession from the Province of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver and Toronto Public Health.

This private member's bill, Bill C-216, proposes to immediately decriminalize personal possession of controlled substances across Canada without addressing the complex issues of implementation. This does raise significant concerns. Decriminalization of the personal possession of illicit drugs at the national level requires a comprehensive and well-thought-out, multi-jurisdictional strategy around implementation. This includes ensuring adequate and appropriate health and social services resources; engagement, additional training and guidance of law enforcement; specific definitions of personal possession; public education and awareness strategies; as well as meaningful consultations with indigenous governments, partners and organizations.

Our government will ensure that these decisions are based on evidence and applied research. In getting this right, effective indicators, data and evaluation will be important to inform our approach going forward.

Other jurisdictions are evaluating evidence-based approaches, and we are working with our partners to find innovative solutions.

The mandate letter of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health calls on the minister to advance a comprehensive strategy to address prohibitive substance use in Canada, support efforts to improve public education to reduce stigma, support provinces and territories, work with indigenous communities to provide access to a full range of evidence-based treatment and harm reduction, and create standards for substance use treatment programs.

We know that more must be done, and we will continue to work with the provinces and territories, experts, stakeholders, people with real-life experiences and local communities to put an end to this strategy.

Our government will use all the tools at its disposal to put an end to this public health crisis.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

While I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been brought forward, and I congratulate my colleague Monsieur Fortin for addressing the issue that's pertinent to our discussion—that is the overincarceration issue—I want to highlight to the committee that our Conservative amendment number 11 also speaks to the spirit of this particular amendment.

The only concern that I have, and why I cannot support it, is that, in criminal law, and particularly in my previous career, I demanded clarity with respect to the law. I guess an argument could be made that much of the litigation that flows from criminal law is the result of confusing terminology and different interpretations.

Wherever possible, I look for clarity. I look for definitions of clauses. The reason I cannot support Monsieur Fortin in this particular amendment is that I don't know what he means by “exceptional circumstances”. I don't know if that is what was contemplated by Monsieur Fortin. I think the spirit behind it captures what we're trying to do, but Bill C-5 is premised, again—at least with some of the narrative of the government—on reducing litigation. In my view, this creates more confusion. That's why I cannot support it.

Thank you.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

I want to make one quick point, because you mentioned, Mr. Chair, that should Green 17 pass, then BQ-1 would not be dealt with or CPC-7.

I want to quickly remind.... I even heard this idea today in question period. I believe it was the parliamentary secretary, who did a great job of standing up and responding, but the only problem is that I want to make sure we have the facts. Because we should all be well informed on this legislation, as well as on the amendments, I don't want any member of the justice committee to be under any illusion as to the origins of this particular provision.

Paragraph 244(2)(b) and its mandatory minimum penalty of four years, originally, for discharging a firearm with intent, was introduced into our Criminal Code in 1995 under a Liberal government. I don't know how many of you on the Liberal side know her, but Marlene Jennings, I believe, used to be the parliamentary secretary for justice. When I was on the justice committee she was on there as well, both in government and I believe in opposition. Marlene is from the Montreal area and a long-time Liberal, and I just want to quote her. She said:

It was a Liberal government that brought in mandatory minimum sentencing for firearm related crimes. There is a whole category of them where currently it is a minimum of one year.

I'm not going to list off all those offences because we've already dealt with a bunch of them in our clause-by-clause and eliminated the one-year minimum, but she went on to say:

There is [a] second category of designated offences where currently it is four years. In committee, and again at report stage in the House, the Liberal members attempted to increase the one year to two years and the four years to five years.

This was May 17—so just about this time—in 2007.

For those of you who know Marlene, number one, you know that she is certainly not a racist—because that term has been tossed around in the context of Bill C-5—and you also know that she knows what she's talking about. She was a long-time Liberal member of Parliament.

Before we vote on Green-17 and deal through that vote with possibly BQ-1 as well as CPC-7, and then go on to clause 10, I want it to be abundantly clear that the mandatory minimum we are dealing with in this section has its origins with a Liberal government.

With that, I've finished with my comments, Mr. Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Just following up on Mr. Morrison's comments—and I think I reiterated this several times in my interventions on Tuesday—this particular point and this particular section of the code are probably the most topical right now in our country. They have been topical for the last 10 years. It's what strikes at the heart of community concerns and safety. I just worry about the message that this particular Parliament is sending to like-minded individuals who would be so cavalier with the lives of innocent victims as they carry out their vendettas in a gang-by-gang type of warfare. As I reiterated many times on Tuesday, they are very poor shooters. They shoot at random, quite often from moving vehicles, and innocent victims are impacted.

To my colleague Mr. Morrison's point, we need to send an appropriate deterrent message to the Department of Justice officials. I am sure if I were to pose the question directly to them, they would agree with me that the primary sentencing features and focus of this type of offence are denunciation, deterrence and removal from society. We already have a problem in terms of that messaging with mandatory minimum penalties already on the books. It's abundantly clear that these like-minded violent recidivist criminals have absolutely no regard for criminal law and the penalties that flow from it. Now, once it is heavily advertised that this is the new law, that Bill C-5 would actually make it easy for them to prey on each other and to impact communities, we are definitely going to see a spike in crime.

I certainly want to go on record, as a former Crown attorney who fought daily to ensure that my community was as safe as possible, who fought daily to hold these recidivist criminals to account for their behaviour, that I certainly do not want my DNA on any part of Bill C-5 that supports this amendment. I will be voting against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

As a reminder, for interpretation, for those of you who are on the monitors on Zoom, there's a globe icon at the bottom of your screen. You can switch to the language of your choice. Make sure that your headset is House of Commons compliant, with a microphone. That would be helpful.

We want to welcome our witnesses. Again we have Andrew Di Manno and Matthew Taylor from the criminal law policy section, who will assist us in any questions as we go through clause by clause.

(On clause 10)

I believe we were at Green Party amendment 17. I believe we had done with debate and were going to vote on that clause, so I will read it out.

Shall PV-17—

Justice

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government can try to deny it all it wants, but organizations like MADD Canada and Women's Shelters know the truth. With Bill C-5, the court may order that the offender serve the sentence as house arrest for offences such as sexual assault and harassment. This means that many women would be stuck in their community with their offender.

The Prime Minister claims he is a feminist, but his legislation would cause harm to women. If he is really a feminist, why would he do that?

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

Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister calls racist for opposing this dangerous law, he does not realize that, by the same token, he is accusing members of his own caucus of the same thing.

Bill C-5 is nothing more than a public relations exercise that seeks to reduce incarceration statistics by letting violent criminals go free when they should be behind bars.

Since the Prime Minister likes to brag about having Canadians' support, is he aware that Stéphane Wall from the Communauté des citoyens en action contre les criminels violents said, and I quote, “There is absolutely a dichotomy between Bill C‑5 and the social context of gun violence”?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not standing with victims. Victims have spoken loud and clear. As a matter of fact, a poll published this week found that most Canadians feel that gun violence is getting worse in their communities. Rather than stopping illegal firearms from coming across the border, the Liberals' Bill C-5 will help repeat offenders charged with multiple violent gun crimes escape accountability.

We know the Prime Minister likes to govern by opinion polls, so will he finally do the right thing, reverse course and abandon the soft-on-crime Bill C-5?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill C-5 goes soft on violent crimes that are ripped right from the headlines. Just yesterday, a news headline read, “Montreal man charged with firearm offences after investigation into drive-by shootings”. This was right in the Prime Minister's own neighbourhood, yet Bill C-5 lets drive-by shooters off easy.

Why is he putting his own neighbours' lives at risk with the soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5?

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

Mr. Speaker, 16-year-old Thomas was shot and killed in northern Montreal after an individual called out to him from an alleyway. Thomas lived in the riding of the member for Bourassa.

A 17-year-old teen was shot several times in his upper body in Laurier—Sainte‑Marie and later succumbed to his injuries.

Now the NDP-Liberal coalition, supported by the Bloc Québécois, wants to expedite the passage of Bill C-5, which will only serve to help street gangs carry out more shootings. Why?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, violent crime is increasing under the Prime Minister. Gun crime is up 83% since the Liberals took office. At the same time, they are going to make it allowable for criminals to get house arrest instead of going to jail for armed robbery, weapons trafficking, drug trafficking, breaking and entering, possession of illegal firearms and drive-by shootings.

He is going after law-abiding Canadians, but going soft on gangsters who do not care about his rules and paperwork. Will he scrap Bill C-5?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

This particular offender, who had a criminal record both here and in America, was facing a serious charge. He asked me if I remembered him. I said that I didn't and asked if I should.

He said that I had prosecuted him. He said that I hadn't given a damn about him two years ago. His exact words were that I didn't give a damn about him two years ago, so why should he listen to me now?

That's a fair comment. Nine times out of 10, if not 99% of the time, they have a lawyer and that lawyer is their representative. There are rules of conduct, Mr. Chair, that you are aware of as a lawyer, as mandated by the law society of your particular province. As Crown counsel, I couldn't just walk up to an offender and force him to engage in conversation. He remembered that. His point was that I didn't care, when I didn't have the ability to question him or talk to him. Maybe he didn't know that I had ethical obligations on my part not to do that.

Quite frankly, to any of the lawyers on this committee who have had any sort of experience in a busy criminal court, you know you don't have that opportunity. In a given day, Mr. Chair, I was prosecuting anywhere from 30 to 40 cases. You don't have an opportunity to get to know your offender. I told him it was a fair comment, but that this format was vastly different. I explained why it was different.

In the second round, for the first time in my life I was now talking directly to the offender and pointing at him and asking what the hell he was thinking. What caused him on that particular day to pick up that loaded weapon? What were the circumstances?

Again, I'd never, ever, had an opportunity like that as a Crown prosecutor, with the exception of a trial format. If he wished an opportunity to testify, he's not constitutionally required to do that. At all times, it's the Crown attorney's onus and burden to prove a case against an individual beyond a reasonable doubt. Until there is a finding by a judge, accused persons have the luxury of presumption of innocence. They're not compelled to provide a defence. They don't have to disprove anything. They can sit in the weeds and determine whether or not Mr. Brock, the Crown, or any other Crown has proven all the essential elements of the offence.

This was different, and he recognized the difference. Slowly it progressed, like peeling the layers of an onion. There were my questions. The judge and the offender's own lawyer were asking similar questions. The knowledge keeper was trying to draw in why he was engaging, as a proud member of an indigenous clan, in this type of criminal behaviour. The family members were there.

These were very emotional events, Mr. Chair. Numerous times my eyes welled up because you really got to the heart of the matter that you would never get in a trial. You would never get that by simply reading a Gladue report. You would never get that by simply listening to defence counsel talk about the circumstances of the client's background.

After you have that sort of...awakening, I call it, and a challenging of why they found themselves in conflict with the law, then you go to the next round and look at ways the offender wishes to learn from this particular exercise.

Again, it's a concept foreign to the traditional criminal justice format. If you're successful as a prosecutor in securing a conviction or presenting a guilty plea, after trial you don't question why. You don't question the steps they're going to take for their own rehabilitation.

While I know that rehabilitation is an important sentencing feature in any given case, in a traditional criminal format system it sometimes doesn't play as much of a factor as the other sentencing principles, particularly in these areas I referenced in earlier interventions tonight—several hours ago now—when I talked about how judges repeatedly cried out for sentencing principles that apply denunciatory sentences for gun offences and send a very strong deterrent message to the offender and to the community: If you engage in activities like this, you will expect to receive a jail sentence, and it's not only in Canada. I've done case law research on other larger cases across this country.

Going full circle back to the indigenous circle, I was able to listen to what the plan was that this offender had for his life. He was very candid. I think he was a grandfather many times over. I think he was in his sixties at this point. He suffered just horrible, horrible examples of abuse, physical and sexual, outside of the criminal justice system and inside as an offender. It predominantly was much worse in the United States. He found himself in a carjacking situation in Buffalo as a young offender—I think he said he was 14 or 15 at the time—with two adult friends who were 18. He was tried as an adult and he was sentenced as an adult. He did some hard time. I forget the institution he was in, but you can well imagine the horrors he experienced as a young boy in an adult male population. He had no problems recounting that and sharing that terrible chapter in his life, but he'd had enough. He'd had enough.

If I had a dollar, Mr. Chair, for every offender who said, “This time it's going to be different, Judge; I've learned my lesson, Judge; you're never going to see me here again, Judge”, I'd probably be long retired. They're hollow words.

It's much the same sort of insincere rhetoric I used to hear daily in bail court, where they would promise the justice of the peace, “Oh, throw on as many conditions as you want. I'll comply with everything. I'll comply with house arrest. I'll stay away from the alcohol. I'll stay away from the drugs. I won't harass my girlfriend, even though I've done it 10 times over.” They'll promise the sun and the moon and the stars just to secure their release, but it's hollow. It's a hollow promise. I experienced that in the criminal justice field as well.

It was different in the Indigenous People's Court. I listened to him. I'm not going to mention the offender's name, out of respect. I said to him, “You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe you. You'll have to forgive me if I have my doubt.” I explained why I had my doubt, but I said, “You appear to be sincere, so I'm going to give you a challenge. You talked about upgrading your education. You talked about getting some counselling for your addictions.” I think he was addicted to crystal meth or something—a harder drug. I said to him, “You talked about securing a job. You talked about being a role model to your grandchildren. You recognize that to be a role model, you're going to have to have some stable housing.”

He made a commitment to that.

This particular case probably lasted the better part of two years. Ordinarily, someone accepting responsibility for something like that would have been in and out of the criminal justice system in two or three months and would have been serving a sentence in some institution long before this particular case ended.

He did everything he set out to do, and not only did he show me certificates of attendance, but he showed me certificates of putting a 110% effort into everything he said he was going to do. He came armed with character reference letters from the institution and the organizations he was involved in. He found himself a job. He was earning a regular paycheque. He had turned a significant page.

It came to the point, Mr. Chair, that I had to ask myself, “I have all this discretion. I've now seen an offender who was sincere in everything he said he wanted to do to change his life. Do I believe there is more than a reasonable prospect that I will never see him again in the criminal justice system?” I concluded that was the case. Through my discussion with my Crown manager and other colleagues, we were able to craft a sentence that still held the offender responsible but prevented the traditional brick and mortar institution.

To all the members of this committee who feel that Bill C-5, which we are currently debating, is the answer to all of these issues, I've given you an example of steps Crown prosecutors take daily, and they take the job very seriously. There are other ways to address the over-incarceration issue without compromising community safety. That was the example I wanted to share with you.

I've often asked myself when and where should I raise this issue, and I think, now that it's on my mind right now, I don't want to lose the train of thought.

We've heard numerous times in this committee, not only from witnesses but from committee members, the Attorney General, all other senior ministers, the back bench, the Greens, Ms. May and Mr. Morrice today that we should trust our judges, that judges know best and that judges need to have this discretion in their hands to do their job. I've been a proud member of the Ontario bar for 30-plus years, and when I say what I'm about to say, I mean absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary.

I appeared in front of many judges in my lifetime, Mr. Chair. They too, just like Crown attorneys, are not walking robots. They do not all think the same. They do not all pronounce judgements in much the same way. Hence, we have appellate courts, depending on the charge and depending on Crown election to proceed summarily. Sometimes the appellate route is to the Superior Court of Justice—the Court of Queen's Bench for my western colleagues—the various provincial courts of appeal or ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada.

Judges, folks, do not think the same. They do not apply the law equally in the same respect. There are judges who have acquired reputations—soft, hard and all in between.

I'll give you another example.

There was one particular judge in the lower court in Brantford—again, I'm not going to repeat her name, out of respect. I know you'd like me to, Gary, but I simply can't, out of respect.

It was extremely frustrating to Crown attorneys, very frustrating to us, because it appeared that—it was a female justice—she just had a different perception on criminal justice and always placed the principles of rehabilitation paramount. She would mention, “This is an offence that attracts”—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Before I was cut off, I think I was talking about the sad reality that many indigenous communities are under boil water advisories. It's disgusting how this Liberal government can claim to be an ally to our indigenous neighbours and have these individuals—hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands—suffering.

Do you think it would be different if in this precinct all of a sudden maybe we would have a chlorine issue with our drinking water, just like we had in Nunavut on a couple of occasions when some diesel fuel got into the water supply? You saw how quickly the government reacted. Do you think it would be any different in this precinct if we had a similar issue? Would immediate steps, regardless of the cost, be utilized and deployed to rectify the situation? It would happen in less than a week. We wouldn't have to wait for years.

That's the legacy of this government, and this is the message this government is sending to my indigenous friends and my indigenous neighbours across this country.

I've talked about water. We have housing issues. We have lack of education, a lack of nurturing, because, again, the whole concept of the trauma of the residential school system has prevented it and has robbed parents and grandparents of social abilities and social cues to raise their children, to guide their children to be law-abiding and respectful. It's no wonder that under all of those circumstances, Mr. Chair—again, to my earlier point—there is an overabundance of indigenous offenders who are engaging in very serious criminal activity. We heard not only from the chief of the Brantford city police at this committee, but also from the chief of the Six Nations police service. Both of them are indigenous, Mr. Chair, and both of them described an out-of-control situation on the Six Nations of the Grand River in terms of the lawlessness that exists.

Quite frankly, it got to the point a few years ago—and this was when I was a Crown attorney—that there were strong recommendations from the chief of police to our community in Brantford that it might not be a good idea to travel on the Six Nations of the Grand River during the day, because at that time there was an abundance of high-speed chases. The Six Nations of the Grand River at that point had a reputation of being the car theft capital of Canada. It was a very lucrative trade for a lot of the indigenous youth and the young indigenous males on the territory. It got to the point where they recommended that you not travel during the day.

When you have all of these factors, Mr. Chair, it's no wonder that we find ourselves in a situation of having far too many offenders of an indigenous nature in our prison system, as well as Blacks—Black Canadians. I've read numerous newspaper articles, have watched television programs and have read online articles on the ever-increasing role that gang activity has in large centres. The predominant racial makeup of most of these gangs unfortunately is Black Canadians, and they are actively recruiting Black youth, because there's very little opportunity in larger centres.

I know that during the last election, to a certain degree the government and even the Conservative Party talked about crime mitigation measures. We talked about ways that we can deter offenders away from the criminal justice system. The Conservative platform certainly referenced that. I know the government's platform referenced it in the election, and they talk about it in the House, but what are they doing about it besides talking and meeting and, using the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, convening?

It's time to put some action into your words. Instead of talking the talk, it's time to walk the walk. If they are that serious about the overall impact of criminal justice reform, we need take a look not only at the existing legislation but at the underlying causes. That aspect is not being addressed. I know that's not a component of Bill C-5, but we don't want Bill C-5 to just be a band-aid to the overall significant issue. We have to be mindful of that significant overall issue as parliamentarians.

The committee will probably be very grateful to know that I'm going to move on to a different area. I think I've expressed my thoughts with respect to the indigenous issues close to my riding. I want to do a deeper dive under section 244.

As a prosecutor—and I talked about this earlier—I've had at least a dozen cases dealing with section 244. All of them were essentially drive-by shootings or one gang shooting up another gang. One case in particular was outside a variety store, a variety store that I attended every single day as a Crown attorney going home for lunch and picking up a newspaper. Just before this particular crime that I'm about to share with this committee, I happened to be there three days before the offence occurred. My vehicle is known to Brantford city police. We have an understanding that we have to share our licence plate numbers with the local police so they are in a position to ensure they can watch us and give us some protection.

I've dealt with numerous cases, Mr. Chair, in which my life was threatened, my family's life was threatened. I had to get resources in to beef up the security on my house, changing the locks, putting in bulletproof glass and surveillance cameras. I've dealt with a whole litany of things. When someone will ask me, “Mr. Brock, give me a day in the life of you as a prosecutor”, I can say, “I don't know when I show up at the office if I'm prosecuting a shoplifting case or I'm getting ready for a homicide.” It was that myriad of cases that I was dealing with. Given the experience that I had, Mr. Chair, it was more often than not that I would be handed the homicide, I would be handed the gang-related activities, I would be handed the shootings, I would be handed the child exploitation cases.

Going back to the variety store issue, an officer saw me and said, “What are you doing, Brock? What are you doing at this particular store?” The store had a notorious reputation for criminal activity.

I fluffed it off. I said, “I'm just getting a newspaper. I'm not worried about it.”

Three days later, around the same time that I was there, there were two individuals who had a prior beef. It was two o'clock in the afternoon. The one who was inside the store picking up a pop or whatever came out, and immediately the offender was staring right at him, literally six feet away with a handgun. He pulled it out, and the victim pulled out another handgun. They both shot at each other. It was in broad daylight, 10 feet away from the front door of the very same variety store that I attended to pick up a newspaper.

Luckily, both were pretty good shooters, in the sense that they shot themselves and they didn't shoot any bystanders, but you can imagine the panic. You can imagine the fear and the confusion.

That's what section 244 talks about. This isn't the first-time offender. This isn't the first-time low-offence-related activity. Both of these individuals wanted to wound. Both of these individuals wanted to maim. Both of these individuals wanted to disfigure and endanger the life of the other.

Mr. Chair, the Greens feel that eliminating the mandatory minimum penalties will address the over-incarceration issue and promote some sense of responsibility in an offender. I don't know where the Greens are getting their talking points, but I can assure you that they need to spend a day in the life of a prosecutor who's on the street daily dealing with these serious crimes. They are completely out to lunch on their talking points. It's dangerous activity.

Not too long ago, members of this committee may have heard about the Just Desserts shooting in Toronto—or was it Scarborough? Gary would probably recognize that.

I'd like to spend time just informing the committee about the circumstances of the Just Desserts shooting, because this was a section 244 offence:

The Just Desserts shooting was a notable crime that occurred in Toronto on the evening of Tuesday, April 5, 1994. Just after 11:00 PM, a group of three men barged into the Just Desserts Café, a popular café on Davenport Road in Toronto's Yorkville neighbourhood.

It wasn't in Scarborough, Gary.

One of the men was armed with a shotgun. The armed robbers ordered the thirty staff and patrons to the back of the store and took their valuables.

One of the patrons that evening was 23-year-old hairdresser Georgina Leimonis...who was there with her boyfriend. A dispute broke out when two male patrons refused to hand over their wallets; they were punched by one of the robbers. Soon after, the man with the shotgun fired and hit [the victim] in the chest. The robbers fled the restaurant. [She] was rushed to hospital; after surgery she died at 2:45 on Wednesday morning.

A security camera in the restaurant filmed the entire scene, but its low quality and lack of audio made it difficult to make out events and hard to identify the murderers. The police began a search for four men, the three who had been involved in the robbery and another who had helped them case the restaurant earlier. The police were criticized when the descriptions released of the four men was that they were 6-foot-tall black men. Many felt that such a vague description would do nothing to help capture the perpetrators and would merely enhance stereotypes of black men being criminals.

A week after the shooting Lawrence Augustus Brown was identified as a suspect and he turned himself in to police. Another of the three, O'Neil Rohan Grant, was arrested soon after. That fall, Gary George Francis and Emile Mark Jones were arrested. Grant, Francis, and Jones were charged with manslaughter and robbery. Brown, who had fired the shotgun, was charged with first-degree murder. The charges against Jones, who was not involved in the robbery itself, were later dropped.

The already famous crime also became notable for being extensively mishandled. The move to trial was extremely slow, as the men sat in jail for years, being denied bail, but not being brought to trial. The case was marred by errors by police and prosecutors, but it was mainly lengthened by defence lawyers who were later accused of unprofessional conduct. While the new defence team argued the charges should be thrown out due to the long delay, this motion was rejected. By the time it came to trial, 40,000 pages of files related to the case had accumulated.

The trials finally got underway in May 1999, with Brown now acting as his own defence counsel. The trial itself became one of Canada's longest, with Brown extensively cross-examining each witness, often for up to two days.

Allegations of racism and discrimination—

Where have we heard that one before?

—were levelled from the very beginning. One of the lawyers—there were dozens hired, fired and removed—likened the preferred indictment to “the modern-day equivalent of a lynching.” Moreover, in a letter written in 1995 to Ian Scott, then chief counsel for special investigations at the Crown Law Office, lawyers for the accused alleged that “this case has drawn a tremendous amount of publicity...not because of the nature of the crime itself, but because the defendants are all black, Ms. Leimonis—

—the victim—

—is white and the incident occurred in an upper-middle-class restaurant frequented primarily by white people.”

What I didn't mention is that she was not the only victim in that restaurant, Mr. Chair. There were probably another dozen victims, if not two dozen, who had to experience this random shooting designed to wound, maim, disfigure and, in the particular case of this victim, end a life.

A scathing 60-page summary ruling on the case by Mr. Justice Brian Trafford puts the police and the justice system in an unenviable light. The selective use of leg irons, belly chains and handcuffs on the three suspects displayed “cultural insensitivity towards black people,” stated Judge Trafford. He also found that to this day Toronto police have “never comprehensively investigated allegations of abuse.” Activists, angry at the use of shackles, have brought up the spectre of the slave trade. They have pointed out that Paul Bernardo was never shackled in court.

Here is the verdict:

The case continued to attract widespread public interest. On the day after the trial closed on December 6, 1999, The Globe and Mail published an unprecedented six-page section devoted to the murder and trial. The verdict was finally released on December 11: Brown and Francis were found guilty, and Grant was acquitted. Brown was given a life sentence with no chance of parole for twenty-five years. Francis was given fifteen years, and seven were knocked off for the years in jail during the trial. He was thus eligible for parole only three years later, but his 2002 application was rejected. He was released on parole in 2005. On February 24, 2008, Francis was found in possession of 33 grams of crack cocaine and in May 2008 sentenced to 7½ months in jail for several drug related offences—

I will eventually be talking about the drug component to Bill C‑5, but certainly not in relation to this particular clause.

—Grant was deported from Canada to his native Jamaica where he was shot to death on October 29, 2007.

That's one example, Mr. Chair.

I have another. Does anyone remember the Boxing Day shooting in downtown Toronto, at Yonge Street and Dundas? It's one of the most heavily populated shopping areas in all of Canada. That was known as the Jane Creba case. That particular shooting:

was a Canadian gang-related shooting—

Again, it attracted section 244 considerations.

—which occurred on December 26, 2005, on Toronto's Yonge Street, resulting in the death of 15-year-old student Jane Creba.

She had the misfortune of taking her Christmas money that she got from her parents and relatives and travelling down the street because she wanted to go to the record store. Toronto actually had record stores on Yonge Street in 2005.

She never made it to the record store. She never used her Christmas money.

She wasn't the only victim, Mr. Chair. Six other bystanders—four men and two women—were wounded.

Again, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Morrice. I think he's a fine gentleman and a fine parliamentarian. I have a lot of respect for him. It's the position of his party that I'm criticizing, sir, not him.

With this particular incident and the amendment, really there is a disconnect as to what we're trying to do here. We're not trying to make it easier and softer for the types of individuals who decided on Boxing Day, in one of the busiest areas in the country, to wildly shoot.

Jane Creba, I might add, was not the intended victim. There was another gang-related person in her vicinity. Let's face it and let's be honest: Apart from the example I gave you of the two young men outside the variety store in Brantford who were good shooters, in the vast majority of gang-related activity and use of firearms, the firearms are mostly, if not all, illegal firearms. They're not the long rifles. You don't take a long firearm into a variety store and say, “Hey, I want to rob you.” You want to conceal that weapon. You can't conceal a long firearm.

In this case, my point is that these criminals are not equipped. They don't have the training. They are not expert marksmen or markspeople. They just shoot wildly, hoping that one bullet perhaps may hit the intended target. It didn't in this case. It killed 15-year-old Jane Creba. Six other bystanders—four men and two women—were wounded.

The story generated national news coverage in Canada and influenced the 2006 federal election campaign, which was then under way, on the issues of gun crime and street violence.

Police arrested two men on several gun charges at Castle Frank subway station within an hour after the shooting. Andre Thompson, 20, was on probation at the time, and Jorrell Simpson-Rowe was 17. Thompson had been released just before Christmas from Maplehurst prison near Milton, where he had served 30 days for his role in a convenience store robbery. He declined a bail hearing for his current charges. Police believe as many as 10 to 15 people were involved in the shooting and that more than one gun was fired.

Twenty Toronto police detectives were assigned to Project Green Apple to work on the case. It was named Project Green Apple because that was Jane's favourite food. On June 13, 2006, Toronto police conducted multiple raids at 14 locations throughout Toronto in the early morning, arresting six men and two teenagers. Charges laid against them included manslaughter, second degree murder and attempted murder relating to the six other bystanders. All those arrested were members of two different street gangs.

In October 2007, a young man who had been rounded up by the initial arrests, Eric Boateng, was shot dead in a seemingly unconnected incident. Boateng was not charged with the shooting, but had been later charged with cocaine trafficking.

It's too bad, I guess, that didn't happen in 2022, because he might receive a conditional sentence. Again, I'll speak to that aspect of Bill C-5 in due course.

As of December 2007, 10 people had been charged with murder or manslaughter in the case, three of whom were youths. Those charged with second degree murder included Tyshaun Barnett and Louis Woodcock, both 19; Jeremiah Valentine, 24; and Jorrell Simpson-Rowe, who was 17 at the time of the shootings.

One of the teenagers who was arrested in June and charged with manslaughter was exonerated on October 25, 2007, after the preliminary hearing. The teenager charged with murder was committed to trial. On December 7, 2008, Jorrell Simpson-Rowe—previously known as JSR, because the Youth Criminal Justice Act forbids disclosure of identities of minors—was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree. In April 2009, he was sentenced as an adult to life in prison with no chance of parole for seven years.

In November 2009, manslaughter charges against four individuals involved in the incident were dropped because the prosecutors felt there were no reasonable prospects for a conviction.

On that point, I really stress the whole concept of prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Chair, but in addition to that basic tenet, we are also bound by two rules. Every prosecutor who gets a case to prosecute has to ask himself or herself two questions.

Question number one is this: Is there a public interest in continuing the prosecution? That's generally a very low-threshold analysis, Mr. Chair. You just have to look at the size of the Criminal Code, which represents all of the laws in this country. When you take a look at the number of ways people can commit criminal offences, you can well imagine that there are extremely less serious charges all the way to the most serious of charges, which include murder. Quite often I had to exercise my discretion by questioning if there was a public interest in this prosecution and coming to the conclusion, Mr. Chair, that perhaps—capturing the language of the Liberal government—there are situations where good people make some pretty bad decisions on a particular bad day. Quite often, by reading the entire Crown brief, I was able to determine in the equation of spending all of this public resource money and time—my time and the judges' time and the police time to monitor and provide security and the time of clerks of the court and the other staff processing the paperwork—that there was not an interest in continuing that particular prosecution.

It didn't happen a lot, Mr. Chair. I can tell you I can probably count on both hands, over 18 years, the times I didn't answer that question in the affirmative, and again had the backing of Mr. Naqvi, as my ultimate boss at the time, as the attorney general, that I could justify the decision to pull that case, to withdraw that case from the criminal prosecution stream. That's the first question you ask yourself as a prosecutor.

The second question is really an important one, because you have to ask this question numerous times throughout the lifespan of a criminal charge.

As I've described to the committee, some cases can get wrapped up in very short order, perhaps two or three months. Others, with the advent of charter litigation—as you heard when I read out the story of the accused firing and rehiring and firing and rehiring defence counsel—can drag on for months, if not years, but through that entire process, at each pivotal point in that particular prosecution, we as prosecutors have to ask ourselves, “Is there a reasonable prospect of a conviction?”

I asked that question on the first day I get a Crown brief from the likes of my colleague Mr. Morrison, when he was actively engaged in law enforcement, to the time I receive further disclosure from Mr. Morrison and other like-minded law enforcement personnel. It's to the point where I'd now be engaging in discussions with defence counsel or perhaps engaging in thoughtful, productive discussions with my colleagues, because although we all have law degrees and we all have the same sort of legal training as far as working within the criminal justice field goes—particularly with the Attorney General, with numerous opportunities to engage in continuing legal education—some people retain more issues than others. On major cases, quite often I either would be paired up with another colleague or we would just share ideas. One might say, “I see this as a case with a reasonable prospect of a conviction.” A colleague may not see it that way.

Again, the Crown prosecution service is constantly evaluating, re-evaluating and welcoming and receiving further information from law enforcement and from defence counsel, who is often charged with the responsibility of putting the very best case forward for his or her client. Particularly within the context of an indigenous offender or a marginalized offender, it's to talk about the upbringing of that particular offender in the hopes that perhaps I can look at abandoning in its entirety that prosecution, which was a very bitter pill for me to digest and, quite frankly, was contrary to Ontario Crown policy, because our policy was very clear that if there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction, every firearm offence had to be prosecuted, and only and when if you ever got permission from your Crown manager could you deviate from that policy.

Mr. Chair, it did happen, and it happened to me on a couple of occasions with indigenous offenders. As I told you, Brantford has a Gladue court, the Indigenous People's Court, and I can remember the case very well. It involved an individual who had a significant criminal record, not only in Canada but also in the United States, and who had all of the Gladue factors that you can think of: unstable family, no employment, lack of education, food insecurity and ties to the residential school system. Every single marker was checked off.

He found himself, Mr. Chair, in possession of a loaded firearm. He didn't discharge it, but it was captured by the language in Bill C-5. It attracted a mandatory minimum penalty, but in that particular case, we engaged in a deep discussion, not only about the offence but also about the offender and how I think the indigenous peoples courts, Gladue courts, operate. We certainly don't have enough Gladue courts in this country. Quite frankly, I think the government should be looking at mandating them. I know they'll have to work with the provinces in terms of rolling that out with various ministries. There are advantages to these offenders, Mr. Chair, and Bill C-5 on its own only scratches the surface.

In this particular case, I heard his story. It was one of those opportunities that you really never get as a Crown prosecutor. In fact, I had prosecuted that same individual for a different offence probably two or three years prior to that. I didn't remember him; he certainly remembered me.

How the indigenous peoples court operated is that you wouldn't force the offender to be arraigned. Being arraigned means the charge is read out and they have to make an election of pleading guilty or not guilty. The presumption of anyone who entered into the indigenous peoples court was that there was a willingness and acceptance of responsibility. They had to ultimately plead guilty, but we would thoroughly examine the circumstances of the offence and the offender to determine the best sentencing outcome for that particular offender. In this case, he wasn't arraigned. We were all in a circle, because the whole concept of indigenous peoples court is to break down barriers.

We heard from witnesses in this committee that there is a lack of trust that indigenous peoples have with the criminal justice system. They have their great law. We have our Criminal Code. The two systems could not be more diametrically opposed to each other, but because they are, there is an inherent mistrust.

The two pioneers of the indigenous peoples court in the Brantford jurisdiction were Justice Colette Good, a former Crown attorney in Brantford, and another judge whose name escapes me right now. It'll come to me. They are also indigenous. The whole concept was born from an idea to deliver justice differently to our indigenous offenders.

The Brantford Indigenous People's Court, Mr. Chair, has been operating for over 10 years in the Brantford jurisdiction. We knew a decade ago, if not longer, that over-incarceration was an issue. The judiciary in Brantford took immediate steps to address that.

Part of the composition of the indigenous people's court is that the judges would not appear inside that courtroom with their gown. They would take the black gown off. They would take their red sash off. They would take their judicial tabs off and appear in business attire.

We're all familiar with the composition of a criminal court. You walk in and see rows of seats. You'll see what we call the legal bar. The bar separates lawyers and staff from the public. We have the bar, an opening, chairs for defence and Crown counsel, tables, the court clerk and the court reporter. Then we have an upper area known as the judicial dais. That's where our judges sit.

Gary knows that, because he's lawyer.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

That's right, because the prosecution has to establish that there was an intent to wound, maim or disfigure, or to endanger the life of or prevent the arrest of or detention of any person. The Attorney General, the leading legal authority in this country, offered Canadians a woefully inadequate description of what Bill C-5 is really trying to capture.

Would you agree?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Right.

Am I correct—because I don't have the actual bill in front of me—that Bill C-5 speaks to paragraph 244(2)(b), which reads, “in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.” That's what Bill C-5 is trying to eliminate. Is that correct?

[Matthew Taylor]

Yes. Of the four cases I referenced, three speak specifically to the MMP that would be repealed in Bill C-5. Two of those decisions, as I said earlier, predate both Nur and Lloyd from the Supreme Court. One follows Nur in 2015.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

The majority of the jurisprudence that you just referenced upholds the mandatory minimum penalties as they relate to the areas that Bill C-5, as drafted, does not capture. Is that correct?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

The Green amendment is designed to take the existing Bill C-5 as proposed by the government and essentially wipe out every single mandatory minimum under section 244.

Section 244, entitled “Discharging firearm with intent”, reads:

Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.

The “Punishment” section, which the Greens wish to annihilate, reads as follows:

Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Subsection 244(3) lists the provisions for subsequent offences. I'm not going to get into that discussion.

I'm looking at my Tremeear's Criminal Code. I do see a section regarding charter considerations. From what I can see here, by way of an annotation, there was a provincial Court of Appeal decision from New Brunswick, Regina v. Roberts, 1998. The minimum punishment provided for in that section does not offend charter section 12.

I will postpone my debate at this point, Mr. Chair, and I will turn to the Department of Justice witnesses.

Gentlemen, in addition to that particular case, are you aware of any decision, whether it be a lower court or an appellate decision, across this country that speaks to this particular offence?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We'll have a recorded vote on clause 9.

(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Next we have proposed clause 9.1.

On PV-5, I will rule that this is non-admissible due to the parent act.

I'll go one by one.

I'm going to rule PV-6 inadmissible for the same reason. None of the act that it's proposing to amend is being debated.

On PV-7, section 153 of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

On PV-8, section 155 of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

On PV-9, paragraphs 160(3)(a) and 160(3)(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is not admissible.

On PV-10, since subsections 163.1(2) to 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is not admissible.

On PV-11, since sections 170 and 171 of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

On PV-12, since paragraphs 171.1(2)(a) and 171.1(2)(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

On PV-13, since paragraphs 172.1(2)(a) and 172.1(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

On PV-14, since paragraphs 172.2(a) and 172.2(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

On PV-15, since paragraphs 173(2)(a) and 173(2)(b) of the Criminal Code are not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

On PV-16, since subsection 202(2) of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-5, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

(On clause 10)

Now we will move to Green Party amendment 17. Note again that if Green Party amendment 17 is adopted, Bloc amendment 1 and Conservative amendment 7 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

This is debate only, with no questions. I'm putting it out to my Liberal colleagues to really reflect upon the purpose of this particular section and the type of criminal it's capturing. It is not capturing the indigenous first-time offender or the racialized Black Canadian offender. It's not targeting the low-risk offender. These are offenders who are knowingly engaged in a commercial enterprise to import and export weapons within our borders and internationally.

Please reflect upon the countless stories we have shared as politicians over the last several months, what we are reading in the papers, what we are seeing on the television about the floodgates being open and about the importing and illegal gun smuggling that's happening at our porous borders.

To my colleague Rob Moore's point, now we have drones that are circumventing our lawful borders to ensure that the commercial exchange of weapons continues.

We have to draw a hard line in the sand as parliamentarians and look at the type of criminal we are trying to capture here. We need to send a denunciatory message to these seasoned criminals that if they continue to do this, they will expect to go to jail—no ifs, no ands, no buts about it. This isn't a situation where they need to get a break. They have chosen an illegal enterprise and a way of life that is so opposite to what your government has been preaching to Canadians with the introduction of BillC-5.

Please give that some consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We turn now to new clause 7.1, as proposed by the Green Party. It's Green Party amendment 3.

I'm deeming that inadmissible. I'll read it out this time, but on the other ones I'll just deem the ruling.

The amendment seeks to amend paragraph 102(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, which deals with the offence related to alteration of a firearm. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771 that “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.

Since paragraph 102(2)(a) of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-5, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

(On clause 8)

We have Green Party amendment 4. Again, if it's adopted, Conservative amendment 6 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.

Shall Green Party amendment 4 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now have Conservative amendment 6.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

In keeping with the spirit of the Conservative amendments that you've heard Mr. Moore speak about, we're looking at a compromise.

We are not supporting the elimination of that particular mandatory minimum as contemplated by Bill C-5, but we recognize, again, the spirit behind Bill C-5 in terms of the objective of providing some recourse to the courts and to Crown prosecutors to exercise that discretion where required, but we also want to send a message to the community that should you engage in activities such as in the section that contemplates criminal behaviour, you can expect not to be treated leniently. You'll be expected to serve a period of incarceration.

We are reflective of the overall objective, and we feel that six months, as opposed to one year, is an appropriate compromise.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

No one from the Green Party spoke to this.

We're dealing in Bill C-5 with amending a number of different provisions related to firearms and then provisions related to weapons. Sometimes people think of a firearm as a weapon, or a weapon as a firearm, and use the terms interchangeably, but in some cases the possession of a weapon does not include a firearm. In this case, I believe for this mandatory minimum penalty proposed by the Green Party, the removal would expand this to include a firearm when we're talking about weapons trafficking. In the legislation that's currently before us in Bill C-5, there are a number of very important measures that remove mandatory minimum penalties when it comes to firearms, but perhaps our witnesses could just speak to the distinction between weapons trafficking and firearms trafficking, which I think is important to this Green amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'd like to apologize from the bottom of my heart, Mr. Brock.

You're quite right that it didn't meet the definition of a filibuster, but it is a definite effort to slow down the review of this legislation. I had thought that since my first amendment came up under clause 6, it would be attended to relatively early in a two-hour committee hearing, and I'm not inexperienced.

You're quite right, Mr. Brock. It doesn't meet the definition of a filibuster, but since I've brought forward most of the amendments before the committee tonight, it does place me in something of a quandary, because I don't have the right to withdraw my amendments. They are deemed put forward by the committee. That is a committee motion that you yourselves adopted, unfortunately, and every committee has done so, right through the system of the Parliament of Canada, and it does mean that I must proceed to present each and every one of these unless we can find a solution.

I wanted to open with an offering that we know that a number of my amendments will be deemed to be inadmissible, and I would like to ask the committee.... From my point of view, there's no purpose in my speaking to inadmissible motions, so I don't intend to. I want to make that clear right now. We can skip over anything inadmissible.

Certainly the first amendment I have before us is admissible and does go to what we should be doing, which is, as in the Nur case, as Chief Justice McLachlin suggested, it would be better if Parliament got rid of all mandatory minimums and reviewed the use of mandatory minimums. She didn't go as far as to say to get rid of them, but to deal with them efficiently.... Bill C-5 removes some but not all, not even all of the mandatory minimums that have already been struck down by courts.

It certainly would be preferable to find a way.... As was noted by the court, it's better for Parliament to deal with this than to sit back and simply wait for the courts to handle them in a piecemeal way. The finding, of course—which I will quote from because I think it's central to this—is that after reviewing at least 50 years of research on mandatory minimums, as the Supreme Court of Canada did in Nur, they found, “Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes....”

If we turn to Statistics Canada, we can find that from 2003—which was the peak of any crime rate in Canada—and 2020, crime rates in Canada dropped by 30% and violent crimes dropped by 23%. The discussion that's happened today in committee would lead anyone to think that we had a terrible crime wave.

Any crime is unacceptable, any violent crime, and I wish we were doing more for victims. We do not have good legislation. We do not have a good framework. We do not have good supports for victims of crime, and we should, but in the context of mandatory minimums, all we are doing is removing the discretion that a judge would use on an individual case and potentially even giving a higher and more punishing sentence, if that's what you're looking for.

If we're looking for a criminal justice system that is affordable, one that's fair and effective and reduces crime rates, this isn't it, and that's why my first amendment calls for removing the provisions that impose mandatory minimums in cases where we have.... Basically, it's the provisions on trafficking in a firearm. Bill C-5 deals with only subsection 99(3), and my amendment would add subsections 99(2) and 99(3) so that we would be more efficient in improving our criminal justice system by removing more mandatory minimums.

With that, that's the longest submission I will make. I know that under the rules you've adopted, we're to make short submissions, but I wanted to take an overarching approach this time, because we do support Bill C-5. We just don't think it goes far enough.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start, with all due respect and affection, by correcting you. This wasn't a House order. This was a committee motion that is a subterfuge that the Green Party objects to and has objected to since it was first used to deny us the rights we would ordinarily have at report stage. As a result of the motion, in identical language, passed in every committee every time we have an election, we now have—without proper process to change the ways in which the House of Commons works to address legislation—a bad habit, which I'm sure will soon be referred to as some kind of law, that members of Parliament who are either independent or members of parties that do not have recognized party status are required, on a very short timeline, to turn around amendments and bring them to committees without the right to vote on them, without the right to speak much on them and without the right to move them. This is why they're deemed moved, which puts me in an awkward circumstance.

I can see what's happening in this committee. I support Bill C-5, but it doesn't go far enough. We've looked at the Supreme Court decisions. We've looked at many court of appeal decisions all across the country. We know a number of things. I'll go back to when Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill under Stephen Harper, went through Parliament. I was a member of Parliament. I fought very hard against it because there was absolutely no evidence that mandatory minimums worked to reduce crime rates. There was evidence to the contrary. The State of Texas was already removing its mandatory minimums, while our Parliament was charging ahead to bring them in.

Therefore, I support removing mandatory minimums. All of my amendments, and a few others that are to a slightly different point, seek to do more to remove mandatory minimums. They are expensive and inefficient. They pass the costs of incarceration onto provinces. There are many arguments as to why they don't make any sense. Of course, the arguments we've heard a few times mentioned today are that we see disproportionate incarceration of people of colour and of indigenous people at rates that are well known, so I won't repeat that evidence here.

I will just say that my first amendment, and I can deal with it but I want to also raise a larger point, Mr. Chair, which is that if I could, seeing the painful filibuster that we've seen in the last two and a half hours, I'd say let's just take all my amendments that are inadmissible—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Clause 5 deals with prohibiting the possession of a firearm, a prohibited or restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition “that the person knows was obtained by the commission” of an offence. This makes it very different from some other clauses that we have dealt with and that we will deal with in Bill C-5. This is not just the possession of a prohibited weapon. It's possession of a prohibited weapon that the person knows was obtained in the commission of an offence.

I think that is an important distinction to make. There is a mandatory minimum penalty currently of one year for offenders convicted on this offence when prosecuted by indictment. The same mandatory minimum does not apply if someone is not prosecuted by indictment but is prosecuted by a summary conviction.

I think a distinction has to be made here between this and other clauses, in that “the person knows was obtained by the commission” of an offence is a higher threshold to meet than just being in simple possession—we'll call it that, because that term gets tossed around a lot—of a prohibited or restricted weapon. In this case, the person knows that it was obtained by the commission of an offence.

Now, you may wonder, since I support our having a mandatory minimum penalty in this case.... It seems abundantly clear that there should be one. Our amendment would reduce the mandatory minimum from “one year” to “six months”. The reason I am proposing this is that, as we've seen as we've gone through this clause-by-clause, all the mandatory minimums that have been in the Criminal Code dealing with firearms offences that Bill C-5 has thus far dealt with have been eliminated. The Conservative amendment would maintain a six-month minimum for possession of a firearm while knowing its possession is unauthorized. I think that is a really important distinction to make.

That is my commentary, through you, Chair, to Gary. That's the commentary part. I do have a question, though. I'm going to make that distinction.

Through you, Chair, I'm wondering if our witnesses could comment on whether there is an awareness on that additional threshold, and on how prosecution and police go about meeting that threshold, when this goes beyond other sections in that, first, you have to prove the person was in possession, under the law, of the prohibited weapon, but, second, for a conviction under this section, you have to go further and prove that the person knows it was obtained in the commission of an offence.

Could either of our witnesses walk us through that process? Again, I'm trying to draw the distinction between this and the other section, where a person may have no idea that the weapon was in their possession as the result of an offence. This has another threshold to meet.

I'm just asking if they could speak to that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The fact that the Liberals are repealing mandatory jail time in respect to this particular Criminal Code section, which deals with mandatory jail time for not first-time offenders, as Mr. Moore, Mr. Brock and Mr. Morrison have pointed out, but persons who were convicted twice and subsequent times of a serious firearms offence, means that Bill C-5 is not as advertised.

The Liberals had advertised this bill as being about first-time offenders, people who make a mistake and might have been caught in the wrong set of circumstances. In those cases, rehabilitation and seeing that such persons are not incarcerated might be a better course, but, Mr. Chair, that isn't what this section deals with. This section deals with mandatory jail time for a serious offence of persons who were convicted more than once. It's not a case of a one-off. It's not a case of someone just making a mistake. It's not a case of someone who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a case that provides for mandatory jail time for recidivists.

It's interesting, on this theme of Bill C-5 not being as advertised, with the Liberals saying one thing and doing another, we have a government that likes to talk a lot about firearms. They obsess about firearms. There's good reason to be concerned about firearms being used out on the street by people involved in gangs and organized crime that have impacted and undermined the safety and security of our communities.

One would think that if one is concerned about public safety that one would go after folks who go out and commit serious firearms offences, who commit crimes with guns. The Liberals take exactly the opposite approach. Their approach is to go after law-abiding firearms owners while giving those who go out and commit crimes with guns a free pass. That's what this rollback, this repeal of this particular section of the Criminal Code with respect to the mandatory jail time provided for in it, would do. It would give criminals a free pass.

There is some level of consistency with the Liberals. In the last Parliament, my former colleague Bob Saroya introduced Bill C-238. Bill C-238 would have increased mandatory jail time for criminals convicted for being in known possession of smuggled firearms. We hear about the fact that most of the firearms that are used in the commission of firearms offences are smuggled, illegal firearms from the United States—around 80% or so. Bill C-238 would have demanded increased accountability, but the Liberals defeated Bob Saroya's legislation.

I think some are newer members, but others are not. One thing about Bob Saroya is that he always was a tireless advocate for his constituents. He represented a part of Toronto that had experienced serious issues with firearms-related crime. He put forward a common-sense bill to hold criminals accountable—criminals who are knowingly in possession of smuggled firearms—having regard for the fact that smuggled firearms are really the root of the problem when it comes to firearms crime.

What did the Liberals do? Being soft on crime, they voted against it. Now, consistent with that soft-on-crime approach, they want to eliminate mandatory jail time for those who are in knowing possession of an unauthorized firearm, for criminals who are convicted not on their a first offence but on their second and subsequent offence.

It underscores, Mr. Chair, just how misplaced the priorities of this Liberal government are and how their rhetoric doesn't align with their actions. They talk a good game and a lot of Canadians buy into it. When one actually looks at what they put forward in the way of legislation or how they respond to legislation introduced by then-Conservative member of Parliament Bob Saroya, it's very different from what you would think they would do based upon what they portray in public, on the campaign trail and in their talking points.

Mr. Chair, again, it's a case of a bill that is not as advertised. It's a further example of how misplaced the priorities of the Liberals are.

We as Conservatives believe that firearms aren't the issue, but those who go out and commit crimes with firearms are the issue. That was repeatedly emphasized at committee by law enforcement. Several witnesses were asked that question and in every instance they said that was the problem, but the Liberals want to go after the people who obey the law. They're not really interested in dealing with those who are recidivists, who commit offences and who intentionally and knowingly possess smuggled or unauthorized firearms.

Mr. Chair, I'm hopeful that the members opposite will spend some time and really reflect on what is happening. I would encourage them because I don't think we're going to get through the clauses in the 25 minutes that we have left today. I would really encourage the members opposite to spend some time going through the testimony of what some of our witnesses who came before the committee—from law enforcement and victims—had to say about the impact that firearms-related offences have. Then they could ask themselves how eliminating mandatory jail time for criminals who commit two, three or four offences helps and makes sense.

I would be very interested in hearing how they would say that does make sense and how it squares with their false advertising that this bill targets people who were caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time and who made a one-off mistake. This specific rollback mandatory jail sentence in terms of subsection 92(3) is not an example of that. It's quite the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

There is a section in my code—and I don't think Martin's has this so you may want to reconsider this, Gary—that's an offence table. Mr. Naqvi can appreciate this. Whenever you look at an obscure offence...and I'll be the first to admit there are a lot of firearm offences and they're nuanced. You have to be very careful with the language and in terms of how you screen a file to see what options you have available to you.

Under the offence table for this particular matter, it says that a first-time offender, for this particular section, is eligible for a conditional or an absolute discharge, the most lenient of sentencing options available to judges across this country. That way, if someone asks a person, “Do you have a criminal record?”, the person can respond lawfully, “No, I do not.” The only exception would be if a person were to ask or an employer were to ask, “Have you been convicted of a criminal offence?”, then the person would be lawfully required to say, “I have been discharged.”

That is available. Moving up the ladder of offences for a first-time offender is a suspended sentence, which is commonly known as probation. You mind your Ps and Qs, don't engage in any further criminal activity and, depending on the length of that suspended sentence, your sentence is complete. There's a fine. There's no minimum and no maximum fine. There's a fine and probation or the conditional sentence, which we know Bill C‑5 talks about.

Again to my point and to reiterate and highlight and support my colleague Mr. Moore, the section already achieves what Bill C‑5 is designed to do and, in particular, with respect to the emphasis and the talking points to try to reduce the overincarceration, there is a built-in safety mechanism already in place.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I will speak to that really quickly.

For this section of the code, what our amendment would do, again, is replace the one-year mandatory minimum with a six-month mandatory minimum.

Mr. Cooper reminded me of something that I think is important that I put on the record. In no way, shape or form would I want anyone to think that I think the mandatory minimum should be reduced in these serious firearms cases. What we're attempting to do is to salvage some form of statement from Parliament denouncing the very serious firearms offences we're talking about here.

These are current in the case of a first offence under Section 92(3):

Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;

(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and

(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.

I think we are talking here about some of the serious firearms offences that we're seeing in the headlines today. Just to be clear, we're talking about the commission of an offence with a firearm and these are some of the more serious offences. Not all of these are exactly the same. There's not just a series of mandatory minimums that this Bill C-5 eliminates. We have to put each and every one of them into context.

We have seen two clauses carry. I'm hopeful that on some of these clauses we might take a look at what the impact is, and we might give that some thought and say, “Do you know what? In this case, we should maintain a clause that perhaps has been in the Criminal Code for half a century.”

I'm going to ask a question of our witnesses to walk us through the process under this particular section, because I want to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that the minimum punishment in the present section is only triggered on a subsequent offence. The escalated minimum punishment, a term of imprisonment for two years less a day, is only triggered by a third offence.

We heard testimony from police, from community members and from victims' groups that their concern is not with the one-time offender, the person who innocently got caught up with a bad crowd and committed an offence. What we're talking about here is an individual who is deeply involved in serious crimes that, by definition, cause harm to their fellow Canadians.

It's bad enough to be charged and found guilty of one offence, but even at that threshold, it's not until you get to a second offence.... You have committed a crime under this section. Now you have gotten out. You have committed the same crime. You victimized another Canadian, and only now are we saying, “Okay, now you need to serve one year in prison.” It's one year in prison, and that's not after the first offence. That's after the second offence.

Now, picture that same individual. They have been found guilty twice of a serious firearms offence that involves the victimization of fellow Canadians in our communities, whether rural or urban. They were out again on the street, having been afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation and course correction. Now there's a subsequent third offence, for which they have been found guilty under our Criminal Code with the full benefit of our Charter of Rights and the full benefit of a fulsome defence under our charter. They've been found guilty a third time, and all we are saying as a Parliament is that for a serious firearms offence involving victimizing other Canadians, there should be a minimum of two years. Even that is being stripped from our Criminal Code by Bill C-5.

The reason I'm speaking about this, Mr. Chair, is that I think it's really important for committee members to think about it, because I know not all of us dwell on each of these clauses every day. We're all busy. We all have constituents. We have people who are calling in because the passport they went to get back in February still hasn't arrived. The point is that we're all busy people and we all have diverse challenges, and I think this is that moment—when we're at this table—when we draw our attention to the really profound impact that we have on Canadians' lives through the Criminal Code.

We heard witness testimony from victims. It was bothersome sometimes when some witnesses came and spoke for their introduction but they never mentioned victims. In virtually all of these cases, there's a victim involved. When we listen to the victims, of course.... I will not deny that when we listen to the criminal defence bar, they say, “Get rid of these mandatory minimums that are so troubling to my client. We don't want them.” However, when we listened to victims, they said it's an absolute affront to them that we would reduce the mandatory sentence that the person who victimized them would receive.

The question I have, through you, Chair, to our witnesses, is to distinguish subsection 92(3) from some of the others, so that the minimums we're dealing with here are not for first-time offenders, but for repeat offenders who, in some cases, are on their third offence.

The other thing I'll say.... I throw this out to committee members. I mentioned the case that we just heard about with NHL star Mitch Marner and the carjacking that happened. Do you know what? He's no more important than every other Canadian. The only reason we're talking about that is because we all know who he is. He's famous. What about the people who aren't Mitch Marner who had their car jacked from the same parking lot the week before? They're important too. They're Canadians too.

The point I'm going to make, and I'm guessing it's 100% true, is that if someone was convicted a first time, they committed an offence. They were caught by the police, had a trial, were found guilty and sentenced, and then there was a second time and a third time. If I asked every one of these committee members if they truly believe that those are the only three significant Criminal Code offences that this individual had committed, I don't think anyone would say they believe that.

These are the ones people are caught doing. It's one thing to get caught. It's another thing to get convicted under our system. They've been caught and convicted not once, not twice, but three times. Those are the minimums we're talking about.

Through you, Chair, to our witness, could you walk us through this clause and its application a bit? What are the triggers at each stage and the consequence of those triggers?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just quickly on this, in the context of the debate on Bill C-5 and Bill C-22 before it, this is not to be partisan in any way, but to illustrate that the idea of the concept of Parliament sending a clear message to Canadians, to victims, to criminals and, yes, to the judges presiding over sentencing, is not a Conservative notion in some way exclusively.

Before we take what I think is a drastic step and possibly eliminate a mandatory prison sentence for some of these section 85 offences on using a firearm in the commission of an offence, I want to quickly note that the minimum was first introduced as far back as 1976. In 1976 and forward since then, some of these have been on the books. That doesn't mean we can never make changes—I get that—but some of these sections have lived on through Liberal governments, Conservative governments and so on, all of them agreeing to keep these provisions in place, and all the while, these provisions, although challenged, many of them were upheld.

I think it's important to contextualize that, because if you listen to the debate, you would think that all of these mandatory minimums—I'm kind of lumping a bunch of them together here—somehow came from the previous Conservative government when, in fact, I've taken the time to look at all of the mandatory minimums being eliminated, and virtually all of them pre-existed the previous Conservative government.

In fact, on the mandatory minimums that we brought in under the Safe Streets and Communities Act or previous legislation, the current government has chosen to keep those on the books, to not eliminate them.

It's important, before we make a change like this, to recognize that some of these have been on the books for the better part of 50 years. It's not something that just is a recent invention but something that we should really consider really very weightily as we deliberate on each of these clauses and on removing what could amount to the only barrier between someone who has committed a serious offence and their being right back out on the street.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wish to speak in support of this amendment. I have to say that if it were a choice between maintaining the status quo or going where the Liberals and NDP want to go, which is to eliminate mandatory jail time for some pretty serious offences, including the very serious offence of using a firearm in the commission of an offence, I would prefer the status quo.

That is where I hope we arrive at, but looking at the submissions that were made by certain individuals who came before the committee, by the Liberals and the NDP, and hearing some of the comments made by my colleagues throughout the rather limited number of meetings that we have had, I'm not optimistic that we're going to go there.

Instead, it seems that, blinded by ideology, the Liberals and the NDP want to move full steam ahead and simply eliminate these mandatory jail times, despite some very compelling testimony from witnesses, witnesses who were victims of offences, including firearms offences, and from law enforcement.

So much testimony came before the committee calling on the members of this committee to put a pause on rolling back mandatory jail time for, specifically, firearms offences that I think it would be helpful to remind committee members of some of that testimony. There's a lot. It's tough to know, frankly, where to even begin.

For example, André Gélinas is a retired detective from the intelligence division of the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. He said this in general about Bill C-5: “There will be no deterrence.” He said, “The message this sends to the police who confront these criminals”—the criminals he's speaking of are criminals who go out and commit offences with firearms—“will only fuel discouragement and disengagement from these police officers.”

Mr. Gélinas also said:

This does not bode well for our collective security. As a society, we are facing an abdication and a retreat that is certainly not a solution to the overrepresentation of the communities [supposedly] targeted by this bill.

He said, “People who live in neighbourhoods where gangs and organized groups are very active feel totally abandoned by Bill C‑5.” He also stated:

Just imagine how you would feel if you were the victim of an assault with a firearm.... I don't think you would feel any safer in your community knowing that this person would not be subject[ed] to...minimum...sanctions.

That was Mr. Gélinas, who has very extensive experience in law enforcement on the front lines, dealing with perpetrators who go out, who commit serious crimes with firearms, who undermine public safety and who terrorize communities and leave victims in their wake. He certainly said, as a starting point, don't go where you want to go, where the Liberals and NDP want to go. I agree with him.

Anie Samson is a municipal elected official and represents an ethnically and culturally diverse area in Montreal that has been hit hard by firearms crimes perpetrated by criminals who use illegal firearms. She said before our committee that, “[These] weapons have destroyed families, friendships and lives.” She also said, “The message being sent at present is that because certain mandatory minimum sentences have been abolished, a criminal can commit a crime and get a reduced sentence, while the victim may be traumatized for the rest of their life.”

Stéphane Wall, another retired police officer, again from the city of Montreal, said—again, generally about Bill C-5 as it pertains to firearms offences—that Bill C-5 would “trivialize” the possession of arms for further use in criminal activities. It would give the “wrong message” to these criminals. She said, she didn't think this would coincide with the reality as we find it in the streets.

Members of street gangs already feel completely immune prepassage. They are going to be supported in a number of crimes. They are already laughing at the justice system. They just mock it

Then there is Sergeant Michael Rowe, who came before the committee representing the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I saw the Minister of Public Safety earlier today, or perhaps it was yesterday, citing the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in answer to a question in question period. Sergeant Rowe said:

For police officers, victims of crime, members of the public and even the offenders themselves, the circumstances that result in a criminal charge for most firearms offences often result in a real threat to public safety, exposure to stress and trauma that has a lasting impact on mental health and the erosion of public safety.

In that regard he spoke and raised serious concerns about mandatory jail sentences being rolled back by Bill C-5.

As Mr. Brock noted, when we're talking about individuals who are charged under this particular section, we're not talking about folks who are going to walk away with a conditional sentence. We're talking about folks who are going to be spending some time behind bars in most cases.

Having regard for the evidence that came before our committee about the prevalence of illegal firearms and the fact that crimes are being committed by people who are often involved in gangs and organized crime.... Having regard for the fact that these witnesses told us that, as it currently stands, there is a need to provide for denunciation, and having regard for the impact that these types of offences have on victims and on the collective sense of security in communities, particularly communities that have a wide array of social issues, this is not where I'd like to go, but again, it is a matter of saying there should be at least some maintenance, some assurance that if someone goes out and commits the crime using a firearm in the commission of an offence, there ought to be, at the very least, a mandatory jail time, at least some preservation of that, and that's what this amendment does.

On that basis, given where this committee appears to be going, I think it's.... I hate to use the word “compromise”, but that's essentially what it is, to maintain at least some level of accountability in place.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I want to start off by highlighting the talking points that the government repeatedly used when this bill was introduced at first reading and at second reading, what we've heard from the government committee members in their questioning of witnesses and, in particular, how the Attorney General, the highest legal officer in this country, has said that the whole purpose behind Bill C‑5 is to make a significant step to once and for all address the overincarceration of indigenous offenders and other marginalized individuals in the country.

My colleague Mr. Naqvi, in his previous capacity as the Attorney General of Ontario, was my boss, and certainly in his tenure would give us instructions from time to time to be ever-cognizant of that particular fact and to look at ways in which prosecutors in Ontario—I can speak only for Ontario—would be afforded the additional tools to exercise the appropriate discretion. As Crown attorneys, we are vested with an enormous amount of power when we receive a case. When we receive a case, there's a Crown brief. There's an indication of what the accused's name is and what the offence is and perhaps a summary of the salient facts, but apart from a particular Crown attorney such as me being familiar with a surname that could be the same as that of an indigenous offender in my community or unless someone has experience as a prosecutor and knows repeat offenders, they may not know whether or not that particular accused falls within the class of individuals who this bill is designed to assist.

We take a position. We take a screening position as to what we believe the offence is worth, but through the process of the prosecution for an offence such as a section 85 offence.... For the non-lawyers on this committee, section 85 offences are most often committed in an armed robbery scenario. They are extremely violent offences that impact community safety. They're quite often committed as a result of an addiction someone has as a quick scheme to acquire money to feed that addiction, quite often targeting convenience stores and vulnerable members of our community. We take a very stern approach that this cries out for a significant denunciatory sentence. However, the process could take upwards of a few years to resolve. Quite often individuals charged with this offence will acquire defence counsel, and defence counsel will bring to the attention of me or other Crown attorneys some of the other factors that we should be considering when we exercise our discretion.

This is a long, roundabout way of my saying to this committee that something no one has spoken about in the House, and something I have tried unsuccessfully many times to bring up, is that it completely ignores the discretion that Crowns in Ontario—and, I would like to think, across this country—have reflected and are doing in their work to ensure that we are addressing the overincarceration issue. When you're dealing with an offence like the ones in subsection 85(3), the serious nature of which I have highlighted—and this is to Mr. Garrison's point—with all due respect to Mr. Garrison, I completely disagree with his interjection, because a message must be sent to like-minded offenders. The sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code mandate principles that a judge must consider.

This is over and above factoring in the indigenous background or taking a look at the court of appeal decision in Morris, when you take at look at the impact of being a Black Canadian in an urban centre and whether or not that can be taken into consideration by a judge.

The fact of the matter is that there is much jurisprudence, and I'm sure my colleagues at the DOJ will back me up when I say that the predominant sentencing principles for this type of offence is denunciation, general and specific deterrence and, most importantly, separation from society. These are individuals who will not be getting a conditional sentence. These are individuals who, regardless of an indigenous or a Black background, will end up in jail. In my view, this sets the appropriate bar, sending out a message to like-minded individuals that should you engage in this activity, you're not going to “pass Go”, to use the Monopoly metaphor. You are going to jail, no ifs, ands or buts. However, with Crown discretion, there are ways of adapting and taking a look at the overincarceration issue.

The last thing I want to highlight—and my DOJ colleagues can confirm this—is that this particular offence has been charter-proofed by the Ontario Court of Appeal 2013 decision of Meszaros, post-Nur, and the Al-Isawi decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2017. Both cases stood for the proposition that this particular section and the mandatory minimum penalties did not infringe upon section 12 of the charter.

Thank you, Chair.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have to say, Mr. Moore, by your own logic, this would make the Conservatives soft on crime, because you have always argued that the mandatory minimums do something to affect crime.

What we heard repeatedly from witnesses, and what we know from all of the peer-reviewed literature in criminology, is that mandatory minimums do nothing but increase jail time. They do not have a deterrent effect. They do not, by increasing jail time, make people less likely to offend. In fact, if anything, the literature shows that it makes people more likely to reoffend.

I think you're right in identifying that everybody around the table is interested in keeping the community safer and preventing more victims in our society. What we disagree on is whether mandatory minimums [Technical difficulty—Editor].

In this case, I'm of course going to vote against your amendment, because it restores a mandatory minimum that Bill C-5 would [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Recognizing that it seems to be the will of this committee, I don't want to be presumptuous, but based on the last vote it would appear that the mandatory minimums that are in place are at risk of being struck down, which, in my view, puts our communities at risk, particularly when there is a recidivist element and repeat offenders who are committing the same crimes and the same types of crimes over and over.

What our CPC-1 would do, in an effort to compromise, is reduce the mandatory minimum penalty from one year to six months. For virtually all of the minimums we deal with in Bill C-5 and Bill C-22, which came before it, I think the lowest minimum is one year. I don't think there were any that were below one year. Some of them were more than a year, but the majority of them were a year.

What this would do is acknowledge what appears to certainly be the will of this committee to deal with mandatory minimums but also acknowledge the cry from the public right now that there be real consequences for serious crime. This amendment would be an effort to extend the olive branch and say, if one year is too much, then six months would take someone off the streets, hopefully get them some of the help they need and also show that there is a level of confidence in our justice system that if you commit some of the serious firearms offences and other offences contained in Bill C-5, we as a Parliament say that if you commit an offence like that, there needs to be some period of incarceration.

This amendment would lower the mandatory minimum penalty from one year to six months for using a firearm in the commission of an offence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 18 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I'd like to welcome our two witnesses today. We have Matthew Taylor, general counsel and director, criminal law policy section, and we have Andrew Di Manno, counsel, criminal law policy section. They are both here to answer any questions any of the members have as we do clause-by-clause.

I'd like to start with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-5. I would like to provide the members with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with this.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to a debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order by which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Are there any questions? Are we all good to start?

We're fine. Okay, I will begin.

(On clause 1)

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, but the Liberals refuse to do even the bare minimum to support them. The government has abandoned its responsibility to victims of crime, but it remains a champion to its friends, the criminals. The Liberals' Bill C-5 would mean lighter sentences for violent gun crimes and that offenders charged with human trafficking and sexual assault would be able to serve their time from the comfort of their own homes.

Why will the Liberals not provide the same sense of security to victims and survivors of crime?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is deliberately conflating two different matters. We are talking about Bill C‑5, which would change the law so that the offences of using a firearm during a robbery, discharging a firearm with intent or being in possession of an unlawful firearm will no longer carry a minimum sentence.

Street gangs are making fools of us all. This is sheer hypocrisy. Can the minister talk about Bill C‑5 and stop talking about the other gun problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more and more shootings by street gangs. There were three in Laval last week.

The Quebec association of police chiefs does not support Bill C‑5, and for good reasons. In addition, the Montreal police service reports that there has been an incident involving a firearm every two days since the beginning of 2022.

Does this mean that the Prime Minister follows expert advice only when it suits him?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell that to Laval's chief of police, who stated, “The people who are willing to commit such offences are hardened criminals. It is fine to be an idealist, but they will not stop when they get out of jail.”

Here is what one person had to say. “We can no longer go out. My wife is very nervous and she is afraid.”

Another stated, “My daughter was lucky, but in broad daylight with children.... There could be a stray bullet the next time”.

Here is another fact. With Bill C-5, the Liberals want to leave these criminals on the streets with the support of the Liberal MPs from the Montreal area.

Why is the Prime Minister defending criminals and not victims?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is currently in power.

There were three shootings in Laval last week. A man was killed in broad daylight in Montreal. Laval police say that today's criminals are impulsive and disorderly.

What is the Liberal government doing? It is proposing to eliminate minimum mandatory sentences for firearms possession offences with Bill C-5. Essentially, the Liberal approach consists of letting armed criminals continue to walk the streets.

Can someone explain to the Prime Minister that his approach is irresponsible and that it will only make things more dangerous than they were before?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's approach to justice reform has been an abject failure. It prioritized the wants of offenders over the needs of victims. There has been a consistent increase in the amount and severity of crime since the government took office, especially in Liberal ridings.

Bill C-5 continues to gut our justice system by removing minimum penalties for criminals who commit serious gun crimes. When will the Prime Minister finally admit his plan is not working, change course and stand up for victims instead of criminals?

Bill C-5

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night, Toronto Maple Leafs star Mitch Marner became the latest victim of violent crime in the GTA. According to reports, Marner was the victim of a carjacking near Queensway and Islington in Etobicoke. At almost the exact location, just two days ago, a woman was a victim of an attempted carjacking, so we know this is not an isolated incident.

Instead of preventing these violent attacks and cracking down on thugs and gangs, the Liberals' soft-on-crime Bill C-5 rewards violent perpetrators and reduces the penalties for these very types of crimes. It is time for the Liberal members in the GTA to speak out against the dangers of their kid glove approach. We should remember that the bill they support eliminates mandatory jail time for major violent and firearms offences. They should be behind bars.

Maybe Mitch Marner will get their attention and convince them to stand up for victims instead of criminals.

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

Great. Thank you for that.

The third component of Bill C-5 is the expansion of conditional sentencing for very serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson for a fraudulent purpose. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that, as a police chief.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses.

I'm going to address my questions to Mr. Brochet.

Bill C-5, in addition to eliminating mandatory jail time for very serious firearms offences, also eliminates mandatory jail time for serious drug offences, including trafficking and the production of schedule I and schedule II drugs, like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. As a chief of police, does this concern you?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Just so you know, some of Bill C-5, which we're discussing right now, is looking at conditional sentences for many more offences: drug trafficking, assaults with weapons, and things like that.

I realize that Cranbrook needs some assistance, especially with rehab and the addiction issue.

Do you think the victims have been left behind, and that it's all about the offenders?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses on a Friday afternoon. I appreciate their input, especially on such an important bill, Bill C-5.

Ms. Durham, thank you for being here today. I know it's hard for an individual to come before a parliamentary committee and make a speech. I really appreciate your being here today.

What's important, I think, for us in the committee, is understanding the differences between rural and urban. When people haven't been exposed to some of the rural challenges, it's nice to hear from those who come from a smaller community, such as Cranbrook. I'm well aware of the issues Cranbrook is having: challenges with assaults, vandalism, break and enters, and arson. It almost seems as though it's a bit of a revolving door, with the local police having their hands tied in terms of being able to do any kind of incarceration. The same individuals are continually committing the same offences.

Two and a half years ago, Cranbrook was a community where people moved to raise their children, because it was safe, fun and, of course, in the middle of the Rocky Mountains, so it's a pretty beautiful place. Today, it's changed dramatically. The crime increase has been huge. The opioid crisis, like everywhere—a lot of places in Canada—is spinning out of control. Of course, the opioid overdoses are frequent, if not every day.

I do know, too—you might not be aware—that the city mayor and council brought in British Columbia's attorney general to address the fact that small communities are not designed to handle some of the issues that come along with the opioid crisis and violence, with their smaller police forces. I'm sure our Quebec police officer can attest to this. They just can't handle the challenges in smaller communities. The attorney general, of course, said it was a federal problem with Bill C-75, which is catch-and-release, and threw it back to the federal side.

You're not only an individual victim but also a business owner. Talking to a couple of businesses.... One problem is, when they get repetitive break and enters, the amount of damage done is so much that, now, where they used to donate $50,000, $60,000 or $80,000 to non-profit organizations, all that money is going into repairs and in trying to build back their losses.

I wonder if you could comment on that for a second.

[Catherine Latimer]

Thank you very much.

I was talking about the benefits of conditional sentencing and how the two-year limit that is proposed in Bill C-5 seems unduly restrictive.

The other thing I would suggest is that, if we're going to determine whether or not conditional sentences are having the effect of reducing racial inequalities in the system, it's also important that we collect and keep data on the use of these conditional sentences.

Mandatory minimum penalties are of grave concern to the John Howard Society of Canada. We're long-standing advocates opposed to mandatory minimum penalties, which we consider to be always unjust when the proportionate and fit sentence in the circumstances is less than the prescribed minimum penalty.

Certainly there is nothing in a reduction or an elimination of mandatory minimums that would preclude the courts from awarding the penalty that is appropriate and fit in the circumstances if it's more than the mandatory minimum, so eliminating mandatory minimums doesn't affect serious offences.

If there is a reluctance to remove all mandatory minimums immediately—and I take Mr. Brochet's point that his organization is comfortable with having what Jonathan Rudin described as a safety valve—we have long urged that there be some discretion added to give judges the opportunity to impose other than a prescribed mandatory minimum penalty if it's needed to achieve a fit and proportionate sentence. We would agree with l'Association des directeurs de police du Québec and others who you've heard who would urge that there be judicial discretion to allow for something other than the proposed mandatory minimum penalty.

We think that, without a measure of judicial discretion to impose a fit sentence where a mandatory minimum is prescribed, the Gladue provisions and some of the other mechanisms that are intended to allow for a cultural context to have an impact on the sentence will have little effect.

Minister Lametti indicates that he hopes these provisions will address and reduce systemic bias in the system. We hope he's right. We think that it is one small step toward looking at a very significant problem, and we think a lot more needs to be done.

In conclusion, the John Howard Society of Canada supports the general direction of Bill C-5 but urges the committee to amend the bill to provide judicial discretion to impose other than the mandatory penalty to achieve a fit and proportionate sentence, require the collection of data to assess whether the provisions are having the desired affect of reducing racial inequities, and consider a broader application of the diversion and conditional sentencing provisions.

Thank you very much, Chair.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you very much, Chair and committee members. It's a great pleasure to be here before you to share The John Howard Society's views on Bill C-5.

For those of you who don't know about The John Howard Society, we are a not-for-profit that is committed to just, effective and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. We have about 60 offices across the country serving communities.

We fully support the policy objectives underpinning Bill C-5, but we feel that they have not gone far enough. I just want to take you through some of the ones that we specifically would like to raise.

One is the cautions, warnings and referrals to programs. It is often the case that it is more timely and more effective to deal with alleged criminal offences through cautions, warnings and referrals to community programs. It's not unusual for people to call the police when they see someone struggling with a mental health issue or an addiction issue in the hopes that by calling the police, they will enable the person to get the help they need.

In effect, that leads to the criminalization of the person and further involvement in the criminal justice system. It allows for the long-term discrimination of having a criminal record. These proposed amendments will allow for individuals with substance abuse issues to be referred to community programs where real assistance might be available.

These measures entrust the police with important discretion. As the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act show, they will lead to fewer people coming into the criminal justice system for less serious charges. To ensure that they are achieving the policy objectives of reducing racial inequalities in the use of such discretion, we think it would be important to track which races and genders are benefiting from this important discretion.

The next one that we like is conditional sentencing. We agree with Jonathan Rudin from the previous panel that this is essentially beginning to restore in some small measure what was there before and which had been proven to work very well. Conditional sentences are custodial sentences that are being served in the community. Unlike breaches of non-custodial sentences, a breach of these conditions leads to imprisonment. A warrant of committal to custody is underpinning the sentence, so if someone breaches the condition they can immediately be placed in custody. We feel that this is an excellent way to hold people accountable through the imposition of conditions that constrain liberties while promoting law-abiding circumstances such as the retention of employment, housing and community-based supports.

The two-year sentence limit for conditional sentences proposed by Bill C-5 seems unduly restrictive. Many people are supervised in the community successfully for more than two years while on parole. It seems to me that this certainly could be extended.

The restriction will also mean that the reform will have no impact on the federal prison population. To determine whether this most welcome reform has the impact of reducing racial inequalities, data would need to be collected on which rates—

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to sound like a broken record, but this is on the same subject. This section of Bill C-13 reminds me of the government's Bill C-5, where it used a declaration of principles rather than doing the heavy lifting of amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This talks about setting objectives, targets and indicators. There is no catch-up target and no clearly stated objective. Francophone communities outside of Quebec have been let down for a couple of decades.

Would my hon. colleague not agree with me that having some specificity in this bill would give those communities some certainty and hold the minister to account, rather than giving a wide swath of interpretation as the bill is currently written?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm glad that Mr. Chambers is here to keep some of us in line. They're giving themselves until June 10.

Why? It's because as independent and regionally or conservatively minded senators, they have decided among themselves that the best way for them to balance between presenting legislation promised by an elected government to properly scrutinizing bills.... I'd be really interested to see how many ministers and how many hours ministers are required for in the other place versus the simple one hour that we got here.

By the way, I do think we can improve that process. If a minister is going to come for one hour, we should only be giving them a five-minute introduction, because that really did cut down the amount of time the rest of us had to really do what our focus is, which is holding the government to account.

I know you'll take that, Mr. Chair, and you and the clerk will try to work on that, or at least I'm hoping.

I'm looking to see, Mr. Chair, that you're listening. Okay, there's a dutiful nod. Anyway, I'll take what I can get. Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me that nod so I know that I'm not just speaking into the ether.

I've talked a little bit so far about previous experiences, whether it be the miscellaneous tax amendment bill of close to 700 or maybe 800 pages that in the 41st Parliament the NDP wanted to look through, even though most of those laws had already been through the ways and means motion process or acted like it was....

I've talked a little bit about Bill C-12 and how that really strained what was really a well-functioning committee, and the absolute gong show that happened. Again, if you listened to Michael Geist interview the former heritage chair, Liberal member Scott Simms, you'd know that the process did not do anyone right.

I would like us to avoid those issues, Mr. Chair. I would like us to actually see better communication and for the government to start saying, maybe we have to make the committee process work for everyone and not just simply for a few members here and there. They should actually say, perhaps...and if they don't want to agree with me, then they can maybe agree with Mr. Chambers. I can understand not wanting to say that they agree with the member of Parliament for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola because that might be publicly frowned upon, but at least I would hope they would say that they would agree with MP Chambers.

Again, I have talked about how this process could be improved. I've been speaking with some of my Conservative colleagues. We're not at a stage where we can talk about that because right now we're discussing a subamendment to MP Ste-Marie's amendment, but I just have to say again that the process the government is pursuing here is not the right way to do it.

I would hope that the government is getting the drift of where Conservatives are coming from. I think that a reasonable timeline would allow us to get back on track. Unfortunately, the unreasonable timeline that we have, the programming in the original motion and the subamendment that we have here have created a sense of bad faith among members of the committee.

What we've seen with the passage of just the short time between our Monday meeting and today is that this schedule, again, which looked ambitious then, right now is just looking like Bill C-10 or Bill C-12 from the last Parliament waiting to happen.

We pitched over 46 witnesses, from right across this great country, and we want to hear from them. That's where I think the government members need to just simply back off of the process we have ahead, table the motion, get committee witnesses in and let's go through them all. They can always come back with a motion.

We actually have some ideas about a much more reasonable timeline, but unfortunately at this stage of debate we can't do that.

Let's be mindful that we didn't really have to put out a call for witnesses. They were coming to us. I'm sure that MP Ste-Marie's phone is going off the hook with people wanting to speak with him and wanting to come here. In fact, I saw that the clerk had sent out, to all committee members, other witnesses who have suggested that they want to appear before the committee outside of the usual process of speaking to individual members. Why? It is because they want to be heard by this government.

I'm not going to claim that all of our witnesses are the right ones. There might be others who other members might have heard from who right now we can't hear from because this government has chosen to start with a programming motion rather than letting a process evolve.

There is always a time, Mr. Chair, when either the compromises that MP Dzerowicz spoke of need to come together or there needs to be a democratic vote, but we are not at that time right now.

I would also say that one thing that is missing from Mr. Beech's subamendment is any reference to our being able to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer in addition to hearing from the Minister of Industry or having the Minister of Finance come back. I know the PBO pays particularly close attention to the tax-related measures and financial figures put out by the government. I think that would be a much better improvement to the subamendment that MP Beech has put out here.

Again, I should disassociate that. It's not fair to MP Beech to always make this program motion his, because really at the end of the day he's a parliamentary secretary, and this was written by someone else. At least I hope he would clarify if I'm mistaken on that point, Mr. Chair.

I say that because the Minister of Finance is a busy minister. In fact I think she's too busy.

I'm just going to talk quickly about this, because I think that is the direct reason she's not here in the subamendment by MP Beech. I think she'd be cross with him if she were in here, but I think it's worth pointing out that the job of being finance minister is busy enough as it is. A deputy prime minister, Mr. Chair, I can only imagine is so much more, and again it's not up to the Deputy Prime Minister in her function as that, or as the Minister of Finance, to decide what her job is. That is the Prime Minister's job.

The Prime Minister by putting those two roles together, despite the talents of any individual, Mr. Chair.... I think this is a point that needs to made: She doesn't have the time. She doesn't have the time to stay more than an hour at this committee. She doesn't have the time to answer conclusively questions by members. In fact, again, the process of giving her 10 minutes.... Look, I'd love to give every minister 20 minutes if we had three hours. To me that would be fair, but, again, for a minister to have only 50 minutes spread among all these members here, I just don't think that is a very good process.

I do think that the Prime Minister should be looking into that, because if the Prime Minister wants to have a finance minister who is on top of her file, who is able to come and spend the time with the finance committee to defend her bill, to be able to spend the time, it obviously is not here.

From what I've heard from member of Parliament Mr. Ste-Marie, the luxury tax is not properly designed. We have heard that there wasn't even an economic impact study. There were no jobs and whatnot, and that may reflect that the Department of Finance is not getting enough attention. I do know from speaking to people who worked with former finance minister Jim Flaherty, who is no longer with us, that when you had someone who was completely concentrating on that file, they would ask every question of every proposal that came forward.

Then they would have to bear the scrutiny of members of Parliament whether in the minority years or later in the Harper majority from 2011 to 2015. Not having a finance minister who is also the deputy prime minister would probably also improve this process. Again, this particular motion doesn't include having her come back. I would simply suggest that is something we should all consider. I'm not satisfied with the amount of time that's there.

I saw that president for the wine growers was here on Monday. I'm sure he wanted to give an earful because, when I asked the Minister of Finance about some of the provisions in regard to this government's treatment of their industry, I was deeply disappointed that they were just surface answers when there are so many issues going on here.

To members of the government, if this is a serious discussion we're having and you're truly saying that politics should be about compromise, I do hope that right now you're taking the time to text, to message or to email one another. Again, you don't have to say that you agree with Dan Albas, but you could certainly say that you agree with MP Chambers that we could make a much better process.

I know they've already done that for MP Ste-Marie because he put forward the amendment that they said they, in essence, support.

Time is incredibly important in this place. We have until June 23 where we could actually be discussing legislation. The government has a lot of time, especially now with motion 11 that was passed with the NDP, which gives them the opportunity to extend midnight sittings. Those sittings certainly can have more debate. I'm really upset that I wasn't able to speak to C-19 in the House. I think there are a lot of provisions in here that Canadians largely need to know about.

That's not your fault, Mr. Chair, because a lot of people, believe it or not, don't actually watch the committee work. In fact, I get more responses from people on speeches in the House of Commons because they watch CPAC. They see the chamber functioning, but they don't always get a chance to see us here at committee.

This is really the only place I'm going to get a chance to talk about C-19. I can't talk about C-19 until we have a process that will work for this committee. I will not allow this committee.... At least, I will do my utmost to make sure that this committee fully understands that if we go along with this programming motion—even if it's slightly improved by MP Ste-Marie—to where suddenly we have “recommendations in relation to the provisions considered by them, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday May 20, 2022”, those other committees won't have a chance. That is literally eight days from now and we're still talking about this because that's an unreasonable time frame.

The parliamentary secretary, even though he didn't write this motion that someone in the minister's office.... Maybe it was the minister, but probably it wasn't. Why? You're right, Mr. Chair. She's too busy with too many things. For us to be considering these, I have to say that I don't believe the government has given this committee adequate time. It's certainly not giving other committees adequate time when it comes to consideration of C-19.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair?

If a standing committee listed in (a) chooses not to consider the subject matter of the provisions, it advise the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance by letter, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 13, 2022.

May 13 seems to me a bit of a problem. Why? May 13 is tomorrow. If a committee chooses to say that it's too busy, it's supposed to let you know in formal writing that it is not possible. They won't even have the opportunity to do that, so either we're forcing them to do that or we're forcing them to not respond.

To me, Mr. Chair, as I said, it's time, time, time. This government is too short with the time of others, and rather than letting the parliamentary calendar settle this, and to have all reasonable parties come together by the 23rd, they are pushing not just this committee into a terrible process but other committees into a worse one.

On my point on that, Mr. Chair, if they can't write to you under this motion by tomorrow, what then? Are they obliged to now study it? Are we going to have, because of the M-11 motion, extended sittings where some committees are being cancelled? How are they supposed to get the resources? Is the government going to give us more translators, along with Mr. Beech's motion, or I should say the Minister of Finance's office's motion...?

These are things that they are not commenting on. Again, if they don't reply to you in writing by tomorrow, then they're obliged. When do they call their meetings? Are they supposed to attach committee business? I guess there are just so many unanswered questions here that, obviously, it comes back to my original premise that this is not really a good-faith process. Do you know what? We can simply sit back and be told by a government, by its parliamentary secretary on committee, what we're going to do and what other committees are going to do. It's just not healthy.

It's not what the Liberals promised in 2015. They promised many things. Omnibus legislation, that was out. It didn't happen. Parliamentary secretaries would be non-voting members. That's out. They've always said that the committees are independent. That's out.

I say there needs to be a few things in. One of them is that you have to get Conservatives in a process that we feel is fair. It doesn't mean that we agree with everything in that process, but that we believe the process is fair.

The second thing is that we want to see those witnesses. We want to have them here. We want to ask them questions. We want to see the PBO. We want to see the Minister of Industry. We want to see the Minister of Finance come back and actually show some ministerial accountability for what was, I think.... This is how bad inflation is now. I thought at the start of this it was a 423-page bill. Actually, it's 468. That's the inflation under this government.

I kid, but I would much rather that we be studying that bill and having the Minister of Finance come for a second hour, or having her come here and talk for three hours as was set out by the previous motion on the inflation study. I even think that my colleague, MP Stewart, put forward a very good motion on studying advance pricing arrangements. The decisions made by CRA that have been in the news of late.... We haven't even been able to get to that, because this government is again putting forward a programming motion that has been amended by a Bloc member, or at least may be amended by a Bloc member. That is now being further amended, because the government ultimately wants to control the process. The process itself is not connected to a proper process, the proper scrutiny of it.

I have sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—one of the best committees we have, very important. I would hate to put that committee in a position where they do not have proper process. Because for goodness' sake, if we can't have that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that they can look over some of the issues that are in this bill....

The judges' quadrennial pay review is in this bill. There are Criminal Code amendments, ones even relating to the moon and extending Canada's Criminal Code jurisdiction outside of its waters. In fact, I hear there is water on the moon, so maybe we can argue that there is Canadian water on the moon somehow. I don't know how that will work. I don't think we can apply maritime law to that.

Pardon me, Mr. Chair. I have to read that into the record, because one of our members said specifically that he should be asking former astronaut Marc Garneau, our former transport minister. Do you know what? I wish this government consulted a bit more widely with members of Parliament, even its former ministers. Bring him as a witness, someone says.

That's the thing. There could be other witnesses who have similar experiences. We can ask MPs to come. We can't summon them. It would be quite a meeting to hear about that at the justice and human rights committee.

Again, whether they can schedule all of the hearings to talk about many of these matters.... They can't. I don't think it's feasible. I don't think it's reasonable. I don't think it's possible at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, because what are they studying? They're studying Bill C-5, which is making major changes to our Criminal Code.

The government is essentially saying, yes, we will send these things, but they won't be able to do clause-by-clause and we won't give them any time, and then somehow.... I don't understand how the government thought it would be. Again, I don't blame MP Beech, because I don't think he wrote this, unless he wants to make that point clearer, but May 13 is not doable.

That is a big issue. Other committees will have other things that they are studying. Given that M-11 and the late-night sittings won't allow for many of these committees to happen, they can't possibly meet, or if they do, they can't do clause-by-clause. I guess they could do what the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands has to do and come here as an independent member and table those amendments that way, but they are going to have get started very quickly. Right now, many of them, like the justice committee, are studying Bill C-5.

I don't understand why the government is so firm on these timelines. Why not let us start having witnesses? Do you know what? We have lots of time between June 23 and today. With the right spirit, the spirit that this member here—MP Chambers, an eternal optimist—has had, maybe we can reward some of those people who believe that reasonable minds can set aside some divisions and that we can start moving forward.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair? After this particular subamendment is debated by other members, perhaps we can have a vote and it will get defeated. We will then have another motion come forward that is more in line with what MP Chambers was discussing in his intervention. I hope so, because the world needs optimism. We have so many things that are not going well.

I know that the government wants what it wants, but it should also want to have members of Parliament feel that they are doing their jobs. The government should try to empower MPs, because that is what many members of Parliament came here to do. They came here to get a sense that they could ask questions, they could move amendments and they could have a process where they feel that they are part of something. I'm sorry to say that the programming motion and the subsequent subamendment by MP Beech, which may not be from MP Beech himself, doesn't allow for that. It doesn't make us feel like we are in and part of that process.

Again, there are so many things we could be doing here. I would like for us to again be bringing in the CRA commissioner. I would like for us to be talking about competition when it comes to open banking. I would like for us to be talking about.... MP Dzerowicz has talked a bit about the effects that getting rid of trade barriers would have, but, no, we're stuck here because MP Beech and the person who wrote this felt this was the best thing to come forward right now.

To try to somehow jerry-rig a committee, as dignified as the finance committee, is not in the best interests of this committee, and I will not be going forward with my support.

I've mentioned a few things that might have my support. I really do hope that other members have listened to my intervention and that perhaps they are moved. Perhaps they are moved and will move at the appropriate time an amendment. Maybe we could just say, “No, cancel it. This is over. We're not doing this motion.” Maybe MP Beech, himself, realizes now that having a program motion that literally says, “No later than 4 p.m. on Friday, May 13”...I don't even know.

Mr. Chair, can I ask you, through the clerk, how fast could you get a letter out if you needed to? Do you have these letters already prepared? Do you have the letters ready?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Bill C-5 as drafted doesn't require keeping any records on the exercise of that discretion. I wonder whether you would be concerned about that, in the sense of how we would know who is benefiting from the discretion if the police aren't required to keep those records.

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

In other words, abolishing all minimum sentences, as proposed in Bill C-5, could send the wrong message to victims. We have to be careful about that.

Witnesses we have heard from here have given us examples of cases where, in a perfect world, the individual should not have been imprisoned and should have rather received a conditional sentence. So exceptional circumstances could lead to departures from the rule.

Otherwise, generally speaking, abolishing mandatory minimum sentences would send the wrong message right now. That is my understanding.

Do you agree?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Yuen.

You said that judges could improve the administration of the justice system by abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences, as provided for in Bill C-5.

Do you think judges could impose more appropriate sentences based on the sociocultural context?

[Justin W. Yuen, Criminal Defence Lawyer, Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers]

Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you to the standing committee for the invitation to present today. I'm a member of the advocacy and policy committee of the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers and I'm also a criminal defence lawyer.

Largely speaking, FACL is supportive of Bill C-5 and the removal of mandatory minimum sentences.

Repealing mandatory minimums will not make our communities more dangerous. It does not mean that the courts will be light on violence and dangerous offenders. Removing mandatory minimums will allow justice system participants to achieve reasonable and fair dispositions in an efficient manner. Regardless of whether mandatory minimums exist, sentencing precedents provide a tariff in which courts are guided towards sentences that previous offenders received under similar circumstances.

A criminal charge captures a snippet of an individual's life. The trial itself then scrutinizes and dissects that moment. The crime is often a culmination of inescapable social circumstances and desperation. When it comes to sentencing, we must recognize that the offenders are more than their criminal charge. Along with addressing the harms done to the community, sentencing principles must focus on the individual's circumstances, how and why they turned to a life of crime, what steps they have taken since being arrested, whether they can rehabilitate and whether they can become productive and pro-social members of the community.

I want to focus my time on how the removal of mandatory minimums can streamline matters through the system and how judges will be allowed to ensure proportionality between the sentence and the harm done.

I was counsel on a matter where my 18-year-old client was charged with robbery with a restricted firearm. He was arrested with the gun less than five minutes after he committed the robbery. My client was young. He did not have a criminal record. During his time released on bail, he had taken meaningful steps to find employment and became involved with his local community. He never breached his bail.

Knowing that his charge had a five-year mandatory minimum, there was no real benefit in entering an early plea. The matter eventually made its way into the superior court and a four-week judge and jury trial was scheduled. It became apparent that my client had great rehabilitative prospects, and that a sentence shorter than five years would be appropriate. Eventually my client pled guilty to a lesser, related firearm charge so as to avoid the five-year mandatory minimum.

That disposition required substantial creativity from me, the Crown and the judge to find a way around the mandatory minimum, and doing so required additional resources to fight the charges, which drained valuable public resources. Without mandatory minimums, certain matters can be resolved in a timely manner. That prevents the court having to block off lengthy trials and prelims. Ultimately, it can alleviate the pressures that the courts are facing, especially during the current COVID-19 backlog.

I'll turn to my second point regarding immigration. Serious criminality can result in mandatory deportation. A sentence over six months is considered serious criminality. For the benefit of the court's information, oftentimes an accused person will actually end up spending a longer period of time in custody than is actually ever formally recorded. For example, if all parties agree that a nine-month sentence is appropriate and the individual has already spent four months in custody, often the judges will be explicitly asked not to note down the pre-sentence custody and simply sentence the individual to a further five months, and in doing so keeping the formal sentence noted on the information under six months. Mandatory minimums prevent any such discussions.

Courts are asked to consider immigration consequences when determining a fit sentence. Asians will often fall under a wide range of status in Canada, from being a visitor to holding either a work or student visa to being a permanent resident. Being charged with a criminal offence can greatly affect their immigration status. Mandatory minimums increase resistance in both the criminal courts and the immigration system. Clients have to fight both.

An informed member of the community would want judges to be able to have fair and open-minded discussions to consider the greater impact on the individual, their immigration status in Canada, and how deportation can then affect the lived realities of any of the dependents who they possibly care for.

Bill C-5 is not about being soft on crime. Those deserving of a long jail sentence will continue to get serious custodial time.

In addition to addressing the over-incarceration of people of colour and aboriginal offenders, Bill C-5 is about giving judges the discretion to ensure that justice is served in a proportionate manner.

Thank you, everybody, for your time.

[Leo Russomanno, Senior Defence Counsel, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Hi, everyone. It's nice to be back here before the committee on behalf of the CLA. I also have some experience appearing before this committee when a lot of the mandatory minimum sentences in a previous government were introduced, as well as restrictions to the conditional sentence regime.

I've been a criminal defence lawyer in Ottawa, eastern Ontario and Quebec for the last 14 years. I have seen the impact, as a trial lawyer, of mandatory minimum sentences on a practical as well as on a human level; the limits to conditional sentences; and, broadly speaking, the disastrous effects of the war on drugs, which is one of the greatest policy failures of our time.

I have three broad points to make on behalf of the CLA about Bill C-5. I understand that Minister Lametti presented this bill as three broad areas of reform—number one, dealing with mandatory minimum sentences; number two, dealing with conditional sentences; and number three, dealing with prosecution for simple possession. CLA is broadly supportive of the first two measures, because in fact what they do is they restore judicial discretion in sentencing on an individual level.

On a fundamental level, we have faith in the justice system to get it right. We have faith in the process. We have faith in judges to be able to hear the evidence as part of the adversarial system where the Crown marshals its best arguments and evidence and the defence does the same. The judge decides. The judge gives reasons. That judge is held responsible or accountable for their reasons through the appeal process. Mandatory minimum sentences, as well as conditional sentences, limit this and create one size fits all, which often creates injustice and has broad negative impacts.

So in terms of the first two areas of reform, we're broadly supportive of this, because it restores judicial discretion and would call for the repeal of other mandatory minimum sentences. It's important to note that just because a mandatory minimum sentence isn't available, it does not mean that a person is going to automatically be sentenced to no jail. A primary example of this can be seen in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Nur, in which a mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a firearm in certain instances was struck down. It did not create this crisis in which all of a sudden people convicted of these offences were not getting jail sentences.

The second point I want to make is that as someone who is spending a lot of time in trial court, I can tell you that mandatory minimum sentences, as well as limits on conditional sentences, create delays in the justice system. They create delays because it makes people less likely to want to accept responsibility for what they have done and more likely to go to trial and consume valuable trial or court resources—and time, which is currently at a premium in our criminal justice system. We suffer from very significant delays in our criminal justice system. It impacts everyone, including victims of crime. Not having a conditional sentence available will often tip the scale in terms of whether a person decides to plead not guilty and have a trial, because they're going to lose their job if they're sentenced to jail.

It's important to note that the Crown and defence don't have to agree on whether or not a sentence of jail can be imposed. If a conditional sentence is available, an accused person can take a shot at it in terms of having their counsel argue as to why a conditional sentence should be imposed in this particular case. Part of what the court has to consider is whether or not a person is worthy of a less than two-year sentence—if it's two years or more, it's simply unavailable—and also whether or not if released on a conditional sentence they would be a risk to public safety.

Would they be able to follow those conditions? Can those conditions be enforced? If it can't be shown that they can, then a person will not receive a conditional sentence, but at least through the adversarial system an accused person can try to persuade the sentencing judge to give them a conditional sentence. That will lead to the resolution of more cases.

The last point with respect to simple possession is simply that the bill offers a great deal of discretion to police officers. It is my view that racialized and indigenous groups will not be benefiting from this, because they're already over-policed. This is not going to solve some of the problems that are seen in the war on drugs and with the over-incarceration of those groups.

I look forward to speaking to the members individually.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for appearing as we continue to talk about Bill C-5.

Today in Parliament, we have Science Meets Parliament day, and I have guests with me who are listening to these proceedings this afternoon. Much of what we've heard about this act goes to spot facts, evidence, science and reports.

I have a question with my less than three minutes for Mr. Merraro.

The Gladue reports and the impact of race and cultural assessments, according to facts and what we have seen in many provinces and jurisdictions, help judges to understand the role of systemic racism and bringing someone before the courts. However, mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment impose a one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing that prevents them from using that information to craft a fit sentence.

Can you tell us why judicial discretion, in your opinion, based on your 25 years of experience working with young people, is important in ensuring that people receive appropriate sentences that take into account all of their circumstances?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I will address this to Chief Montour. You raised so many great points. Thank you for using the word “victims” in your testimony, because oftentimes we do not hear about victims, and I'm afraid they're the forgotten group when we're dealing with Bill C-5.

You mentioned the problem with drugs and overdoses. There's a misconception with this bill that it somehow deals with the simple possession of drugs when, in fact, it eliminates mandatory prison time for drug dealers. The mandatory sentence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that targets drug dealers who are charged with, for example, trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing and exporting for the purposes of exporting, and production of a schedule 1 or 2 substance—that's heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth.... Mandatory prison time would be eliminated for all of those things.

Chief, could you speak to what impact you think that would have on communities, on offenders and even on morale within the police, who are trying to help make our streets safer?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chief.

I'll move on to Penny McVicar.

Penny, the Victim Services of Brant provides accessible, confidential, client-centred support for victims of crime. As the executive director, can you provide this committee with your opinion of Bill C-5 and the impacts on victims and survivors of crime, particularly in the context of domestic violence, bearing in mind now that the offence of sexual assault will offer the benefit of a conditional sentence, if Bill C-5 passes?

You have 30 seconds.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for your attendance today.

I'm going to start with Chief Montour.

Chief, it's good to see you again. Thank you for participating.

Chief, you touched upon an important point in your summary. You talked about the differences between repeat offenders and first-time offenders.

This particular bill, Bill C-5, makes no distinction between them. It offers the same benefits to first-time offenders as to repeat offenders by eliminating the mandatory minimum penalties for those significant firearm offences, the significant drug offences, and opening up the possibility for further consideration for conditional sentences.

I would like to know from your perspective how this is going to impact policing on the territory and community safety if the current version of Bill C-5 passes without amendment.

[Chief Darren Montour, Chief of Police, Six Nations Police Service]

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I come from an indigenous police service. Here at the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory, we have seen a drastic increase in violent crimes over the past few years mainly due to the infestation of illicit drugs within the community. Outsiders are supplying the drugs. As a result, community members become addicts, resulting in an increase in violent crimes. We have also lost numerous community members to fentanyl overdoses in the last few years.

In my 30 years as a police officer on Six Nations, this violence has become unprecedented. Many community members have died due to the opioid crisis that the entire country is facing. Homicides have become increasingly frequent. The root cause of all this is drug addiction, which results in people committing other residual crimes, such as break-ins, theft, auto theft, etc., to feed that addiction.

In my experience, sentences imposed by the courts have shown no deterrent effect against this criminal activity. We have charged the same people for the same drug trafficking offences several times over, and they still continue to traffic in this community. Rarely is there a custodial sentence for controlled drugs and substances trafficking. In conjunction with the drug charges, traffickers arm themselves with various types of weapons, including firearms that are both prohibited and restricted. None of the traffickers has the proper licence to even possess these firearms. There needs to be a deterrent to persons committing acts of violence when armed with firearms. Regardless of race or ethnicity, there needs to be a deterrent in place for offenders to realize that the violence in our community and against others needs to stop before any further loss of life.

Our Haudenosaunee way of life here at Six Nations is suffering. The recent mental health review of the Ontario indigenous police services contains a comparison of crime severity between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. The crime severity index for the Six Nations of the Grand River in 2020 was 217.62 compared with Brantford at 112.95; Hamilton at 93.53; and Toronto at 90.41. The current murder rate per capita in Ontario is 1.59 per 100,000 of population. The rate here at Six Nations is 7.79.

The proposed conditional sentences for violent offences will not deter offenders from committing further crimes. We are not in a position to continuously monitor sentenced offenders to ensure their compliance with the conditional sentence restrictions handed down by the courts. Police services across the country, and especially those within indigenous communities, are significantly understaffed. We are continuously asked to do more with less, and we cannot sustain this workload. We are currently faced with officers being off for mental health and mental well-being. This will worsen as time goes on.

The Gladue case law for sentencing purposes also has a great influence on whether or not an offender receives a custodial sentence. I can appreciate the statistics regarding the overrepresentation of indigenous offenders in our jails, but along with the rights of offenders, victims and victims' families deserve rights as well. Gladue has a place in sentencing of certain individuals, but those repeat offenders know the difference between right and wrong, and the sentencing principles under Gladue are exploited to the benefit of these offenders.

In my experience growing up and working here on Six Nations, indigenous communities everywhere, as well as here, face the same issues. Intergenerational trauma from the residential school system still plagues our communities. There is a lack of social programs, a lack of infrastructure that non-indigenous communities take for granted—including, for example, clean drinking water and housing—and the list goes on. It is more than just improved law enforcement that is needed to better the lives of all indigenous people in this country.

Among indigenous people there is a inherited historical lack of trust in the justice system and other federal statutes, such as the Indian Act. Colonization has imposed this and other cultural values, such as religion and policies, on indigenous peoples who do not favour them. For some indigenous nations their way of life is no more. For far too long our people have suffered under the effects of colonization. We deserve to feel safe and, more importantly, our children deserve to grow up in a community free from violence. I implore you to consider the well-being not only of the people of Six Nations, but also of all indigenous communities on Turtle Island, when making your decision on proposed Bill C-5.

I'd like to thank this committee for their time today. I look forward to your final decision on this important matter.

Thank you.

[Marlon Merraro, Executive Director, Peacebuilders Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and distinguished guests who are also presenting here today.

I would like to start off by saying that the integrity of the justice system depends on equitable social conditions in which we all live. I'm here today to express the Peacebuilders' support for and provide some advice on Bill C-5 and to draw attention to the substantial strides this bill makes in remedying Canada's response to significant social health issues impacting marginalized communities.

For over 17 years, Peacebuilders relied on restorative justice practices to encourage the reintegration of the community with those involved in the justice system. A restorative justice model addresses the individual and collective experiences of systemic marginalization as it relates to exposure to violence, mental illness, mental health, systemic discrimination, poverty and unequal access. Our programs directly respond to the disproportionate number of Black and racialized individuals involved in the justice system.

While we understand the causes of over-incarceration are complex and multi-faceted, we know that sentencing and charging processes play an important role in mitigating the cycle of oppression and connecting individuals to necessary supports and services. Indeed, Peacebuilders believes that Canada's justice system requires sentencing and charging structures that adequately address and respond to the needs of Black justice-involved individuals. We see Bill C-5 as a means of promoting fairer and more just outcomes for Black and marginalized Canadians, while continuing to protect public safety by amending sentencing laws to increase alternatives to incarceration.

By no means does this legislation address the historical issues impacting Black and indigenous folks who are overrepresented in the justice system. It is a step in the right direction. When we look at the wide range of mandatory minimum penalties that have been added to Canadian laws in recent years, it's no secret that many politicians may feel more comfortable with the idea of eliminating some types of mandatory minimum penalties than they do eliminating others. Discrimination, the undermining of public safety and violations of constitutional rights are problems associated with all mandatory minimum penalties, not only the 13 of the 72 offences carrying mandatory minimum penalties dealt with in Bill C-5 and the seven additional offences partly dealt with by the bill.

As countless previous reports and Black and indigenous leaders have urged across this country, we think that the proposed amendments would move beyond a piecemeal approach and address all mandatory minimum penalties. We believe that you will be making the right decisions by addressing the historical needs of various communities, especially those who are Black and indigenous and who are overrepresented in the justice system.

Peacebuilders believe that Bill C-5 will address and respond to some of the needs in a more fulsome way, while also promoting public safety and improving confidence in the justice system. We hope to see an increased use of accountability measures that are better suited to addressing the underlying reasons for criminality and that best prevent recidivism. Evidently the public will benefit greatly from Bill C-5 as a tool to respond in enhancing public safety, support the administration of justice, and save funds for other critical resources.

It is through our collective frontline experience, research and community partnership that Peacebuilders can confidently endorse and encourage that more work be done with regards to amendments to Bill C-5, as in committee forums, necessary to begin transforming Canada's justice system. Consequently, we're calling on the Government of Canada to enact and make changes to Bill C-5 in recognition of the need for the justice system to do better for Black and indigenous folks who have been over-represented in our communities. This is about providing other opportunities, such as diversion programs and alternatives to sentencing, and ensuring that we have safer communities for those who are in need of supports that are culturally relevant to integrate back into their communities and have the opportunity and support to better themselves and members of their families.

It is in the best interests of communities that Bill C-5 works to provide judges and other justice officials with the means to be able to support both the community's safety and those who are in need of support to address the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous folks across this country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 16 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today's meeting will be taking place in hybrid format pursuant the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available by the House of Commons website.

I'd like to say, in the interests of time, that since we had votes and started late, I will condense the first round of questions to five minutes from six minutes, the second round to four minutes and the third round to two minutes—if we reach the third round. I'll try to make sure we reach it, so we'll do them for about 45 minutes each.

For our guests, to let you know, I will give you a 30-second card when your time is at about 30 seconds left, and then I'll give you an “out of time” card. Today, I'll have to be particularly precise on timing, due to the time constraints.

I'll begin with opening statements. We have three panellists for the first hour, or 45 minutes. From Peacebuilders Canada, we have Marlon Merraro, executive director; from Six Nations Police Service, Darren Montour, chief of police; and from Victim Services of Brant, Penny McVicar, executive director.

It's over to you, Mr. Marlon Merraro, for five minutes.

Bill C-5

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Cranbrook is family friendly, but that reputation is under threat because of Bill C-75's existing offender release legislation. Bill C-5, now being studied at the justice committee, would remove mandatory minimum penalties and introduce new catch-and-release conditional sentencing orders. This would make the existing situation worse. In fact, the Attorney General of B.C. has acknowledged the problem and pointed a finger right at the federal government's legislation.

As we work to address the opioid crisis, Canadians should not be left to accept criminal behaviour, vandalism or violence in our communities. Residents have had enough. Individuals are being threatened with machetes. Businesses are being broken into, and students are being intimidated at work. How many other small communities across Canada have the same situation?

As we consider Bill C-5, we must pursue legislation that serves to make our communities safer. This will only be realized when the government stops aiding offenders and begins to prioritize victims.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the president of the National Police Federation told the justice committee that the Liberal government's effort to get rid of mandatory jail time for serious crimes related to weapons trafficking and firearms offences is “inconsistent with the expressed intent of the government to reduce firearms violence in Canada.” In no uncertain terms, the Liberals' Bill C-5 would make Canadian communities less safe.

We are all familiar with the long trail of broken promises left by the Liberal government over the past seven years, but it seems particularly offensive to tell Canadians that the government will crack down on gun crime while writing a bill that does exactly the opposite. Regardless of whether people live in an urban centre or in a rural community, they deserve to feel safe.

I invite the Minister of Justice to take the bill back to the drawing board and to shift his focus from protecting criminals to protecting Canadians.

[Rachel Huggins]

With regard to Bill C-5 and the drug piece, it's very much reflective, so that the aggravating factors that are associated to the mandatory minimum penalties actually align with the CACP's perspective, in that it allows both the police and the courts to focus on the more serious factors when it comes to trafficking, importing, exporting and production. The way the aggravating factors line up, and looking at things like when there is violence or the use of weapons or the fact of its production when there is a child involved, those are the kinds of aspects that make the current state, that modernized approach, of the bill much more effective.

Mandatory minimums are there, but they are being used in a very specific way, and so we really do support the way it is currently, right now, with those aggravating factors versus just having no mandatory minimums. We think the way it is articulated actually matches with the need to allow both the courts and police to divert individuals into pathways of care.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm going to go to Ms. Huggins and talk a little bit about what she was speaking of in terms of diversion. I believe it was in CACP's July 2020 statement addressing the opioid crisis that the organization called for alternatives to criminal sanctions for simple possession of illicit drugs and the adoption of a more health-based diversionary approach.

In your view, does Bill C-5 answer that call? Will it help address the opioid crisis that Canada is going through?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

There's maybe one other thing too. I know from your policing experience and your representing of a large group of diverse police officers that lots of times, and even on this BIll C-5, we seem to focus a little bit on offenders when, in fact, really our priority and our focus, especially as representatives for Canadians, whether in my riding or across Canada, should be on victims.

I know that you, as a former police officer, always see the aftermath because you're dealing with the victim first and, of course, your job is to investigate and charge if charges are possible and arrest someone. From the people you have spoken to, if you have talked to them about Bill C-5 or about removing mandatory minimum penalties, if you've talked to the victims, have they given you any opinion on where they stand?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

I do have one question, I think for Mr. Sauvé, who represents 20,000 police across Canada, many in rural and really remote areas, which are, in some cases, are understaffed.

One of the clauses in the expansion of conditional sentences is that someone could get a conditional sentence order if they assaulted a police officer and caused bodily harm or used a weapon. I'm just wondering how it would resonate throughout the Royal Canadian Mounted Police across Canada if in fact Bill C-5 approved that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Chief Davis and the National Police Federation for bringing the resource question to the table. It's simply not enough to pass law. We have to make sure programs are properly resourced.

I want to start with a question for Mr. Rowe from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It's about the idea of a safety valve for mandatory minimums—something I personally favour. It's difficult for me to see how that could be added into Bill C-5.

Have you had any discussions, either among yourselves or with the government, about how we might get such a safety valve into Bill C-5? It would deal with overall judicial discretion, and the bill's a bit narrower than that.

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

Thank you.

I'll continue along the same lines.

At this time, there's a lot of talk about firearms trafficking through indigenous reserves, and attempts are being made to reassure the public. At one point, we proposed a joint squad made up of officers from the RCMP and provincial police from Ontario and Quebec, peacekeepers and U.S. police officers to try to truly address the issue of firearms trafficking.

Mr. Davis, in your opinion, could that reassure the public and reduce the negative impact or the negative perception of Bill C‑5?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for coming to be with us this Friday afternoon as we continue to hear testimony on Bill C-5.

Mr. Sauvé, I am going to direct my first question to you. I met this week, as part of Lobby Week, with two sergeants from the Halifax police association. We had a great discussion. The conversation included a discussion of mandatory minimum sentences. They gave me a pamphlet—I'm not sure how many MPs met with them too—with three recommendations, one of which, when I read it, tied exactly into Bill C-5, and I told them that. It dealt with mandatory minimum sentences.

The sergeants I was meeting with didn't know anything about Bill C-5. They were lobbying us in government—obviously, as it's called Lobby Week—to exempt officers and to allow the mandatory minimum sentences that allow judicial discretion when officers discharge their service weapon in the line of duty. Would you argue for that same change? Can you discuss the importance of flexibility for judges to craft sentences that fit whatever unique circumstances?

Given what we're doing, I found this one very important, so I'll ask you that question.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chief. We have to move on, because my time is limited.

Bill C-5 removes limitations placed on the use of conditional sentences of imprisonment. Offences such as sexual assault, arson, criminal harassment, kidnapping, trafficking of persons, abduction of persons under 14 and prison breach are now open for consideration.

Can you comment on how this will impact community safety in the context of the offences I just read out? I would also like to hear your opinion on the deterrent impact of conditional sentences and the reality on the street when it comes to the compliance and enforcement of those orders.

[Chief Robert A. Davis]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Brock.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, victims of crime are already frustrated with bail reform. The perception of the victims is that the criminals' rights supersede those of citizens. With Bill C-5 and the proposed changes now, we are going to see sentencing become a joke, to be quite candid. The perception of the victims of crime will be, once again, that their rights have been given to the criminals.

I am very concerned that what we're seeing with indigenous populations.... In my experience on reserve and off reserve, with urban, indigenous populations, there is already a layer of distrust of the police and the justice system. We have to work really hard to get people to co-operate with us. I experienced this when the justice system was perceived to fail them, because the criminals' rights supersede those of the victim—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your attendance today.

To Chief Davis, given your decades of police service in numerous cities and towns in various provinces and indigenous reserves in both southern and in northern Ontario, I would like to hear your opening thoughts on the impact of policing and community safety if the current version of Bill C-5 passes without amendment.

[Brian Sauvé, President, National Police Federation]

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to appear today.

I'm Brian Sauvé, a sergeant in the RCMP and current president of the National Police Federation, which is the certified bargaining agent representing close to 20,000 members of the RCMP.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I'm speaking today from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Bill C-5 takes several important steps in the right direction. This legislation acknowledges and supports practices that are happening today, such as the discretion of police officers to refer offenders to diversion and treatment programs. Legislative support for these practices means enforcement across Canada will become more consistent. However, the legislation lacks clarity in many areas. I'd like to address three main areas of concern.

The first is police resources and discretion. We support the use of police discretion and alternatives to incarceration for lower-risk offenders who would benefit from treatment and rehabilitation. Diversion to these programs is a valuable tool for police. Our members acknowledge this key role, but government must provide the necessary support and resources to make sure that police officers can do it effectively.

Even after this bill is passed, police officers will still need to enforce laws against those involved in drug smuggling, drug trafficking and drug production. The link between weapons and drug trafficking still needs to be addressed. Drug trafficking exacerbates the opioid epidemic, which continues to impact Canada's health network and police services.

For perspective, in 2020 the opioid crisis claimed the lives of 6,306 people in Canada. That's equivalent to 17 deaths per day. The government has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to combat this crisis, but the numbers continue to rise. To address these important issues, we will need a whole-of-government approach.

The second area of concern is program availability. Bill C-5 needs to be accompanied by an expansion of investments in programs such as addictions treatment, rehabilitation and diversion. The need for greater support for social programs exists across Canada, however the gap that police officers and community members face in rural and remote areas needs to be urgently addressed.

According to a Justice Canada report, 48% of surveyed police agencies have a pre-charge diversion program for youth offenders. However, 66% of rural and small-town police agencies have no pre-charge diversion program. This gap is further exacerbated in indigenous communities where the lack of diversion programs aggravates overrepresentation in the justice system. Successful diversion programs need consistent, ongoing funding and and meaningful evidence-based oversight to ensure effectiveness. Meanwhile, police officers require the time, the staff and the resources to be able to refer cases to these treatment programs.

The third is border integrity. Bill C-5 strikes down some mandatory minimum penalties related to weapons trafficking and firearms offences. This is inconsistent with the expressed intent of the government to reduce firearms violence in Canada. The legislation maintains mandatory minimum penalties for offences such as weapons trafficking, the production of automatic firearms and murder or manslaughter involving the use of a firearm. However, tackling criminal activity requires strong measures against criminals who threaten vulnerable communities, especially criminal activity that funds and empowers gangs and organized crime. Bill C-5, unfortunately, does not address these problems.

The removal of mandatory minimum penalties requires additional deterrence measures to address criminal activity, such as providing more resources to stop the import of illegal drugs and firearms at the border. The NPF calls for increased funding for the RCMP border integrity program and the creation of an investigative firearms smuggling unit.

In conclusion, to achieve its primary goal, this legislation needs to be backed by increased funding in three areas. It is needed for evidence-based and effective social programs to ensure that the root causes of drug use and firearms trafficking are being adequately addressed; for sufficient police resources to ensure that members have the personnel and resources to meet the increased workload created by this legislation; and for support for border enforcement to address the import of illicit drugs and firearms.

Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Chief Robert A. Davis, Chief of Police, Brantford Police Service]

Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here before you today. My name is Rob Davis and I am the chief of police for the Brantford Police Service. I'm proud to be a Mohawk from the Six Nations of Grand River Territory on which the city of Brantford sits. We are located on the western edge of the Greater Toronto Golden Horseshoe area. I'm proud to be the only indigenous leader of a municipal police service in Ontario, and I've been in policing since 1990. I have served over half of my career in indigenous communities, with the majority of that time being with my home community of Six Nations, where I served with the Six Nations Police Service as well as with the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service in Ontario's far north. I've been the chief of police for over a decade, having led a small municipal service in Ontario's northwest—Dryden—prior to leading Alberta's third-largest municipal police service in Lethbridge, and now serving in the city of Brantford, a mid-size city with approximately 100,000 people.

I have witnessed first-hand throughout my career and especially over the last five years the lack of deterrence bail reform has created, specifically since 2019 when we saw bail reform implemented, and it will only be amplified if Bill C-5 is passed and allows for even weaker sentences. Victims of communities will live in fear of gun violence and fearful of retaliation by armed criminals, and people will continue to overdose, many of whom will die from fentanyl and other drugs laced with fentanyl that continue to be trafficked with impunity.

Certain crimes must result in the removal of the perpetrators from society so that the masses, the law-abiding masses, have a reprieve. Specifically for crimes committed using firearms; trafficking, production and importation of drugs, and many of the offences listed in paragraph 742.1(f), they're calling for conditional sentences.

My observation has been that crimes committed using firearms are prolific and ever-increasing. The victims of crime live in fear. We are seeing the scourge of trafficking, importation and production of drugs in our cities. Conditional sentences as suggested clearly will not work.

With that, I will take any questions.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to Ms. Guerin, where Ms. Shanahan left off.

I want to talk about the interesting idea you've proposed here. As a result of Bill C-5, we might see ourselves ending up in negotiations with first nations to provide more services like overseeing conditional sentences. You talked about being at treaty tables and seeing growing capacity.

Could you say some more about that? Again, recognizing that conditional sentences only apply for those under two years, do you believe there are a lot of communities that could take up this challenge and provide effective conditional sentencing programs?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have another question for Mr. Wall.

Mr. Wall, I understand your position on mandatory minimum sentences. I would now like to hear from you on the other aspect of Bill C‑5, diversion.

I imagine that you read the bill before appearing today. You understand that part of the bill is about diversion, or allowing the police to make decisions in some cases. For example, should individuals be brought before justice or should alternatives instead be considered to help them more?

Finally, what the bill proposes is to deal with drug addiction problems as health issues rather than criminal issues. Thus, instead of initiating a process that would send someone to prison, the system seeks to treat or heal their addiction. Obviously, we're talking not about trafficking here, but about personal use.

What do you think about that? In your opinion, are the police being given too much power?

Should a judge or prosecutor be the one to make those decisions, or in your opinion, are the police able to make that assessment about whether or not to use diversion?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony.

My questions are for Mr. Wall.

Mr. Wall, you have extensive experience in law enforcement. In your testimony and your answers to questions posed by Monsieur Fortin and Mr. Moore, the questions were focused on mandatory jail time and more specifically with regard to the firearms and drug offences.

There's another component of Bill C-5 and that is the significant expansion of conditional sentencing. The bill, according to the Liberals, is just a matter of seeing that supposedly non-violent criminals can serve time at home instead of behind bars. When one looks at some of the offences that would now be eligible for house arrest, they include prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for material benefit, abduction of a person under the age of 14, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, arson for a fraudulent purpose, assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, and impaired driving causing death, among other serious offences.

What is your opinion of the appropriateness of expanding conditional sentencing for these offences?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for being with us this afternoon.

Bill C‑5 is not intended to reduce sentences. It seeks to reduce the overrepresentation of certain marginalized communities and to give judges back discretion to consider restorative justice options, among other things.

My question is for Ms. Skalusat. First, I thank you for sharing your experience with us. You've gone through some very difficult times. Your experience in life reveals some gaps in the system.

Can you explain how house arrest can have a positive impact not only on offenders, but also on the people around them?

What is the impact on the child of an offender in terms of the balance in their life?

Thank you.

Justice

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 is Bill C-22 from a previous Parliament. It died on the Order Paper when the government went to an election. If the Liberals were so serious about passing such a bill, they could have done it.

We believe in mandatory minimum sentences, strict monitoring for high-risk individuals, increased enforcement and prosecution of smuggling, safe storage provisions, firearms safety training, a certification system for all those wishing to acquire a firearm legally and putting more law-enforcement officers on our streets. Which one of these are the government and the hon. member against?

[Stéphane Wall]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Moore.

At this time, most shootings in major Canadian cities are committed by street gang members, who are fairly young. Some gang members give small contracts to younger members to intimidate people, threaten them and so forth. We can see that impunity reigns at this time. Several media have done multiple reports on this. On social media, we see young people laughing at the justice system. They proudly display their firearms, the vast majority of which are illegal. We are already in this situation.

The passage of Bill C‑5 would lead to lower standards and trivialize the possession of firearms for a criminal purpose. It would send the wrong message to criminals. In a way, we would be telling them that maybe society is being a bit too hard on them and that we'll be giving them more lenient sentences. We are therefore trivializing the possession of firearms.

It must be remembered that possession of a firearm by young people, who have easy access to such weapons, is followed in most cases by a criminal act. It's not just possession; the next step is shooting at enemies or people from the same backgrounds, including racialized and diverse communities or similar socio-economic backgrounds. Indeed, victims from the same background as the suspects are overrepresented.

By releasing criminals who were in possession of a firearm sooner—and parole also factors into that—we are allowing them to victimize more people in their own community or in an enemy community. This is a very bad signal to be sending. Passing such a bill is not appropriate given the reality on the ground.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to speak a bit further to the reason that Bill C-5 should not be hived off into two, contrary to the Conservative motion that we are debating on a Friday afternoon, which is unfortunate given the fact that there is important government business to finish, business of the nation, to implement Canada's budget for 2022.

To get back to the matter at hand, I was just talking about how the Harper government was adding mandatory minimum penalties, and all the while, the evidence was clear that they were ineffective and racist in their application. In fact, Black offenders comprised a disproportionately high percentage of offenders admitted for non-violent firearms offences. Twenty-five per cent of offenders admitted for weapons trafficking and 42% of offenders admitted for firearms trafficking were indeed Black.

MMPs limit the ability of sentencing courts to fully take into account the myriad of social, economic, cultural, institutional and historical factors that create the conditions for criminality. These factors are disproportionately experienced by Black, indigenous and other racialized Canadians. It is my belief that our government is addressing those underlying conditions. While the Conservatives purport to be tough on crime, we are following the evidence and implementing solutions that make sense. In this case, that means repealing mandatory minimum penalties. It is important to remind ourselves that the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Nur in 2015 and R. v. Lloyd in 2016, found that the use of MMPs for offences that “can be committed in various ways, under a broad array of circumstances and by a wide range of people are constitutionally vulnerable”.

In addition, the proposed reforms would encourage a greater use of conditional sentences, which are currently unavailable in cases where they would otherwise be appropriate. This more tailored approach that encourages rehabilitation allows offenders who do not pose a public safety risk to serve short terms of imprisonment in the community under strict conditions, including abstaining from the consumption of drugs and alcohol and not owning, possessing or carrying a weapon, including a firearm.

The community corrections movement has proven to be very successful in this country and deserves our support.

[Stéphane Wall, Supervisor (Retired), Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm one of the founding members of the CCACV, the Communauté de citoyens et de citoyennes en action contre les criminels violents. You've already heard from two of our other members, Mr. André Gélinas and Ms. Anie Samson.

On January 26, 2022, the CCACV proposed 16 measures to the various levels of government to fight gun violence. Letters appeared in two media outlets. We invite you to read those letters, particularly the measures that we are recommending to the federal government.

On February 21, 2022, Montreal city council adopted a first measure proposed by CCACV. The opposition and the elected officials agreed to implement a helpline for parents who see their children falling into violence.

Victims of violent crimes and their loved ones are our inspiration. Most of us are responsible parents who feel that a child needs as much love as discipline to develop. Discipline should take the form of punishments that gradually increase in severity, based on what was done. The vast majority of parents are like this in Canada, including racialized, Black, indigenous and underprivileged communities.

Responsible lawmakers should also adopt laws and sentences that gradually increase in severity and that are appropriate to what was done, particularly with respect to serious crimes, such as the possession of illegal firearms, a scourge that is decimating Canadian cities.

Unfortunately, there are also entitled, lax and indulgent parents, who overprotect their spoiled children. Those children grow up with no respect for others and live with a feeling of impunity and a sense that they are all-powerful.

Lawmakers who are indulgent when it comes to serious crimes committed by people in possession of illegal weapons can rest assured that there will be a sharp increase in victims from the same communities as the suspects. Those communities already have a disproportionately high number of victims.

There is absolutely a dichotomy between Bill C‑5 and the social context of gun violence.

A first fact: All major Canadian cities are dealing with shootings, attributed primarily to members of street gangs. The number of shootings doubles each year almost everywhere. Several reports in the media have highlighted the extent to which these criminals have a feeling of absolute impunity, which Bill C‑5 would exacerbate. On social media, they laugh at the justice system and the often lenient prison sentences given to them by an indulgent justice system. They show off their illegal weapons with defiance and pride.

A second fact: On March 7, 2018, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness organized the Summit on Gun and Gang Violence, held in Ottawa. Four years later, there are three main questions. First, what arose from the findings and the solutions proposed at the summit? Then, has the situation related to violence improved or significantly deteriorated in four years in Canada? Finally, are there fewer illegal firearms in circulation than in 2018?

A third fact: Community members don't all think alike. Many members of diverse communities think like Murielle Chatelier, who was born in Haiti and is a member of the CCACV. I invite you to read her letter, co‑signed by other members from diverse populations, which speaks about being accountable rather than wallowing in victimization.

A fourth fact: In Toronto, ideologists have been in control of public safety for the past 10 years. The result is revealing. Indeed, there are over 450 shootings and hundreds of victims each year. Faced with amalgamations, police are disengaged. They do less and less prevention and stops. They put tape around the victims' bodies. Street gang members are so not afraid of being arrested that they now keep their firearms on them, ready for the next shooting. Street gang members also have the criminal speciality of procuring and have no respect for the bodies of girls and women, who they see as merchandise.

In Montreal, the ideologists are doing the same thing as in Toronto. The number of shootings is on the rise, as is the number of victims, and the police are increasingly disengaged.

Residents concerned about the violence are demanding a change in paradigm.

According to them, Canadian lawmakers should place the victims of violent crime and their loved ones at the centre of any legislative considerations; focus more on victims of violent crime in racialized communities, whether Black or indigenous, and in underprivileged communities, by ensuring that the people committing these crimes are arrested, detained and rightfully convicted by the justice system; value and trust the people who wear a police uniform; place less importance on lobby groups, which are divisive and include those opposed to the police, the so‑called woke and racists, who in no way represent the pragmatic and moderate opinion of Canadians; listen more to members of diverse communities, who, like Murielle Chatelier, disagree with the attitude of victimization but instead promote accountability; hold criminals responsible for their actions and their decisions, regardless of the community, the way responsible parents do with their children, instead of overprotecting criminals as though they were spoiled children; and refocus the principles of justice by implementing a new charter of duties and responsibilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 15 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I would now like to welcome all the witnesses.

Before I begin, I want to let you know that I'll be waving a green folder when 30 seconds of your time remain. Today, I also have a black card that I'll wave to tell you that your time has ended. Hopefully, I won't have to interrupt you, but be mindful of that. The same goes for the members.

Each witness will have five minutes for their opening statement, and then there will be a round of questions.

I'll begin with Mr. Stéphane Wall, retired supervisor from the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal.

It's over to you, Mr. Wall. You have five minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill, although I am very displeased with the fact that we are doing this today. This strikes me as a form of obstruction in the House when we were set to debate the budget implementation act, which is a seriously important piece of legislation. One could argue that it is probably one of the most important agenda items for the House to be debating and moving forward on. However, here we are with a Conservative motion on a Friday afternoon that derails our progress on that important debate.

I am very disappointed by that, but at the same time I feel very passionate about the fact that Bill C-5 should not be divided. It certainly hangs together in my view, and I come from a crime-fighting family. My father was a homicide detective for most of my life, and he became an inspector for the Peel Regional Police. I, myself, worked with federal offenders for quite a number of years to reintegrate them back into society. I know full well that mandatory minimum penalties, based on the research and evidence, do not actually have a deterrent effect on crime.

This bill, in fact, focuses on non-violent crime, mostly small offences, that having mandatory minimums applied to, as we know from the evidence, certainly increases the number of incarcerations for individuals who come from diverse backgrounds. This is clearly systemic racism, which has been embedded in our justice for quite some time.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which seeks to address the detrimental impacts that certain mandatory sentencing provisions have had on marginalized populations. Specifically, I will focus my remarks on the firearms-related amendments proposed in Bill C-5, which I believe will address the negative impacts that a number of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment have had on marginalized populations, while in no way diminishing the ability of the courts to impose penalties for firearms offences that reflect their seriousness and keep Canadians safe.

Indeed, in our platform, the government made a number of significant firearms commitments in order to make Canada safer from gun violence. One of those commitments includes increasing the penalties around firearms smuggling. The government has also committed to reintroduce legislation to enact red flag laws to allow for the immediate removal of firearms from a person if they pose a threat to themselves or another person, which is a significant measure that will help respond to gender-based violence. I am also pleased that the government will seek to work with the provinces and territories who implement handgun bans in their jurisdictions.

These changes build on important milestones, including the important May 1, 2020, changes to ban prohibited firearms, approximately 1,500 assault-style rifles. These are weapons that are designed to kill a maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time, and I think it is great that we are getting them off our streets and out of the hands of those who intend to use them.

While the opposition does not have a plan to tackle firearms violence at all, as was made clear during the campaign, we do. I have great confidence that the government will continue to move forward to address the harm posed by illegal gun activity in Canada.

In addition, the government has shown an ongoing commitment to addressing the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized populations in the criminal justice system and to enable courts to impose sentences appropriate to the circumstances of individual cases. Bill C-5 backs up that commitment and builds on financial investments to make our criminal justice system fairer for everyone.

Bill C-5 would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for 13 firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, possession of an unauthorized firearms and importing firearms knowing that it is not authorized, to name just a few.

Repealing some firearm mandatory minimum penalties would give sentencing courts discretion to impose a just and fit sentence, including a non-custodial sentence where appropriate, depending on the facts of each case.

Repealing these mandatory minimum penalties does not, however, mean that these offences do not address serious conduct. They do address serious conduct, and in those cases, I am confident the courts will impose the right sentence.

For example, we know that cross-border smuggling of firearms poses a serious threat to the safety and security of Canadians. The illicit firearms market in Canada is supplied primarily by smuggled firearms and firearms stolen from private residences or commercial venues. Smuggling and trafficking of firearms and other weapons are often closely tied to organized crime and are associated with various other types of criminal activities such as drug trafficking.

Former Toronto police chief Mark Saunders has publicly stated, “When it comes to the handguns, I believe, 82 per cent—give or take—of the ‘crime guns’ in the city are coming from the United States.” This conduct deserves strong condemnation.

At the same time, these reforms would mean that, for example, a martial arts enthusiast who brings a ninja star into Canada for a private collection without authority would be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty. I trust that a sentencing court would make the right decision on punishment in cases like this.

What is more, research shows that indigenous, Black and other racialized Canadians are more likely to become entangled in the criminal justice system as a result of pressure to join gangs and limited choices, for example, and this is often due to systemic racism and other socio-economic factors. Statistics also indicate that these groups are overrepresented in our correctional institutions, including for firearms offences punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty. For instance, between 2007-17, the Correctional Service of Canada data indicates that the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted for a firearm-related offence punishable by an MMP increased dramatically. In fact, it went from 17% in 2007 to 40% in 2017. At this time, the Harper government was adding mandatory minimum penalties, so even though they were found to be systemically racist, they continued to be added.

Black offenders also—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very confused now by the Conservatives, who, for a week and a half, have been blocking routine proceedings, blocking the ability of all members of Parliament to present petitions, often presenting the same thing two or three times in a row. Today they put forward a substantive motion, yet they refuse to want any debate. They just want parliamentarians to vote on it. It seems bizarre to me, to say the least, this erratic notion to put forward a substantive motion and, at the same time, not want parliamentarians to talk about it at all. It is very strange.

The House responded to the Conservatives saying they were not blocking legislation by introducing more debate with evening sessions, and they voted against that too. They did not want to work evenings. The Conservatives have taken a very strange approach to the work of the House of Commons and the importance of taking action to help Canadians.

My colleague seems to be talking about a consensus at the justice committee. I am very happy about that. It appears that those on the committee are working well together. As the member knows, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has raised some legitimate concerns about ways that Bill C-5 could be improved. Has the member understood those concerns and is he supportive of the concerns that have been brought forward?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about the important work being done at the justice committee. We have already had many witnesses come forward to provide testimony, crucial information and feedback on Bill C-5.

Would the member care to elaborate on how splitting this bill would impact the committee's good work?

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

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I am very disappointed that we are at this juncture today. Bill C-5 is a very important piece of legislation, and I can walk the House through my perspective on this.

I want to confirm that I will be splitting my time with the member for Whitby.

When Bill C-5 was introduced back in December, we heard from a number of different organizations and people who had been directly impacted by systemic racism. I realize that not everybody in this House understands, and not every party in the House recognizes what systemic racism is, but it is a lived reality for many Canadians.

All I have to say is that if we look at what The Globe and Mail has reported over the last three days, we will find a very coherent set of news pieces that talk about systemic racism. For example, it included that 50% of women who are incarcerated within the criminal justice system are indigenous, whereas indigenous people only make up 4% of Canada's population. If we look at Black Canadians, we know they are disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system.

This is one of the reasons why we brought forward Bill C-5. It includes a number of mandatory minimum penalties that were struck down by the Supreme Court for their unconstitutionality. We have also brought forward very important amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

After several days of debate, including at committee, we are at a stage now where Bill C-5 will be going through what is called clause-by-clause as of May 17 and May 20. We have three more meetings, the first of which is supposed to start in about 10 minutes, and we will have two subsequent meetings next Tuesday and Friday. As of two days ago, all parties represented, the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives, agreed that we would have two more meetings as of this week to conclude the study on Bill C-8, so as of next Friday we will conclude the study.

We have had so many witnesses come and speak about the impacts of the criminal justice system, especially with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, on racialized and indigenous people. We had the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers speak about his personal experience: It was very powerful testimony of how he felt he was impacted by the criminal justice system.

At this stage of the game, to have the bill split into two parts is completely unacceptable. It is not a routine motion on a Friday afternoon. This warrants debate. This is a bill that is fundamental to who we are, as Canadians.

We may reject the notion of systemic racism, and I respect that because I am not here to educate people on what systemic racism is: It is a lived experience for many people in this country. Our legacy of colonialism, and what has happened with indigenous and many racialized people in Canada, will speak to systemic racism. It is a lived experience. It is not up for debate. I am not here to educate, but the reality is that people came to committee, they shared their lived experiences, they showed us and demonstrated why this has had a harmful impact on particular groups of people.

That is why it is so disingenuous for the Conservative Party to bring this forward today. This is after we had consensus. We were very particular not to have a vote on this, because the bill is so important and so fundamental. We did not vote on it, but we compromised. In fact, the Conservatives wanted eight meetings, we wanted six, so we compromised and said seven in the interest of getting consensus. That is how we are here today.

After today, we have two more meetings to conclude the study. We have very important witnesses who are going to speak about the bill in its totality. If we split the bill, we will essentially lose what we are trying to achieve here. It is not a frivolous PMB or a frivolous issue for us to dispose of on a Friday afternoon without any debate.

For us to be here at this juncture on a Friday is completely disappointing. We do have a budget implementation act, and I spoke to it just before we broke about an hour ago for question period, and I, in fact, have several minutes more to speak to C-19.

With respect to Bill C-5, the way that this has transpired, I believe, just speaks to the fact that the Conservative Party is absolutely not ready to deal with systemic racism. It is not ready to deal with smart criminal justice policies. If we look at places where they have implemented mandatory minimum penalties, such as the United States, which had, at the height of it, the largest number of mandatory minimum penalties, they are now rejecting this notion because it is something that impacts racialized people. It particularly affects Black communities in the United States.

Today, we have an opportunity in Canada to address this issue in a very meaningful way and in a balanced way. While I know that Bill C-5 may not have gone far enough for many, it is one that fundamentally will change the criminal justice system and make sure that we have smart policies, one that ensures that people are able, if they do not pose a danger to the public, to continue their sentence in a community with supervision. It also ensures that they are able to get the right supports in order to continue with their lives, so that their lives are not disrupted, and they are not in a maze of criminality among those who are in prison.

This is very smart and balanced criminal justice policy, one that I believe Canadians want us to embrace, and one that has, for far too long, impacted vulnerable communities.

I believe that the splitting of this bill will be fundamentally wrong, and it will be the wrong approach. I would say it would be a complete failure on the part of the House to address something that has been so pronounced in our country. All we have to do is look at the annualized reports from the office of the correctional investigator, who painstakingly, year after year, demonstrates that the numbers of those who are in penitentiaries in Canada are, increasingly, young Black men, indigenous men and indigenous women who, as of last December, surpassed 50% of the prison population.

What I ask today, and what I ask the House, is that we continue on pursuing Bill C-5 in its entirety as one bill, and that we continue to have our witnesses, who have been very thoughtful. While I may not agree with all of them, I think they have been very thoughtful in the way they presented this, and we look forward to ensuring that the matter comes back to the House. I welcome the opposition to have a robust debate on this and continue the debate on Bill C-5 that we had earlier this year and be able to come to, hopefully, a consensus, if not a vote, that can make sure the bill passes through the House and the Senate.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister would be proud of this member for his intervention today. The Prime Minister refers to spreading disinformation quite a bit.

Let us go back to what actually happened here. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who is a member of the justice committee, proposed the motion during Routine Proceedings to split Bill C-5 at committee to allow the committee to effectively do its work. I then stood up and said that we want to put the question, which means we want to put it to a vote. That vote would have happened on Monday. There would have been no need for debate. There would have been no need for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to stand up and do this filibuster, and I suspect there are going to be others as well. They could have easily gone to Bill C-19 to debate it. I am guessing that maybe either the whip of the Liberal Party or the House leader has called the House leader of the NDP to prepare him to speak to this just to filibuster this.

Let us be very clear about what happened. We put the question. We could have voted on this on Monday and we could have gone to Bill C-19.

This is not a question, but more of a comment. I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has decided to filibuster his own piece of legislation to delay time so that we cannot get to Bill C-19. It just does not make any sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, having gone through that, I should be given a bonus five minutes, I would suggest.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives like to play their games, and we saw that just now. They do whatever they can to play a game, cause distractions and lose the focus on what I believe and the government believes is important to Canadians, such as the budget and the budget implementation bill. We do not get very many bills that are more important than the budget implementation bill, something that invests billions and billions of dollars into supporting Canadians in all sorts of different ways. That is what we were supposed to be debating today. On a Friday afternoon, the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition party, wants to play games.

As much as the Conservatives want to focus on their games and their character assassinations, I can say that all members of the Liberal caucus will continue to have their focus on Canadians and the people of Canada first. That is the reason why we are very excited about Bill C-19, no matter what sorts of games might be played by the Conservative opposition. We understand how this budget is going to have a profoundly positive impact on building a stronger, healthier Canada. We will continue to support the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and push aside the games. That is the assurance that I would give members.

I do not support this motion. Bill C-5 should stay as one bill, as was the intent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member were actually listening, it is 100% purely relevant. Prior to their cousin in the Bloc's interruption, I was speaking specifically to the motion. After the Bloc's interruption, I made references to why the Conservatives are trying to change the topic to prevent us from being able to talk about C-19, and my Conservative friend got all upset and stood up to say that I am not being relevant. The Conservatives really need to start putting on their thinking caps.

At the end of the day, what we should be debating today is the good-news budget. There is no doubt that there are many things within it which they can raise, but they are the ones who have chosen not to want to debate it today. Instead, they want to have a discussion or a debate on a motion dealing with why we should split into sections a government piece of legislation through this particular motion.

It is interesting because, as I was pointing out, there are different approaches to justice. There is a Conservative approach versus our Liberal government's approach to justice.

I highlighted the one difference regarding incarceration, but that is not the only one. We have confidence in our judicial system. We recognize the independence of our judges and the judicial system. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a difficult time with that. They really and truly do.

They believe that if we cannot trust judges, we put in minimum sentences. The legislation they are attempting to split up, and increasing the number of votes for, is a reflection of some of the reforms the Minister of Justice has been working for a good period of time now. He has been looking and listening to the different stakeholders, working with different jurisdictions, provincial or others, within the civil service.

I know that we just have to listen to question period and we can understand that the Conservative Party has a lack of faith and trust in our civil service, but that is not shared universally. We recognize the hard work and the efforts that our civil servants put in, whether it is in passport offices or in ministerial offices formulating legislation and ensuring the type of legislation we bring forward is ultimately for the betterment of Canada.

That is what we are seeing here. I have had the opportunity, in the days in which I was an MLA, not only as a provincial justice critic, so I have fairly significant experience in dealing with justice-related issues, but also as the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years. The youth justice committee was where I learned a great deal about how communities can be involved in ensuring that justice is not just being seen as being done, but is in fact done.

One of the best ways I have seen this is through restorative justice, where we get the victim and person who committed the offence together, and that does happen. When it does happen, we see it as a good thing, because often through that process, we see that the victim will get a greater sense of satisfaction. Now, obviously, that does not work in all situations.

The youth justice committee would often have young offenders come before it. Committee members would listen to what the young offender has to say and come up with a disposition in terms of what the consequences should be for that young person for whatever offence was committed. To give a specific example, let us take shoplifting. We all know that shoplifting is a bad thing. However, because of the justice committee, it is personalized so that the victim, a store in this case, would have the opportunity to provide input from the victim's perspective, and then the offender would come before individuals in the community who are, in essence, honorary probation officers.

I raise this because, even at that level, there is a certain amount of expertise that is provided from constituents, from people who live and work in our communities. They get a good assessment of the environment that this young person was in, and through that assessment, they are able to give a disposition that is more fitting for the individual. I use this as an example because we can take some of the principles from that example and apply them even to a courtroom, where there are a judge, lawyers, a victim and an offender.

When we take a look at the legislation that the Conservatives want to divide, they are saying that if person X commits crime Z, that person has to serve a minimum amount of time. They want to override everything that has been said in the courtroom. They are saying to the judge that they do not have the confidence in the judge to get an evaluation of the situation that might have ultimately caused the crime and led to the actual offence itself.

When I think of minimum sentences, I think in terms of limitations. At times, there is a need for minimum sentences. However, the idea that we need to review them and make some changes is long overdue. We need to recognize that there is systemic racism within our communities. Not to consider our courts and our institutions when we think of the issue of racism would be a huge mistake.

I was not in committee during the discussions on second reading of the bill, but I suspect we would find a number of witnesses who recognized that systemic racism is found within our courts, and one of the ways we can minimize some of that racism is by looking at ways in which we can address the issue of minimum sentences.

When we really stop and think about it, the motion being brought forward by the Conservative Party does two things. One, it addresses the specifics of Bill C-5 in wanting to divide it up. One could question the motives of trying to do that. Is it as simple as having—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

On that point of order, Madam Speaker, I would affirm that the member did ask from his seat that the question be put, and that is the reason why I stood. I would like to be able to speak to the motion. I understand it is in regard to the splitting of Bill C-5, and I have some thoughts on that to share with the members.

Bill C-5

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

Madam Speaker, every day, four Canadians are killed at the hands of an impaired driver, yet the Liberal government wants to go soft on impaired drivers with its soft-on-crime Bill C-5. The bill would allow criminals convicted of impaired driving causing death to serve their sentence from home.

At the justice committee, the director of victim services of MADD Canada characterized Bill C-5 as hurtful and harmful to victims of impaired driving. The same is true for victims of sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking, given Bill C-5's reckless expansion of house arrest for these and other serious offences.

While the Liberals stand up for criminals, Conservatives will continue to stand up for victims by fighting Bill C-5.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' soft-on-crime Bill C-5 would end mandatory jail time for serious crimes such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. The Liberals are also using this bill to allow criminals who benefit financially from human trafficking or people charged with sexual assault to serve their sentence from home. These are violent crimes, but the Liberals do not consider them to be serious offences.

Of course, victims and those who support them know that is simply not the case. Just last week, the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre told the justice committee that putting an offender back in the community puts women at higher risk.

This bill flies in the face of those who call on the government every day asking for safer streets and safer communities, and it is an absolute affront to victims. The government must stop trying to tip the scales of justice in order to benefit violent criminals over their victims and survivors.

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate to hear the member from the Green Party try to single out one particular sector. We know there are problems of violence against women from people in all different sectors and all different parts of the economy. It is a problem we need to address more broadly. To single out workers in one sector is very unfair and reflects another agenda.

I want to ask the member a follow-up question from the speech given by the minister with respect to human trafficking. We know that human trafficking disproportionately affects indigenous women. There were concerns raised by members of our caucus with respect to Bill C-5 and the fact that amendments to Bill C-5 opened the door for possible house arrest for people involved in human trafficking. It is our contention that tough sentencing in response to human trafficking is part of the solution to combatting this. I wonder if the member has a comment on that.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of co-operation—I think this committee generally does work quite co-operatively—I'm going to vote for seven meetings. Of course, I think two days for clause-by-clause study is ample time, but obviously we'll know when we get to it.

If it's okay, and we can have consensus, then we can move forward to have the study on Bill C-5 completed on the 13th, with clause-by-clause consideration and amendments on the 17th and 20th. I don't know what the protocol is, but if it's 24 hours ahead—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses who are here today.

I would like to address Ms. Kaiser-Derrick, because I want to let her continue what she was saying.

Ms. Kaiser-Derrick, I find your testimony interesting on the aspect relating to indigenous women, who are, if I understand correctly, overrepresented in our Canadian prisons. This is an important aspect of the subject.

While I am not an expert on the subject of crime in indigenous reserves, I understand that the concern must be substantially the same as outside the reserves, that is, that we have to find middle ground. We want to reassure the public, who are worried about the violent crimes being committed, and particularly about the rise in firearm crimes that we have seen in recent months and recent years. We have to reassure the public and show that we are concerned about this situation and that we are going to make efforts to propose solutions for solving it, while being aware that rehabilitating violent offenders, or accused persons, could, in some cases, involve a process other than incarceration.

I am concerned about this issue, so I say to myself that Bill C‑5 is about decriminalization. I'm going to talk only about firearms, if I may. There are other aspects, but that is the one that concerns me most. For example, we are going to decriminalize extortion using a firearm, armed robbery, and trafficking in firearms. These things worry many members of communities in Quebec, among others, including Montrealers, and I think it must also worry people in indigenous reserves.

Rather than simply decriminalize these aspects, could we not find middle-ground solutions, between mandatory minimum sentences and abolishing mandatory minimum sentences? For example, we could allow judges to depart from the obligation to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in certain cases.

Do you think this possibility could be valid and could it meet this need to blow hot and cold?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, witnesses, as we continue to study Bill C-5.

Ms. Kaiser-Derrick, I want to give you an opportunity to finish your thought, but I also want you to talk about conditional sentencing a little bit.

With the earlier panel, we talked about mandatory minimum sentences, but I'd like to turn at this time to conditional sentences and the provisions that would allow those of under two years to be served in the community.

Based on your work with indigenous women who have received conditional sentences, would you say that these sentences allowed the women to reintegrate into their communities while also preserving the safety of the communities? Also, based on your studies, what would you say to those who think conditional sentences are soft or light punishment?

[Elspeth Kaiser-Derrick]

I think it's a very complex context, of course. The part of my statement that I really rushed in the beginning was that number 32 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action directs the federal government to amend the code to allow judges to depart from both mandatory minimums and restrictions on CSOs when reasons are provided.

I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, because the bill is framed as trying to ameliorate the indigenous overrepresentation in the system, my concern is that if Bill C-5 is not expanded to include that call to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to allow judges to depart from mandatory minimums and restrictions on CSOs, the proposed amendments won't have the capacity to meaningfully address the scope of indigenous overrepresentation in the system because of some of the things that I mentioned about interrelationships between child welfare systems and—

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

Thank you for that. I wanted to give you a bit of time to carry on where you were unable to finish off.

When we look at Bill C-5, what we see is a rollback of a number of mandatory minimum jail sentences for some pretty serious offences. There's robbery with a firearm, for example, and weapons trafficking, extortion with a firearm and so on. Of all of the mandatory jail terms, it seems to be a strange way of addressing some of the issues that you have noted exist among indigenous Canadians, who are overrepresented both in the system and as victims. It's saying that the solution to that is to remove mandatory jail times for some very serious offences.

[John Maki, Director, Task Force on Long Sentences, Council on Criminal Justice]

Thank you very much. I want to thank you all for inviting me to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to present testimony on Bill C-5.

As you noted, I am the director of a task force on long sentences at the Council on Criminal Justice. The task force is a new initiative dedicated to assessing the impact of long sentences in the United States and making recommendations that advance safety and justice.

The Council on Criminal Justice is an independent non-partisan think tank. We're dedicated to advancing the understanding of criminal justice policy choices and building consensus that will enhance safety and justice. To be clear, the council itself does not take policy positions; instead it forms working groups, task forces and commissions to study and make recommendations.

As a task force, it's just begun its work. We have not yet come to the recommendation phase, so while I am unable to speak in support of Bill C-5, I can talk to you about the research findings around mandatory minimums. To be clear, most of these research findings come from the United States, but I'm not aware of anything outside the United States that would be inconsistent with them.

Let me summarize these research findings in very general terms, and then I'll unpack three aspects that I think are relevant to Bill C-5.

Mandatory minimums are often extremely popular, particularly in the United States, but there is almost no evidence that they deter criminal behaviour. There's also substantial evidence that they cause significant dysfunction in the courts and produce unwarranted disparities.

Let me talk quickly about three findings to consider.

First, “mandatory minimums” is really a misnomer. Mandatory minimums are not truly minimum. Michael Tonry, the international authority on sentencing, makes this argument. What he's getting at is that research findings are very clear that mandatory minimums lead justice system actors, from police to prosecutors and judges, to take actions to evade decisions that they believe would be unfair or unjust.

It's also clear that these kinds of decisions have disparate impacts on particular groups, including racial and ethnic minorities. This really points to one of the structural problems of mandatory minimums: They're based on the assumption that through mandate, you can make discretion go away. This is the assumption, but what research shows is that mandatory minimums actually take away discretion, which is transparent and reviewable, from judges. They invest it into actors and moments that usually lack transparency and are often unreviewable and therefore unaccountable.

This leads to all kinds of system dysfunction. Associated with this, we see an increase in dismissals at the early stages of trials but an increase in sentences for defendants who are convicted. Associated with this outcome, research shows that mandatory minimums increase courtroom work, lengths of trials and also court appeals.

A very common finding in this research is that mandatory minimums produce disparities. Research has consistently shown that mandatory minimums generate unwarranted disparities by region, by courtroom, and as the U.S. Sentencing Commission found, also by race.

Finally, research is pretty clear that mandatory minimums do not produce a meaningful crime reduction benefit. I want to be clear that no one really disputes the fact that criminal penalties in themselves certainly produce some deterrent effect, but research suggests that the certainty of apprehension is what's really important. Increasing severity is not how you get deterrence, and as minimums try to use severity to get to apprehension, they probably undermine one of the core drivers of crime reduction.

While there is some evidence, mainly from economists, that maybe there's a very marginal impact, the overwhelming body of empirical evidence suggests there's no meaningful public safety benefit that comes from mandatory minimums.

That's my brief overview of the findings.

Let me just conclude that I am very honoured to be before you and happy to answer any questions you have.

[Elspeth Kaiser-Derrick, PhD Candidate, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

First, thank you so much for inviting me to appear before this committee. I feel very honoured and grateful to be here with you.

At the second reading stage, Bill C-5 is framed in relation to the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the system, alongside Black people and those from other marginalized communities. I will focus specifically on this issue of indigenous overrepresentation.

For some context, my research draws upon feminist theories to explore how the criminal justice system interprets and characterizes information about women processed through it, and particularly indigenous women.

In my book, I reviewed 175 decisions sentencing indigenous women, spanning from 1999 to 2015, beginning when the Supreme Court of Canada issued R. v. Gladue, which interpreted Criminal Code section 718.2(e) and set out a different methodology for the sentencing of indigenous peoples.

That court affirmed and clarified this in R. v. Ipeelee in 2012. In Gladue, the Supreme Court finds that indigenous peoples are overrepresented throughout the system, cites systemic discrimination and declares that this is a crisis. The court determined section 718.2(e) represents a direction by Parliament to the judiciary to strive to remedy this situation. The court outlines that judges are required on a mandatory basis by section 718.2(e) to consider all options other than imprisonment.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the TRC, in its call to action number 30, directs all levels of government to commit to eliminating the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in custody within what remains now as the next three years. In its call for justice 5.21, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls upon the federal government to fully implement this and other recommendations by the TRC and other bodies pertaining to the overrepresentation of indigenous women in the system.

In both Gladue and Ipeelee, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledges the limits of the sentencing process to remedy the injustice of indigenous overrepresentation in the system. Each decision finds a measure of optimism.

In Gladue, that optimism rests in that judges determine most directly whether an indigenous person goes to prison. In Ipeelee, there is some residual optimism in its clarification of how judges should apply section 718.2(e). However, Gladue was decided over 20 years ago, and Ipeelee was decided a decade ago. In the most recent annual report, from 2020-2021, the Office of the Correctional Investigator indicates that the population of indigenous women who are federally sentenced has increased by 73.8% over 30 years, representing 43% of all federally sentenced women. I also note that because CSOs, conditional sentence orders, are only available for provincial sentences of under two years, that particular element of Bill C-5 will not apply to indigenous overrepresentation at the federal level.

In my book, I explore the sentencing of indigenous women through the lens of a feminist theory called the victimization-criminalization continuum. This theory provides a way to understand women’s trajectories into the criminal justice system as connected to their experiences of victimization and constrained options arising from that context. I use this framework broadly, including to encompass colonial harms within the concept of victimization.

Among many other cases, my research includes cases in which indigenous women’s criminalization or incarceration led to the apprehension of their children by the child welfare system, and also the inverse situation, in which indigenous women did not contact police or medical authorities when necessary because they feared that their children would be apprehended, and then became criminalized as a result. I believe that these and related junctures where colonial systems and institutions intersect contribute to the entrenchment of indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.

I also note that approximately 80% of the women in my research are mothers, and indigenous children and youth remain highly overrepresented in child welfare systems. I offer these examples of some indigenous women’s criminalization because any legislative amendments to mandatory minimums and CSOs that are positioned to respond to systemic overrepresentation must provide judges with flexibility to account for these and other colonial complexities.

Over 30 years ago, the aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba examined indigenous over-incarceration in that province, recommending that trial judges must be more creative and flexible in sentencing and that appellate courts must encourage this. The Supreme Court of Canada in Ipeelee also points to the need for innovative sentencing. However, greater judicial discretion is necessary to fulfill this need, to craft just sentences generally, and specifically per section 718.2(e). In my research, some judges explicitly stated that they could not order the community sentences that would otherwise be fit due to legislative restrictions, and other judges made comments signalling a need and desire for more creative sentencing reasoning and practices for the indigenous women before them.

In my work, I argued for an expansion of the availability of CSOs and suggested a legislative way forward through this through judicial discretion, such as to decline to impose mandatory minimum sentences when appropriate. Indeed, the TRC's call to action number 32 directs this.

I have a bit left, but I've run out of time.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start by asking the same question that my colleague Rob Moore asked Ms. Samson.

Ms. Samson, the question again, to refresh your memory, was this: Can you share with the committee what message Bill C-5 sends to communities who are grieving due to gun violence?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you. That is powerful testimony indeed.

As you know as a former mayor, it's not only the individual who is sometimes victimized, but communities are also put at risk. What do you think is the message to our communities, both urban and rural, if we pass Bill C-5 when so many of these communities are struggling with gun violence?

[Raymond Cotonnec, Executive Director, C.R.C. Curé-Labelle Inc.]

Good afternoon.

My name is Raymond Cotonnec. I have a bachelor's degree in social sciences with a concentration in criminology and a bachelor's degree in social sciences with a concentration in sociology from the University of Ottawa, and I am the Executive Director of C.R.C. Curé-Labelle Inc., a federal and provincial halfway house located in Saint-Jérôme, in the Laurentians, that has been in existence since April 1993.

The changes proposed in Bill C‑5 will give judges more discretion for imposing penalties or sentences on individuals convicted of certain firearms, weapons or substances offences by removing mandatory minimums for incarceration in those situations. Some individuals did not have criminal intent at the time of the offence or were not aware of the severity of their actions in relation to the potential legal consequences and impact on society.

The Criminal Code must not further restrict judges’ sovereignty in sentencing. The federal government must trust that judges possess the requisite judgment and experience when determining the appropriate sentence. The justice system can no longer afford to convict people who do not deserve the harsh sentences imposed by mandatory minimums, especially when there is no real or direct victim. In these cases, there is no need for minimum sentences. We must consider the harm done to victims and the community.

The consequences of a criminal record are significant for offenders, and, in some cases, they become cruel and disproportionate to the real consequences to the potential victims of that same offence. Some individuals who have committed a crime pay for their actions for the rest of their lives, even if there was no actual victim. Having a criminal record can prevent them from getting a good job, a promotion, a loan and reasonably priced insurance, or being able to travel—in short, from becoming a citizen again. Where an offender re-offends, the sentences imposed by judges can be harsher, obviously.

On the question of diversion when an individual is arrested for simple possession of drugs, it would be appropriate to modify the current procedure so the offender is referred to a therapeutic resource, such as addiction treatment, rather than receiving a punitive sentence like prison. Otherwise, recidivism is almost inevitable.

Thank you for your attention.

[David Henry, Executive Director, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having me here today.

I am a criminologist and the Executive Director of the ASRSQ, the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec, an umbrella group of over 70 community organizations that offer rehabilitation services to more than 35,000 people with criminal records a year, throughout Quebec.

I believe that the main problem with Bill C‑5 is that it is aimed only at certain mandatory minimum sentences and not all of them that need to be abolished. It leaves in place the harshest mandatory minimum sentences, including the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, which is contrary to a sentencing policy based in part on the principle of rehabilitation.

For most of Canada's history, there were ten mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. As we speak, there are now 73. Only 20 mandatory minimum sentences are identified by Bill C‑5 for repeal, in whole or in part. I would also note that 28 mandatory minimum sentences have been found to be unconstitutional by at least one court over the years. I think it is absolutely necessary for judges to impose fair sentences based on the sentencing principles set out in the Criminal Code.

Abolishing mandatory minimum sentences doesn't mean making sentences lighter. It simply means giving judges back the discretion to impose an appropriate sentence based on the circumstances of the offence and the person who committed it. Mandatory minimum sentences are unfairly harsh, particularly for marginalized individuals, women, and indigenous people.

Personally, I find it hard to explain why elected members don't trust judges to impose an appropriate sentence. To my knowledge, there are no studies that would connect mandatory minimum sentences and crime rates. So mandatory minimum sentences don't protect our communities. A number of criminological studies have even shown the reverse: that when a sentence or parole conditions are too harsh, they may have a tendency, in some cases, to cause the recidivism rate to rise.

To summarize, I would say that the Association supports Bill C‑5, but it should be amended so that judges have discretion not to apply the mandatory minimum sentences that are not repealed in the bill, if they might cause an injustice.

Thank you for your attention.

I am available to answer your questions.

[Anie Samson, Municipal Affairs Strategic Advisor and Political Analyst, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me today to testify before this committee.

I am addressing you as a former municipal councillor for almost 25 years. I represented the most multicultural neighbourhood in Montreal, where there is a relatively high crime rate. It is the birthplace of street gangs and one of the 10 poorest neighbourhoods in Canada. So you will understand that I know a bit about the problem of street gangs, and it is from that perspective that I want to talk to you about firearms.

I was also co-chair of the executive committee of the City of Montreal and responsible for public safety, and it is mainly in that capacity that I want to speak today.

Why do these changes need to be made to mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs?

We are told: "These reforms would target MMPs that are associated with the overincarceration of Indigenous peoples as well as Black and marginalized Canadians."

I would first like to address this subject from a perspective that we don't talk about much: the perspective of victims. Big cities like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg have experienced a significant increase in crimes committed with a firearm in the last two years. In Winnipeg, there were 850 in the last year, making Winnipeg the city with the worst crime rate in 2021.

Young adolescents have lost their lives simply because young people had access to illegal firearms. Those weapons have destroyed families, friendships and lives. It is too easy today to obtain illegal weapons to commit crimes. The problem isn't limited to legally registered handguns. It involves firearms bought on the black market, including on the street. Knowing the source of the problem and where it gets into the country, it would be appropriate to legislate to improve controls at the borders and around indigenous reserves, because we know that's the source of the problem. We believe this is part of the solution.

What will be the consequences for offenders of reducing MMPs?

Street gangs, like criminals, are well aware of how to get around the current law. The older ones use the younger ones, often barely 12 or 13 years old, and pay them to do the dirty work. That may be shooting at houses, to send a message, or at young people, as a warning, something that happens regularly, or selling drugs. They know very well that they will get a light sentence if they're caught.

What does Bill C‑5 do to protect our young people and deter them from taking this path?

It does absolutely nothing to deter them, in fact. Abolishing certain MMPs simply exacerbates impunity for these kinds of acts.

How do we tackle the rate of overincarceration?

In the summary of the amendments made by Bill C‑5, it uses statistics to show that the population that is overrepresented in prisons, indigenous communities and black and marginalized Canadians, should be treated differently. But the fact is that a criminal who uses an illegal firearm, regardless of their origin, is still a criminal. It would be incomprehensible to let criminals use firearms to kill, rob or threaten people without worrying about having to face the same consequences as other criminals for the same crime.

Is that the solution proposed in Bill C‑5 for reducing the prison population composed of those communities in order to balance the statistics?

Did you know that the victims of street gangs are also overrepresented and often, in a majority, come from the same communities?

I think the solution lies in working upstream. Is it reasonable that in 2022, our 12- and 13-year-olds have to pay for protection from older children in their school so they don't get beat up during the day?

Today, again, a young person was stabbed by a young criminal at lunchtime in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood.

Prevention programs have to be put in place targeting the problems that exist in the poorest neighbourhoods. By knowing the problem, we are able to put programs in place. I can tell you more during the question period, if you like.

This bill will decide what type of society we want to leave our children. Prevention and enforcement are solutions, and I am concerned about the consequences that these changes might make for reducing crime. There is concern about the fate of our criminals in prison, when at the same time there are hundreds of families mourning the loss of a loved one. Should the law not stand up for the interests of the public rather than the rights of criminals?

No one is born a criminal; they become one. Violence knows no colour, nor does death.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. Before I do, I just want to say that I use some really simple cue cards so that I won't have to rudely interrupt you. When you have 30 seconds left, either in your opening statement or in the questions, I'll raise this yellow card, and when you're out of time I'll raise the red card. Please be mindful of that and adjust your time accordingly.

Today, in our first round of witnesses, we have, as an individual, Dr. Julie Desrosiers, full professor of law at Université Laval; Anie Samson, a municipal affairs strategic adviser for the CBC; David Henry, executive director of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec; and Raymond Contonnec, executive director of C.R.C. Curé-Labelle Inc.

I will begin with Dr. Julie Desrosiers, as an individual. Please go ahead for five minutes.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here this evening as we enter week two of the four weeks in this part of our sittings. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to the government's proposal to extend the proceedings in the House of Commons for the remainder of the session.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

This Parliament was elected to get things done. As we have seen over the previous months, our government has an ambitious legislative agenda and we have a lot to accomplish in the weeks ahead.

In the last election, the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge elected me for the third time because I ran on a platform that promised to grow the economy, fight climate change, make housing more affordable and protect our country's most vulnerable. Now that we are here today, Canadians expect their parliamentarians to deliver on those promises. This means the House of Commons needs to find a way to continue its important work and drive legislation in a timely and judicious manner. That is what the proposal we are discussing today sets out to do.

Over the last few months, we have seen an ambitious legislative agenda put forward by our government, but we have also seen a concerted effort by the Conservatives to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have shown a pattern of obstruction of legislation, including on Bill C-8. They have debated it for 10 days in the House of Commons and continue to block it, denying Canadians the support they need as our economy continues to recover as we exit the COVID pandemic and as we continue to fight to create good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast, which we are doing. We need to get Bill C-8 across the finish line and get it done.

Bill C-8 implements critical components of the fall economic and fiscal update tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on December 14, 2021. The bill includes critical supports for workers and businesses needed to help tackle COVID-19, and support for territorial and provincial health care systems on vaccines, ventilation in schools and rapid tests. It also implements several tax measures, including tax credits for businesses purchasing ventilation supplies and for teachers who purchase school supplies to assist with virtual learning.

Since the start of the pandemic, our government has put in place unprecedented measures to support people and businesses across the country, to support our friends, our neighbours and our family members. Since day one, our government has had the backs of Canadians.

In Bill C-8, our government has outlined our plan to procure millions of rapid tests free to provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Bill C-8 includes support for workers and businesses, with changes to CEBA and El. We have proposed to create a host of tax credits, which would benefit Canadians, including a ventilation improvement tax credit for small businesses, tax deductions for residents of northern Canada, supporting our rural communities from coast to coast to coast, and support for farmers by returning fuel charges in involuntary backstop jurisdictions. Bill C-8 also proposes to implement a national tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underutilized.

Here is the thing: Our plan is working. We have now surpassed our target of creating a million jobs. By delivering significant fiscal support to the economy and avoiding the harmful Conservative austerity policies that followed 2008, our Liberal government has supported a rapid and resilient recovery. We know that there are challenges ahead and the future remains uncertain, but we also know that we need to reinforce the importance of passing this legislation so that we can focus our attention on the future.

As we finish the fight against COVID-19, we will turn our resolve toward fighting climate change, addressing housing affordability, advancing reconciliation with indigenous people and building an economy that is stronger, fairer, more competitive and more prosperous for all Canadians. If the Conservatives are opposed to those measures to support Canadians, that is their prerogative; that is their choice. However, one party should not get to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons.

That is not the only bill that I would like to see moved forward before the end of the session. We know that the budget implementation act will be debated soon. On April 7, 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced “Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. It is a plan that invests in Canadians and a plan that will help build a Canada where no one is left behind. The BIA will put those priorities into action.

Budget 2022 invests in three main things: people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone. Through targeted and responsible investments, our government will help make life more affordable, create jobs and prosperity today, and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians tomorrow.

We know from the budget that we are making it easier for Canadians to buy a home. We are moving forward on dental care. We are investing to help businesses scale up and grow. In the budget, we are making wealthy corporations pay their fair share. We are investing in a clean future and helping Canada become a world leader in producing electric vehicles. I know that everyone in the House and all Canadians are very happy to see the $3.6-billion investment that was made by Stellantis, in partnership and collaboration with the federal government and the provincial government. It means, here in Ontario, thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of jobs indirectly. It is a great day for the auto sector, a great day for this province and a great day for hard-working middle-class Canadians.

We have all seen the recent statistics. Canada has the strongest jobs recovery in the G7, having recouped 112%, and I think up to 150%, of jobs lost since the peak of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is down to just 5.5%, close to the 5.4% low in 2019, the lowest rate on record for five decades. Also, throughout the pandemic, we maintained a strong fiscal anchor and fiscal footprint, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio relative to our G7 peers.

Now, as we emerge from the pandemic, our government is focused on the priorities that Canadians expect us to deliver on: making life more affordable, creating jobs, growing the economy and ensuring a clean future for everyone. We need a healthy environment.

We will also need to move forward with Bill C-11, on online streaming. For decades, our system has guaranteed the creation of Canadian movies, TV shows and music that make us proud to be Canadian. Today, streaming platforms benefit from access to the Canadian market but have zero responsibility toward Canadian artists and creators. With our online streaming bill, we are asking online streamers to showcase and contribute to the creation of Canadian culture. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. We have been clear since the beginning: Those who benefit from the system should contribute to it. That is exactly what we need to see, so we need Bill C-11 to move forward.

To come back to our discussion about the motion for a moment, the motion would allow for extended time to debate bills, which is a good thing. We have heard from members of the opposition that they want more time to debate significant legislation. This motion allows for that to happen in the evenings when the government and one other party, which represent a majority in the House, request it. We believe that it is important for MPs to have the opportunity to debate legislation, and the motion facilitates this.

Let us think of the other pieces of legislation that could benefit from the additional time for debate.

I think of, for example, Bill C-18. We all know that a free and independent press is essential to Canadian democracy, and the work of our journalists has value. That is why we introduced Bill C-18, the online news act. It would require the tech giants to fairly compensate publishers and journalists for the content shared on their platforms. We are creating a framework to ensure that Canadian publishers, big and small, can negotiate fair deals on more equal terms with the tech giants, the most powerful companies in the world. The Europeans are doing it. We are going to do it as well. We will always support quality, fact-based and local Canadian journalism in a fair digital marketplace. I think all members of the House would agree with that, and that is why we should see this bill passed.

We also have Bill C-5, which deals with mandatory minimum sentences. A justice system that jails too many indigenous people, Black people and marginalized Canadians is not effective. That does not keep us safe and it must be changed.

With Bill C-5, we are turning the page on the failed policies of the Harper Conservatives. We are removing mandatory minimum penalties that target lower-risk and first-time offenders that have been shown to increase the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups. We will also provide police and prosecutors with the tools and guidance they need to treat addiction and simple drug possession as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. My brother is a first responder in the police force so I know he appreciates this.

Bill C-5 represents an important step forward. These changes will ensure that our criminal justice system is fair and effective and will keep Canadians from all communities safe.

To finish, these extended sittings will allow us to debate these bills and will provide more time for MPs to share their thoughts with constituents back home, be their strong local voice here in Ottawa and represent their constituents' views.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ka Hon Chu, I would like to ask you two brief questions.

During your testimony, I saw you reading notes. There were references to certain provisions of the Criminal Code or to other legislation. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of your notes or the brief you used to testify?

I'll ask you my second question right away.

You've talked a lot about decriminalization, whereas Bill C‑5 is more about a diversionary process. In other words, drug offences are still criminal offences, but they can be treated alongside the judicial system as a health issue.

Can you tell me if you support diversion, or would you like to see decriminalization altogether?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Well, unfortunately, we're not done, because we never agreed we would only hear six days of witness testimony. There had been some proposal, I think by Mr. Fortin, that we have eight days of committee testimony on Bill C-5. I certainly supported that and spoke to that last time.

We did not come to a conclusion on how many meetings we would have. I would propose that we have eight, but this is something I would hope we would set aside time for as committee business, and we are at the end of our meeting.

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

Thank you for that.

You're quite right that Parliament, not judges, makes laws. You cited victims at the end of your last comments. At the end of your testimony you noted that nowhere in Bill C-5 is the word “victim” mentioned. Nowhere in the Bill C-5 backgrounder on the Department of Justice website is the word “victim” mentioned. Indeed, it's [Technical difficulty—Editor] that we ever hear members on that side utter the word “victim”. In the six and a half years that I've been a member of Parliament I've talked to many victims. Almost all of them have been very disappointed with the approach that this government has taken in terms of their disregard for the rights of victims.

Do you have any comments on that? Would you wish to expand upon the comment you made at the close of your opening statement?

[André Gélinas]

As you mentioned earlier, you only have to listen to the news to see that the number of shootings is increasing in Montreal and Toronto. The danger is increasing. More and more innocent people are being shot and killed.

Some very serious offences are indeed covered by the provision repealing mandatory minimum sentences, such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and discharging a firearm with intent. As for the rest, one thing must be understood: it is a whole. Someone who recklessly discharges a firearm may not have been aiming at a person. However, this brings me to the notion of public safety and the feeling of public safety.

People who live in neighbourhoods where gangs and organized groups are very active feel totally abandoned by Bill C‑5. They feel that, even if you didn't intend to hit someone with your gun, the result is the same. Fear sets in. Afterwards, people want to leave their neighbourhoods at all costs. In some neighbourhoods there is an exodus. Unfortunately, people who cannot afford to move become captives and cannot escape the hold that these criminals have on these neighbourhoods.

I repeat that the use of a firearm is not a selfless act. When a criminal is in possession of an illegal weapon, it is not just for fun. There is an intention behind it. The person intends to use it and is very likely to do so.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gélinas, you spoke earlier about the increase in the number of shootings in Montreal and Toronto, among others. I have also heard a number of testimonies that point in the same direction. You only have to listen to the news sporadically to realize that.

Bill C‑5, in its current version, proposes to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for several offences, including one involving firearms trafficking. Not all firearms trafficking offences are included, but some would no longer be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence.

Is this illogical and does it only encourage criminals, as you said earlier?

However, can this be acceptable in certain cases, in terms of firearms trafficking?

[Jacqueline Beckles, Secretary, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers]

Ultimately, the systemic racism we're seeing endemic in Canada has to do with both the level of interactions within the Black community, as well as once individuals are brought before the courts. What we propose with respect to Bill C-5, in particular, as my colleague Mr. Tachie has said, is the absolute repeal of mandatory minimums, because they don't serve the purpose for which they're intended.

Within the Black community, because our communities tend to be over-policed, because we have seen carding in some areas, because we have seen there is almost a circular logic that is applied to criminality within the Black community, our communities are policed and therefore, offences and offenders are located within the communities. They are disproportionately policed and therefore, we are seeing that a disproportionate number of Blacks and indigenous individuals are being brought before the courts.

We have seen that the discretion that is usually exercised by both police or prosecutors is not exercised in favour of the offenders. Where there is discretion to issue warnings, for example, or to divert cases, we are not seeing that being exercised in favour of first-time offenders within the Black community. They are then brought before the courts. When in court, the prosecutor is similarly not exercising the same discretion to divert cases to give individuals the opportunity to experience diversion, or to plead guilty to lesser included offences, for example. They are facing prosecution for the most serious crimes.

The circular logic I spoke of is as a result of this. Let's put a number to it. If you have 100 offenders, of those 100 offenders in the white community, there would be a diversion of 63%, let's say. These numbers are accurate, because our studies have shown that within the Black community, you don't divert as many as in other communities, and the numbers are quite significant. For the Black community, the diversion numbers are around one-third of individuals who are confronted by police, whereas in other communities, it's two-thirds of the individuals who will be diverted. Out of 100 offenders, you might see 60 offenders diverted in other communities. In the Black community, you'll see 30, which means you're bringing the other 70 offenders before the courts.

What that does for judges and other members within the criminal justice system is it brings the perception that Black people are committing more crimes. That is not, in fact, the case. It is simply that they are not being treated in the same way when they're intercepted or when they're interviewed.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

How do you feel that Bill C-5 is going to have an effect on future crime reduction, or crime prevention even, for the illegal behaviour of gangs and organized crime?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. We especially appreciate the diverse knowledge that's here.

My question is for Mr. Gélinas.

Thank you for helping us focus. Sometimes we get the victims, and we also get the offenders. Sometimes the victims are not as vocal because they've been involved in some heinous crimes and they just don't feel comfortable talking about it. Thanks for bringing that up.

In law enforcement, I know that you're there, right front and centre, having to deal with the victims and dealing with the aftermath of serious and violent crime. It is interesting that you brought up the fact that in organized crime and gang activity, almost always, I believe—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—are illegal guns, yet here we are in the middle of not only this Bill C-5 that we are reviewing, but some other legislation that coming up for the seizure of what some people have called “weapons” or “guns that look like assault weapons”, and they don't specify or actually define that kind of gun.

I know that now in Vancouver, which is an area I'm more familiar with, ghost guns are quite popular. They're 3-D printed and used just one or two times. In your experience in dealing with organized crime and gang activity, do you deal with many people who have PALs or RPALs, who actually have legal guns, or are you almost exclusively dealing with illegal guns?

[Sandra Ka Hon Chu, Co-Executive Director, HIV Legal Network]

Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting us to speak about Bill C-5. I'm the co-executive director of the HIV Legal Network and I'm presenting today on behalf of my organization and the Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation.

Today I'm going to focus my remarks on the section of Bill C-5 that pertains to evidence-based diversion measures. Before I begin I'd like to endorse the recommendations made by the previous speakers calling for the restoration of conditional sentences and the repeal of all mandatory minimum sentences, or, in the alternative, an amendment to Bill C-5 that ensures that judges retain discretion to not apply mandatory minimum sentences if doing so would result in injustice.

I'll turn to the evidence-based diversion measures. Despite acknowledging in its declaration of principles the need to “protect the health, dignity and human rights” of people who use drugs, the stigma associated with the criminalization, and that “judicial resources are more appropriately used in relation to offences that pose a risk to public safety”, Bill C-5 stops short of repealing section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This failure to eliminate criminal sanctions for drug possession completely undermines the principles underpinning the bill.

From 2014 to 2020, police in Canada made more than 600,000 arrests for drug offences. Two-thirds of those were for simple drug possession, yet more than a century of drug prohibition in Canada has not had an impact on the levels of drug consumption. As the Canadian Mental Health Association has concluded, contrary to the logic of criminalization, incarceration does not result in a cessation of substance use nor does it prevent harm.

As we outline in more detail in our submission, drug prohibition fuels stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs. Criminal records limit employment and housing opportunities. They affect child custody and restrict travel. The frequent contact the police have with people who use drugs leads to syringe sharing, rushed injection and isolation while using drugs. It creates barriers to accessing health services and contributes to epidemics of preventable HIV and hepatitis C infection as well as overdoses, which have resulted in nearly 27,000 deaths in Canada between January 2016 and September 2021.

Considering the ample evidence demonstrating the harms associated with criminalizing simple drug possession, and consistent with Bill C-5's declaration of principles, Bill C-5 should include a full repeal of section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Short of such a repeal, we recommend some amendments to the bill, in particular, in proposed section 10.1 regarding the declaration of principles.

We recommend that this section explicitly centre human rights and not frame drug use as primarily a health issue. It should acknowledge that most cases of drug use do not pose problems for the individual and that pathologizing drug use actually contributes to stigma.

It should reference the harms of criminalizing necessity trafficking. It is common for people to sell drugs to others in their network as a means of livelihood to support their own use and to avoid withdrawal or to provide a safe supply.

Finally, it should acknowledge the disproportionate impact of criminal sanctions for drug possession on Black, indigenous and other racialized communities, given the racist roots of Canada's drug control framework and the fact that Black and indigenous communities in Canada continue to be disproportionately charged, prosecuted and incarcerated for drug offences.

In proposed section 10.2(1), which outlines options for a peace officer who encounters someone in simple possession of drugs, an officer is required to “consider whether whether it be preferable, having regard to the principles set out in [the bill], to take no further action, to warn the individual or, with the consent of the individual, to refer the individual to an agency or service provider in the community”.

Despite this requirement, the subsequent section indicates that subsequent charges are not invalidated if a peace officer fails to consider these options. We recommend deleting this paragraph altogether as, in practice, it will completely undermine the purpose of the bill.

In proposed section 10.3, a prosecutor could, instead of laying criminal charges, opt for “alternative measures as defined in section 716 of the Criminal Code”. In the context of drug offences, this typically includes drug treatment courts, but such courts have been critiqued for being coercive, ineffective and posing numerous human rights concerns. They should not be presented as an alternative to decriminalization.

In proposed section 10.4 regarding a record of warning or referral, the police force “may keep a record of any warnings or referrals relating to individuals alleged to have committed an offence under subsection 4(1)”, which is the section that criminalizes simple drug possession.

This provision is contrary to the spirit of Bill C-5 and the declaration of principles. Police record-keeping would negatively affect the privacy of people who use drugs, could be used as a tool of surveillance and could undermine the potential to improve the quality of drug users' encounters with police. It is imperative that police not engage in monitoring, surveillance and record-keeping under the guise of reform of public safety. Therefore, we suggest replacing “may” with “must not keep records”.

I want to conclude by urging this committee to reject incrementalism and take bolder steps with respect to Bill C-5 that will more meaningfully address systemic racism and the harms of drug prohibition, including a full repeal of section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Thank you.

[Raphael Tachie, President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers]

Good afternoon, Chair and honourable members. Thank you for inviting the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers to share our views on the bill.

My name is Raphael Tachie. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. I'm here with my colleague Jacqueline Beckles, the secretary of the association. I want to highlight that a lot of the comments I'm about to give have been the result of the impressive work of Ms. Beckles and our criminal justice reform committee. More importantly, they are a reflection of our lived experiences as Black people in Canada. When I hear about removing minimum mandatory sentences, the request to remove those is made by people who are further from the crimes. I'd like to highlight that many victims of crimes tend to be people from the same communities that are faced with overrepresenation in the criminal justice system.

We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. Our comments around Bill C-5 are really structured around three issues.

Generally our comments focus on the request that when considering criminal justice reform, we encourage the government to look at the status prior to sentencing. At the sentencing stage, the competing priorities need to be balanced, including community safety. There are significant strides that can be made much earlier, such as in diversion, which lead to the ultimate over-incarceration of members of the Black community in the criminal justice system.

Our comments are focused in three areas: mandatory minimum sentences, conditional sentence orders and evidence-based diversion.

With respect to mandatory minimums, Bill C-5 proposes to repeal a number of mandatory minimum sentences, especially the four-year mandatory minimums. While those are really laudable goals and we are encouraged by them, the five-year minimum sentences will remain where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used or where the offence is committed in connection with a criminal organization. This includes cases in which an offender is the subject of party liability, whether or not the weapon was in that particular offender's possession. As a result of that, the only avenue available to an offender in order to avoid a minimum sentence is that a prosecutor will act with their prosecutorial discretion and agree to resolve the charges by accepting a plea of a lesser offence. What this really means is that a Black person who is accused has to plead guilty in order to avail themselves of the opportunity to avoid a minimum sentence.

In order to address this possibility and in order to uphold judiciary discretion, CABL recommends eliminating all mandatory minimums for drug and weapons offences.

I heard Chief Arcand and the other panellists earlier speak about how mandatory minimum sentences restrict judges from imposing appropriate sentences on individuals and can prevent judges from really taking relevant factors, like systemic anti-Black racism, into consideration. Judges have been elevated to perform an essential function within the criminal justice system and they should be afforded the full discretion to perform that function, especially as we work really hard to make sure that the judiciary reflects the community in which they serve.

Mandatory minimum sentences often hamper real justice from being done. When they're included in legislation, the justification is usually that they are a deterrent, but much research has shown that these sentences do not often achieve that result and do not impact crime rates.

The second issue I would like to talk about is conditional sentencing orders. They are essential tools for combatting recidivism as they can allow for offenders to maintain familial ties, employment and school commitments. Chief Arcand spoke about being holistic in our approach. We agree entirely with that, and with the focus on keeping these ties really as a focus to promote the social determinants of justice, making sure that offenders have the ability to recover from what might be a one-time mistake. Removing the limit formerly found at paragraph 742.1(c) and expanding the application of conditional sentence orders are very good steps in the right direction.

However, we are mindful that, given the historical application of CSOs, it is important to reinforce that a CSO can be imposed where the court is satisfied that service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Including and enforcing this language with respect to the bill will reduce the arbitrary limits on their use, such as requiring an offender to have an employment in order to be considered suitable for a CSO.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Again, thank you very much for your testimony.

I want to take the last minute I have here with Mr. Spratt.

Mr. Spratt, I think you told us at the beginning that Bill C-5 is not a real response to the opioid crisis and that you're looking to see the government do something more comprehensive when it comes to addressing that. Is that correct?

[Jennifer Dunn]

I think that Bill C-5 needs to be broken down a little bit more.

I do believe that changing the conditional sentencing does put women at greater risk. It puts them in harm's way. It puts them in the communities where the offenders are going to be. Just because somebody is convicted of a crime doesn't mean it's going to stop the violence from happening.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do want to thank all the witnesses for being with us this morning—my time.

The government says that one of the purposes of Bill C-5 is to address the problem of systemic racism in the justice system, so I want to extend particular thanks to Chief Arcand for being with us to stress the importance of indigenous voices and hearing indigenous voices in our considerations.

I want to thank you for bringing our attention to the facts about over-incarceration and the very shocking figures that you've cited from your community. Obviously it's an injustice, but could you tell us a bit more about the impacts of over-incarceration in terms of the connections to family, connections to community and connections to culture that result from this over-incarceration?

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

Mr. Spratt, at present, mothers are afraid to send their children to school because there are guns around. Bill C‑5 provides for the removal of mandatory minimum sentences even for armed robberies.

I understand what you are telling me. Between lawyers, we can discuss many things. However, you, I, and everyone else here works for the population. You are telling the public that it has been decided that a robbery committed with a firearm is now less serious than it used to be and that we are removing the minimum sentences for these kinds of crimes.

You can explain that there are problems with minimum sentences and that the sentence would be the same anyway, but the message may not be the one we want to send.

Don't you think the timing is wrong?

Some minimum sentences can be abolished now without a problem, but in the case of serious crimes, for example robbery with a firearm, don't you think we should keep mandatory minimum sentences?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you. I appreciate that statistic you mentioned. I referenced a report published by Statistics Canada, which said “women were violently victimized at a rate nearly double that of men in 2019”. The report goes on to say that the discrepancy between male and female victims was largely due to the fact that “women were five times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual assault”.

I know that you deal in your organization with the fallout of these statistics, and you are able to to put a name to the stat. Sometimes when we're in these committees, I think we hear stats, but we forget that there's a person behind them.

Could you tell us, in the consultations you've had with the people who you work with, how Bill C‑5 could, in fact, fail Canadian women? What should we do instead to make a community safer rather than eliminating the inability of offenders to get conditional sentences and now being able to serve their sentence from home for some of these various serious offences against women?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for taking part in the study of Bill C-5, formerly Bill C-22.

Many good points have been raised. I will encourage you, Mr. Spratt, since you mentioned Conservatives, to take the time to research the origins of most of the mandatory minimum penalties that are being repealed here. You'll find direct links back to previous Liberal governments, including the government of the current Prime Minister's father.

By no means are the mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code there just by virtue of Conservative governments, although having been part of the former Conservative government, I'm very proud of the measures we took when it came to conditional sentencing. One of the key responsibilities for us as parliamentarians is to put in place legislation that creates balance and has a justice system that's balanced and protects rights, not only of the accused but protects society, protects victims and respects victims and their families.

What we were finding with conditional sentences in the past was that too often, for something very serious in the community, the punishment being meted out to offenders was to serve their time in the community. There are times when that's appropriate, but there are times when that is certainly not appropriate.

My question is for you, Ms. Dunn. I appreciated your testimony. Section 718 of the Criminal Code cites that one of the main objectives of sentencing is to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

You mentioned victims in your testimony. Bill C-5 expands conditional sentencing, like house arrest, to individuals who are found to have benefited financially from human trafficking. We have spoken a lot about human trafficking. It's a scourge on our nation and internationally. We've heard very compelling testimony at this committee of the tragedy that is human trafficking. What message do you feel it sends to Canadians, particularly to the women and girls that you mentioned, that people benefiting from human trafficking would be allowed to serve their sentences home in their community?

[Chief Mark Arcand, Tribal Chief, Saskatoon Tribal Council]

Tansi. Nanaskomin, kâhkîyaw.

My name is Mark Arcand. I'm the tribal chief of the Saskatoon Tribal Council. I'm taking this call on Treaty 6 territory in the city of Saskatoon.

With regard to Bill C-5, I want to be very clear—mass incarceration of indigenous peoples, period. It's a strong statement, but it's an accurate statement. As of December 2021, 32% of people incarcerated in federal prisons were indigenous, a new historic high. Over the last decade, the number of federally sentenced indigenous women increased by 60%, rising from 168 in March 2009 to 270 in March 2018. Indigenous women account for nearly half of the women in federal prisons yet represent fewer than 4% of Canadian women. Those numbers are astonishing. They are repulsive and unacceptable.

Then we can look at youth incarceration. In the city of Saskatoon, 98% of the female youth in one youth facility are indigenous. That leads to the correctional system, the provincial correctional system and then the federal penitentiary.

When you talk about Bill C-5, I agree with your previous speakers who talked about the violence against women. That's never taken into consideration in the MMPs. When we look at all of these things, Bill C-5 fully repeals only 13 out of 73 MMPs. That's less than one in five MMPs. It fully or partially repeals only 20 out of 73 MMPs. That's less than one in three MMPs. It addresses only 10 out of 28 MMPs that courts have found unconstitutional. That's only about one in three MMPs found unconstitutional.

This is not in line with the call of the federal government to repeal all restrictions on the use of conditional sentences and MMPs in line with the TRC calls to action 30 and 32, calls for justice 5.14 and 5.21 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and countless other sentencing and law commission reports. In particular, paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code mandatorily requires judges to consider an individual's indigenous history and consider all reasonable alternatives to prison when determining a sentence, including options for treatment in the community. MMPs can prevent judges from carrying out this duty to acknowledge and redress racism and colonialism.

When we talk about all of these things, it's very important that we also look at the fact that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls stressed that mandatory minimum sentences are especially harsh for indigenous women and girls. The TRC said that the failure to provide sufficient and stable resources for the community and treatment programs that are necessary to implement Gladue and Ipeelee helps explain why those decisions have not slowed increasing aboriginal overrepresentation in prisons.

Bill C-5 is a baby step in the right direction, but it must be amended to be a good step forward. For any MMPs that are not repealed by Bill C-5, an amendment could be added to the bill to ensure that judges have the discretion to not apply MMPs if doing so would result in injustice. In appropriate exceptional cases, judges would have to be able to consider lesser sentences, including such alternatives to prison as community-based and culturally appropriate treatment options.

I apologize for not wearing a shirt and tie for the House of Commons, but I had to make a statement about residential schools, with the orange shirt that I'm wearing, and about all the harms that have been done to indigenous people. When we talk about MMPs, these are things that have to be really considered in regard to the sentencing of individuals for minor crimes to major crimes like murder. A lot of our indigenous women who were in self-defence mode will end up serving a life sentence because of the abuse they endured in their relationship. It's unacceptable. Judges have to have the ability to make those decisions by hearing the evidence, not by following MMPs all the time. Moving forward, it's not acceptable.

Even when we look at simple drug charges, we should be asking that our people be sent to treatment based on the residential school system and the intergenerational trauma that has led to all the negative impacts on people. I've talked about the young women, but in the city of Saskatoon, where I work, out of 450 men in one correctional system, 80% are indigenous. That's a high number.

They then graduate to the federal penitentiary, where we have a higher number. This is just in the province of Saskatchewan. Imagine those numbers across Canada. We have the lowest percentage.

Thank you very much.

Nanaskomowin.

[Jennifer Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting me here today. It is nice to see you all again.

My name is Jennifer Dunn. I am the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, or LAWC, here in London, Ontario.

LAWC is a feminist organization that supports and advocates for personal, social and systemic change directed at ending male violence against women and girls. Our centre is non-residential. We are an agency that provides women and girls over the age of 12 who have been abused, assaulted, exploited, trafficked or experienced non-state torture with immediate access to long-term woman-centred counselling, advocacy and support.

On April 8, the Honourable David Lametti said, “Community safety is what we want. These reforms will...make [it] happen.” We do partially agree with the honourable minister. Community safety is what we want. However, we do not believe Bill C-5 is what will make it happen, the way it is. There are two issues that I want to address today. One is conditional sentencing. The other is mandatory minimum penalties. I'll start with conditional sentencing.

With Bill C-5, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender's behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community. Some of the offences listed in Bill C-5 are sexual assault, criminal harassment, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, material benefit and abduction of a person under 14. Women and girls are five times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault, and sexual assault is a violent crime on the rise in Canada. With conditional sentencing, many women will be stuck in the community with the offender, which places them at even higher risk.

A conditional sentence does nothing to stop an offender from continuing to commit violence. Women need the courts to see this. A conditional sentence for these offences undermines the seriousness of these crimes.

I have a quote here from a woman I am proud to work with. Her name is Caroline. She is a peer support worker and a survivor. She said:

I know a case where two men got 4 years and for trafficking, that’s nothing when women face a lifetime sentence after being trafficked, many women will never get over it and at minimum those women face years and years of counselling and constantly watching their back.

We know from our work that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Victims and perpetrators live in the same communities. An offender being placed back into the community with a conditional sentence is not always the answer.

The second issue I want to address with you today is the repeal of mandatory minimum penalties for some offences in the Criminal Code. I urge the committee to think about the most marginalized individuals when considering if this is good enough. Repealing some mandatory minimum penalties over others does not help with public safety. Women are not protected by the law unless all mandatory minimum penalties are considered.

For example, a mandatory life sentence for women who end up convicted of murder in situations where they were reacting to male violence is inappropriate. Each year 40% to 50% of women sentenced to life in prison are indigenous, and 91% of them have histories of physical and sexual abuse.

Canada's longest mandatory minimum penalty, the mandatory life sentence for murder, has resulted in countless miscarriages of justice for women. It has been proven time and time again that there is not a full understanding of the impact of violence against women in the criminal justice system.

When listening to the previous sessions of the study, I also heard more than once that there are cost savings with Bill C-5. I would ask if cost savings should actually be a point of concern when we are discussing the lives of women. We need systemic change. We need to protect women. Women deserve to live free from violence. The courts need to see that women are easily placed at more risk.

On Wednesday in the Senate, while speaking about a different bill, Bill S-205, Senator Pate said the following:

...let’s ensure that we address the issues, attitudes and ideas that fuel misogynist violence in society and our criminal, legal and penal systems, while simultaneously implementing the sorts of robust social, health and economic support systems that can truly assist women to avoid and escape violence.

This could not be more true for Bill C-5 as well.

In conclusion, we know that Bill C-5 is an attempt to tackle systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system, but the committee must remember that many of the victims of these offences are also part of the most marginalized and vulnerable. The government has a responsibility to make decisions based on the best interests of all.

Thank you.

[Michael Spratt, Partner, AGP LLP Criminal Trial and Appeal Lawyers, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the invitation. It's a pleasure to be back before the committee.

My name is Michael Spratt. I'm a lawyer. I'm certified as a criminal law specialist by the Law Society of Ontario, and I'm a partner at the criminal law firm of AGP LLP here in Ottawa. I've served on the board of the Criminal Lawyers' Association. I've acted as vice-president of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa, and I've been practising in the trenches of our courts for about 15 years now.

I'd like to touch briefly on the three main features of the bill. I'll start with minimum sentences. In criminal justice policy, the embrace of mandatory minimum penalties is a sentencing tool that is the hobgoblin of small minds. The evidence is clear. MMPs are an ineffective and dangerous tool. They don't deter crime. They don't increase public safety. They disproportionately impact indigenous and other racialized Canadians, and they're incredibly expensive.

In 2005, the Department of Justice found evidence that minimum sentences are not effective at deterring crime. In 2007, the parliamentary information and research service cited numerous studies that came to the same conclusion. In 2017, a federal government report concluded:

Research in Canada and the United States has found no evidence that MMPs have deterred crime; rather, some studies suggest that MMPs can result in overly harsh penalties and disparities, that they increase costs to the criminal justice system as a result of higher levels of incarceration, and that lengthier sentencing may actually increase recidivism.

Expensive, racist, ineffective, unfair and cruel: that's why time and time again, minimum sentences have been declared unconstitutional by our courts.

It is a very positive step that Bill C-5 removes this corrosive sentencing policy from the Criminal Code, but of course, Bill C-5 does not remove all minimum sentences. We need to eliminate every single minimum sentence in the Criminal Code. I'll answer the question in advance: yes, including for murder, which is a particular concern for women who have killed their abusers.

Here's your history lesson. The only reason the minimum sentence for murder was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Luxton was that there was a possibility of review through the faint hope clause, which of course has now been repealed.

At the very least, this bill should be amended to allow an escape valve for the rest of the MMPs that aren't explicitly eliminated, and there should be a requirement that all reasonable sentencing alternatives be explored and considered before mandatory minimum penalties are imposed.

I'll move on to conditional sentences. This is one of the best parts of the bill. The amendment to the conditional sentence regime here is desperately needed. The amendment is going to bring consistency in the application of the criminal law across Canada. Different provinces now have different conditional sentence rules because of different court findings. On the ground, we see that conditional sentences bring efficiency and fairness to the justice system.

Some people—and I'll be blunt because I normally am, members of the Conservative Party—have said that conditional sentences are too lax. Now, just because a conditional sentence is available doesn't mean it is going to be imposed. Conditional sentences can be imposed only for sentences that fall under two years and only when there's no danger to the safety of the community. Conditional sentences provide significant restrictions, denunciation and deterrence.

If you thought that mask mandates were an oppressive restriction that deserved and called out for massive protests, wait until you hear about conditional sentences, because they can be more restrictive and more punitive, but they can also be rehabilitative. Unlike traditional jail, conditional sentences come with strings attached, such as house arrest. Offenders can be required to take counselling, seek employment, perform community service and make reparations to the victims of their offences. This is one of the best parts of the bill.

Very briefly, in the time that I have left, I'm going to deal with the drug amendments. Canada is in the grip of a deadly overdose epidemic. In 2020, more people died in British Columbia of drug overdoses than car crashes, homicides and suicides all combined. Since 2016, more than 20,000 Canadians have died of opioid overdoses. Incrementalism is not enough here. People do not lead incremental lives, and they're not dying incremental deaths. The harms of continued criminalization are real.

This legislation as it pertains to this drug issue is window dressing. It's the same type of window dressing we saw in 2018, with legislation that sought to divert administration of justice defences through police diversion. That power has been used four times by the police in Ottawa.

The real solution here is not to give more power to the police but to take it back. We need decriminalization and safe supply legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 13 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses, but first, I just want to let each group know that they will have five minutes to make their opening statements, and then members will have questions.

I don't have a time card, but when you have 30 seconds left, I'll wave an envelope to give you a heads-up that you have about 30 seconds. I will have to interrupt you when your time is up.

We have three witnesses in the first round. We have Michael Spratt, criminal and appeal lawyer and partner at AGP LLP. We have, from the London Abused Women's Centre, Jennifer Dunn. From Saskatoon Tribal Council, we have Chief Mark Arcand, tribal chief.

I will begin by inviting Michael Spratt to speak for five minutes.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 would provide judicial discretion to allow courts to craft proportionate sentences that consider all the relevant circumstances, including factors such as an individual's experience with systemic racism, their history of trauma or their need for community and health supports.

Should Bill C-5 be enacted, the human trafficking regime would not change. Conditional sentences would continue to be unavailable for the offence of trafficking in persons and trafficking of minors. In all cases, courts would continue to be required to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

Bill C-5 is an important step toward addressing systemic racism and discrimination in the justice system while also maintaining public safety.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things I would note is that in northern Alberta we have an ongoing revolving door of criminals who continue to get out on bail, so I put forward initiatives around human traffickers having reverse onus bail. This bill would continue to allow human traffickers to get house arrest for being convicted of human trafficking.

In Alberta, our Alberta Law Enforcement Response Teams, or ALERT, have been doing incredible work apprehending traffickers and helping victims regain their lives. In one case last year, they arrested traffickers in Edmonton involved in the sex trafficking case that Staff Sgt. Lance Parker described as “truly sickening”. Staff Sgt. Parker went on to say, “We owe it to [the victim's] safety and well-being to have these suspects in custody and prevent any other women from suffering the same”. Changes in Bill C-5 would allow traffickers like this to serve their conviction at home.

I once again ask the parliamentary secretary if he believes pimps and sex traffickers should be serving their sentences at home. I know he says that judges would not allow this to happen, but the bill would allow for pimps and traffickers to serve their sentences at home.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, particularly to dispel some possible misunderstandings about the impact these sentencing reforms would have on the human trafficking regime in the Criminal Code.

Some critics of this bill suggest the proposed reforms would allow hardened human trafficking offenders, who may be linked to organized crime or who are otherwise observing harsh sentences, to serve their sentences at home. This is simply not true.

Currently, all offences that carry mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment in the Criminal Code are ineligible for a conditional sentence. Bill C-5 would not change this. If the proposed reforms were to pass, offences carrying MMPs would continue to be ineligible for conditional sentences. To be completely clear, the offence of human trafficking, as well as any child-related trafficking offences, carries mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment and thus would continue to be ineligible for a conditional sentence.

I want to make clear that when there is no MMP for any provision, CSOs can only be considered by the court in a specific set of circumstances. Namely, where a sentence of less than two years is appropriate, where serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the same of the community, and where such a sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation.

Our government is committed to fighting human trafficking. With former bill, Bill C-75, which came into force in June of 2019, we took measures to facilitate the prosecution of human trafficking offences under the Criminal Code.

In September of 2019, we launched the national strategy to combat human trafficking, which brings together federal efforts and is supported by an investment of $57.22 million over five years and $10.28 million ongoing. This builds on previous investments of $14.51 million over five years and $2.8 million per year to establish a Canadian human trafficking hotline, which launched in May of 2019.

In February of 2021, we also launched the national human trafficking public awareness campaign to raise awareness among Canadian youth and parents of the misperceptions of human trafficking and increase understanding of the warning signs.

Our government has taken strong measures to combat human trafficking at it roots, instead of fuelling the ideological tough-on-crime narrative, which has not proven to be true empirically, has not served our communities and has not made us safer nor helped victims.

Let me be very clear. Human trafficking is a serious offence for which courts impose stiff, denunciatory terms of imprisonment in the majority of cases, and that is what we and all Canadians expect from a court system. I have the utmost faith that, after the passage of Bill C-5, sentencing courts would continue to impose fit and appropriate sentences that reflect the seriousness of each offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender before them in all cases.

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

Madam Speaker, they say the devil is in the details, and Bill C-5 is an excellent example of this. While the parliamentary secretary will only want to talk about criminal justice reform, the reality is that buried deep in Bill C-5 are insidious changes that will deeply harm the most vulnerable. Bill C-5 would extend house arrest to a number of serious crimes, including criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, abduction of a person under 14 and trafficking in persons for material benefit, in section 279.02. Extending house arrest to those offences places victims at serious risk from their abuser or trafficker. When I asked the minister about this, he seemed unaware that this was in his own bill, and when I asked the parliamentary secretary about it, he claimed that Bill C-5 would help marginalized communities, except that these changes proposed in clause 14 of Bill C-5 would only lead to more harm to marginalized communities.

Victims of human trafficking deserve to have confidence that the justice system will put their safety first. Indigenous women are significantly overrepresented, estimated to be at least 50% of the victims of human trafficking in Canada. By letting the traffickers serve their sentences in the community, the government is telling victims that their lives and safety are not a priority. Victims of human trafficking experience anxiety, depression, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies and PTSD because of the abuse by their traffickers. They also experience physical abuse, torture and injuries such as broken bones, burns, scars and broken teeth. These are all very common injuries. Also, after conviction, pimps and sex traffickers will seek out their victims and continue to retraumatize them through psychological and emotional abuse.

The one hope victims have that gives them strength and courage to come forward and testify is that the trafficker will be locked away for a few years. Now the Liberals are destroying this hope for survivors by allowing their traffickers to live at home in the community. It is these victims, many of whom are indigenous or racialized, who will be further harmed by the changes in Bill C-5. If these changes go through, their traffickers will be eligible to serve their sentences in the community.

This past month, a human trafficking trial has been taking place in the small Ontario town of Cayuga for a young woman who was forced into prostitution. Like the vast majority of victims here in Canada, she knew her trafficker before he began trafficking her. He was her drug dealer when she was only 17. When she turned 18, she was convinced by the drug dealer that he was her boyfriend and that he could help her get her dream career. Instead, he and his friends advertised her body online for sexual services. For months she was forced to perform sexual acts on eight to 10 men per day in hotels throughout southern Ontario. She was blindfolded between locations. The five traffickers monitored her phone and profited from her exploitation.

Let us say this trial ends in the conviction of all five of these traffickers. Under Bill C-5, the court could sentence these traffickers solely to house arrest rather than prison. How is this mindful of the survivors of trafficking? The safety and healing of these survivors are not even accounted for in Bill C-5.

Human trafficking is a serious crime and it is happening within 10 minutes of where we live. It has long-term, serious effects on its victims and is much closer to home than we think. In no world should convicted traffickers stand a chance of not serving jail time.

[D/Commr Rick Barnum]

The contraband tobacco issue—this sounds kind of strange—is a unique issue, but it's not. What I mean by that is that the profitability for contraband tobacco for organized crime groups in Canada is absolutely huge, and contraband tobacco is a Canadian problem. Ninety per cent of the contraband tobacco that we seize in our country is from Ontario, in most cases. It's not something that's coming into our harbours and it's hidden or something of that nature.

The organized crime groups that are engaged are Canadian organized crime groups for the most part. They're selling contraband tobacco in Canadian communities. This money that they make goes to fuel all kinds of crime, as we're talking about today. I understand these conversations so very well. I've lived these conversations for the last 20 years of my career. I'm not here to comment from a policing perspective on these issues, but they are all intertwined now with contraband tobacco.

From the last 10 years, I do not recall a single person whom we arrested or charged on contraband tobacco at a significant level being engaged with any sort of race-based group or from any sort of specific racial community. Ninety percent of them were white organized crime figureheads. That's who we're dealing with here.

My message on the contraband tobacco issue would be to please not just swipe it away with the rest of what Bill C-5 hopes to accomplish, which, for the record, I'm not against. However, this issue is unique from the perspective that organized crime is targeting contraband tobacco, pairing it with cocaine and fentanyl and all of the issues that we're talking about today, and using it to make millions of dollars to use themselves.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I guess my last question for you is somewhat similar to what I've just asked the witness from The Dispensary. Do you think that Bill C‑5 is a robust enough response to the existence of systemic racism in the justice system?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you.

I know we're getting very short of time today. I want to go back to Mr. Rolle for just a moment.

In Bill C‑5, there's an increase in discretion proposed for police and prosecutors in how they would proceed with cases of personal possession of small amounts of drugs. I'm just wondering, given the existence of systemic racism in the system and the absence of serious police reform, if you have any concerns about this increase in discretion and how it would be applied.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to stay with Ms. de Kiewit for a moment.

We're talking about Bill C-5 here, but we have another bill before Parliament. It's a private member's bill, Bill C-216, which proposes not to take away mandatory minimums but to take away the offence of personal possession of drugs and to establish a regime for safe supply.

I don't know whether you've actually seen the bill, but my question for you is an obvious one. In order to attack the opioid crisis, don't we need a lot more than what's in Bill C-5?

[Deputy Commissioner Rick Barnum, Executive Director, National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco]

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, committee.

My name is Rick Barnum, and I am the recently appointed executive director of the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco.

I most recently served as deputy commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police and had an over 30-year career in law enforcement. During my career, I spent most of my time combatting organized crime. I saw first-hand how lucrative the contraband tobacco trade can actually be.

The Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada estimates that contraband tobacco and cannabis have a cost of over $12 billion in health care, lost productivity, criminal justice and other direct costs.

The RCMP estimates that there are over 175 criminal gangs involved in the illicit trade of contraband tobacco. These gangs make millions of dollars a day off contraband tobacco, which they use to fund their other illicit activities, including illegal firearms, drugs such as fentanyl, and human trafficking.

To combat this important funding source for organized crime groups, in 2014 the government passed Bill C-10, which introduced a Criminal Code offence for the trafficking of contraband tobacco and also a mandatory minimum penalty for the same offence. Both of these tools have been used by law enforcement across Canada since that time to dissuade individuals from participating in the contraband tobacco trade.

Prior to this, many of those charged and found guilty under provincial tobacco tax laws would simply be fined, but the fines would never actually get paid. The Criminal Code offence and penalties associated with this offence have made trafficking of contraband tobacco less attractive for some people.

However, Bill C-5 proposes to eliminate the mandatory minimum penalty for the trafficking of contraband tobacco while keeping the Criminal Code offence. By eliminating the mandatory minimum penalty, the government is removing a tool used by law enforcement to dissuade possible contraband tobacco traffickers.

The government of late has also helped to fuel the contraband tobacco trade by continuous increases in tax on tobacco. History shows us, as was also reported by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that tax increases without action against contraband tobacco result in a larger black market that directly funds criminal gangs. This is why, after removing one of the law enforcement tools, the government must add another.

First, the contraband tobacco trade continues to grow across Canada without concerted federal action. Illegal cigarettes, manufactured mostly in Ontario, can be found from British Columbia to Newfoundland. To curb the illicit trade, we recommend that the government create a contraband tobacco enforcement team within the RCMP that would help to coordinate enforcement across the provinces. Provinces like Quebec have seen great successes in such a model, in which municipal and regional law enforcement have been coordinated.

Second, further increased taxation on tobacco without action against contraband tobacco will only help to further grow the illicit trade. We recommend that the government resume a prudent approach toward tobacco taxation until contraband tobacco is addressed across the entire country.

Lastly, Ontario continues to be the epicentre of contraband tobacco in Canada. One in three cigarettes purchased in the province is purchased illegally. Criminal gangs make millions of dollars every day from this illicit trade.

To address this core issue, we recommend that the government partner with Ontario in taking action against contraband tobacco. By supporting law enforcement through countrywide coordination and a prudent taxation approach, the government can begin to effectively address Canada's growing contraband tobacco problem. With the removal of one law enforcement tool, the government must add another.

We hope we can count on your support in taking action against contraband tobacco and also against organized crime.

Thank you for your time. I'll be happy to take any questions.

[Dr. Jean Robert, Medical Specialist in Public Health and Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Professor, Université de Montréal and Université du Québec en Outaouais, The DISPENSARY Community Health Center]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour to be invited to appear before the committee.

I will be speaking from the heart much more than from the head.

I am a physician, and my first specialty is infectious diseases, which I've practised in university hospital centres. I also have extensive experience working under a community health model. This year marks my 46th caring for patients. I say “caring” because I don't necessarily treat them. I provide support to individuals who are part of a culture that carries a systemic stigma; they are oh so cruelly referred to as “addicts”.

Given my years of experience, I was deeply troubled and saddened when I read Bill C‑5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, because it appears to put guns and drugs in the same category. Keep in mind that guns kill other people, whereas drugs kill the person who takes them. Guns are a safety issue, but drug use is not a justice issue; it is a health issue. That is very important.

This is something I am extremely concerned about. I completely agree that it is finally time to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences for individuals who, for lack of proper care, treat themselves using substances that are available around them. That is the first point I want to make.

My second point has to do with people who die as a result of substance abuse or overdose. A unique feature of people who try to treat themselves using substances is that they are totally unaware of what is in the substances being sold to them. For example, as a physician, I am required to inform users of what this residue contains. I have here a minuscule amount of a substance, smaller than a match head. It's heroin that was recently brought to me by users, and it contains 12 different substances. What kills people is not knowing what they are actually taking. That is why it is important not to prevent these substances from being handled. I am able to do it because it's part of my job and because it's necessary in order to care for people. That is a crucial issue.

The bill sets out exemptions for simple drug possession offences. The third point I want to make is how vital it is that an exemption be added so that people like my team members and I can have access to these substances. There needs to be an exemption for professional use. That way, when our outreach workers, who are professionals, cross the street with a bag containing a small amount of powder residue, they won't have to fear being arrested or thrown in jail.

That is my only recommendation. I have other ideas, of course, especially when it comes to the terminology, but those are my own personal observations. I have spent 46 years working in this field. I've worked with inmates, and I am very familiar with the issue. Residue analysis can save lives. We also do urine analysis to determine what people have taken. That is the basis for the care we provide.

We, ourselves, applied for an exemption exactly a year ago, and we are still waiting. We haven't gotten it.

Now I will turn the floor over to my colleague, Ms. de Kiewit.

[Brandon Rolle, Senior Legal Counsel, African Nova Scotian Justice Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Brandon Rolle, and I'm the senior legal counsel at the recently established African Nova Scotian Justice Institute.

I'm pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-5, which we see as a necessary step towards justice.

African Nova Scotians are a distinct people who descend from free and enslaved Black planters, Black Loyalists, Black refugees, maroons, and other Black people who inhabited the original 52 land-based Black communities in that part of Mi'kma'ki known as Nova Scotia.

The African Nova Scotian Justice Institute is a provincially funded—but importantly, community-led—infrastructure developed in response to systemic anti-Black racism faced by African Nova Scotians in the justice system. We acted as intervenors in the Anderson case, a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision that affirmed the use of impact of race and culture assessments, IRCAs, as a valuable sentencing tool when sentencing people of African descent and provided a framework for applying systemic and background factors related to race and culture.

There can be no serious dispute that systemic anti-Black racism exists in the criminal justice system. In R. v. S. (R.D.), a well-known case from Nova Scotia that went to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court endorsed comments from another Nova Scotia case and put it very bluntly:

[Racism] is a pernicious reality. The issue of racism existing in Nova Scotia has been well documented in the Marshall Inquiry Report (sub. nom. Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution). A person would have to be stupid, complacent or ignorant not to acknowledge its presence, not only individually, but also systemically and institutionally.

The evidence is also very clear that one of the ways that systemic anti-Black racism has manifested is through the over-incarceration of African Canadians.

The committee has the data from the Department of Justice about the disproportionate impact of mandatory minimums on custody rates for Black people, but I would suggest there are some contextual factors that we can look at to help us understand why MMPs disproportionately impact people of African descent.

First, we know that Black communities are subjected to over-policing and over-surveillance. Since Black people are more likely to be arrested and charged with an offence, they are subject to a disproportionate risk of criminal liability for offences carrying a mandatory sentence.

Second, Black accused are disproportionately detained before trial. The research is increasingly clear that accused persons who have been denied bail feel greater pressure to plead guilty.

Third, African Nova Scotians and African Canadians at large have experienced the legacy of slavery, colonialism, segregation and racism that has led to this historic pattern of disadvantage, which includes overrepresentation in custody, involvement in certain offences, being denied bail and receiving longer jail sentences, and subsequently serving harsher time while in custody.

We submit that to truly address systemic anti-Black racism, the approach has to be multi-faceted and must include the type of legislative reform being proposed by Bill C-5. We suggest that has to be done in combination with efforts further upstream in the justice system that address the root causes of offending behaviour, which is the type of infrastructure we're trying to build here at the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute.

We endorse the comments of Justice Derrick in R. v. Anderson, that case I mentioned earlier, when she was discussing this exact type of legislative reform. At that time it was called Bill C-22, but we know that was the earlier version of this bill. She said, and I quote:

It speaks to what the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Gladue: “Overincarceration is a long-standing problem that has been many times publicly acknowledged but never addressed in a systematic manner by Parliament”.[29] Its proposed reforms would enhance the discretionary powers of judges in sentencing Black offenders. The increased availability of conditional sentence orders would afford judges greater scope in imposing sentences that better serve the principle of proportionality, thereby better serving the community and the offender, with systemic factors and historical disadvantage taken into account.

We agree that MMPs do not effectively address recidivism. Longer and harsher jail sentences have been shown to actually increase recidivism, and as such MMPs can work to decrease public safety. Mandatory minimum sentences do not accord with the fundamental sentencing principle of proportionality, because they remove that discretion of the sentencing judge to consider the moral blameworthiness of the offender and provide no opportunity to account for not only the personal circumstances of the accused but also those systemic and background factors that may come into play.

When it comes to African Nova Scotians and Black Canadians, we suggest that judicial discretion should always be informed by tools like impact of race and culture assessments to better address overrepresentation. This type of legislative reform is an important part of the answer. It's not the complete answer, but we suggest it is a step towards substantive equality.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to Mr. Paisana and his comments on the application of CSOs in the cases of drunk driving causing death or bodily harm. You quickly passed over the normal sentences for those, so I'm drawing a conclusion that what you said is that passing Bill C-5 in its current form would have relatively little effect on cases of drunk driving causing death because the sentence is almost always more than two years.

Is that correct?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

When Bill C-5 is passed into law, what opportunity do you see as it relates to CSOs being available as a way of sentencing?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

I want to ask the Canadian Bar Association a question. I think both Tony and Jody were talking about “non-violent” and how you could see the mandatory minimums being removed from “non-violent”, but would that mean that you don't agree that robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm or discharging a firearm with intent are violent? To me, all the firearm offences are pretty violent.

Even when we get into the expansion of conditional sentencing, there are some of these that would apply to kidnapping. Would you not consider that violent? In the case of an abduction of a person under 14, imagine telling the parents of that individual, “Oh yes, we're going to CSO because we're reducing some mandatory minimums.”

I just wonder if you do agree that some of these offences that are listed in Bill C-5 should remain because they are violent, and that in fact Bill C-5 could be amended.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

Sometimes when we talk about offences and offenders, I don't think we ever forget the victims, but sometimes a victim's rights are not really at the forefront when it gets to sentencing.

I'm going to ask one question to either Eric or Steve. If you have spoken with victims, especially about Bill C-5, how will they feel if Bill C-5 repeals mandatory minimums for impaired driving causing death?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

If we proceed with Bill C-5 as it's written, we could expect within a fairly short time a major impact on delays in dealing with more serious cases in the court system. Is that correct?

[Janani Shanmuganathan]

What mandatory minimum sentences do is handcuff the ability of trial judges to give what they feel is the appropriate sentence for a particular offender.

What we know from the empirical evidence is that members of racialized communities are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. They are arrested disproportionately to their representation in their community. They're convicted. They're sentenced for longer periods of time. What mandatory minimum sentences do is force judges to send these particular members of the community to jail, even when, outside the mandatory minimum sentence, they wouldn't have to go to jail.

The reality is that these members of these marginalized communities may not have the resources to fight mandatory minimum sentences and the challenges in the courts, so they end up getting a sentence that they otherwise would not have received.

Bill C-5, through introducing discretion to trial judges, will hopefully alleviate the problem of overrepresentation.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

In your brief, you stated that many of the individuals with whom MADD Canada works feel that sentences for impaired driving-related deaths do not reflect the harm that was caused. In a September 2020 letter to the Prime Minister, you stated that, “in too many cases, we are the only support victims and survivors have”. We've heard, in this justice committee, about the need for support for victims and their families.

Since impaired driving is often not a priority for government-funded victim services, could you share what, if any, consultation MADD Canada had with the federal government on Bill C-5? I know you were consulted widely on Bill C-9 when some of these changes were first put into effect. These are changes that will impact the families of victims of impaired driving and put impaired drivers back on the street rather than in jail. Could you talk about consultations you've had with the federal government on this?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for the testimony they provided. It is good to see some of our witnesses here in person, because that's a first for our committee. I hope to see more of that in the future.

We heard the characterization of Bill C-5 as some offenders just needing an opportunity to “give back to the community”. As someone who was involved in the drafting of Bill C-9, which ended the practice of giving conditional sentences such as house arrest for crimes like criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, impaired driving causing death, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, kidnapping and torture, I can tell you that these are serious offences. To pretend that somehow someone who's committed these offences should immediately be given a chance to go back into the community so they can “give back” is absolutely ridiculous.

Every case before a judge is different and every one of them brings its own unique challenges. Mandatory minimum penalties and house arrest have their place, but for serious offences, we need to make sure that our communities are protected and that offenders can get the help they need.

Using a firearm in the commission of an offence, weapons trafficking, robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm are things we hear about every day as parliamentarians. We hear about gun violence. These are currently offences that require someone who's been found guilty to serve jail time, as they should. This bill would end that. Obviously it should be a concern for all Canadians, whether they live in rural or urban areas.

As I mentioned, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice at that time, I was happy to work with organizations such as MADD Canada, which supported Bill C-9. They were looking at these offences from the perspective of the many victims they represent, as well as protecting Canadians from impaired driving. It's hard to believe, in fact, in my opinion, that we're back here discussing some of these offences after the hard work that went into correcting the imbalance in our justice system.

I will pose my question to MADD Canada.

Could you tell us how the legislation from 2007 impacted victims of impaired driving, and why victims of impaired driving and their families were calling on changes to the legislation as it was?

[Janani Shanmuganathan, Director, South Asian Bar Association of Toronto]

Thank you to the standing committee for the invitation to present today.

I'm a board director of the South Asian Bar Association, the largest diversity organization in the country. I'm also a criminal defence lawyer.

Almost seven years to the day, the Supreme Court of Canada released R. v. Nur, a decision in which the Supreme Court, for the first time in 30 years, struck down a mandatory minimum sentence. I had the privilege of being counsel for Mr. Nur at the Supreme Court and I have worked on several challenges to mandatory minimum sentences since then. I come before the standing committee today with the benefit of litigating these challenges and with the stories of my clients who actually faced the mandatory minimum sentences that Bill C-5 would repeal.

There is one particular story that I want to share today. It is the story of my youthful client who, with no criminal record, walked into a convenience store holding a BB gun he previously bought from Canadian Tire, showed it to the store clerk and stole $100.

He was an alcoholic at the time and extremely drunk when he committed the offence. He used the $100 to buy even more beer. He was caught within a couple of hours and immediately confessed. In the time between his arrest and sentencing, he completely turned his life around. He enrolled in university, got into a relationship, regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous and became a facilitator for Alcoholics Anonymous. The last sip of alcohol he had was on the day he committed the offence.

This client, this real person, received a 12-month jail sentence because that's what the mandatory minimum sentence demanded. No one in that courtroom—not the lawyers, the judge or the court staff who heard his story—thought that this person should go to jail for 12 months and be stripped from the prosocial life he had developed only to be locked up in a jail cell, but they had no discretion or choice. In the trial judge's words, it was heartbreaking to send this person to jail, but she had no choice.

What Bill C-5 would do is introduce discretion into the criminal justice system again, the discretion to consider the circumstances surrounding the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender and to ask, “What sentence does this person actually deserve?”

I also come before the standing committee today as a director of the South Asian Bar Association and a racialized lawyer who represents the racialized accused. When I walk into a courtroom or a jail and look at the faces of the accused whom I see, they resemble my own. So often, they are racialized. The empirical evidence backs up my lived experience. Study after study has revealed that Canada has a problem with the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black offenders in jail.

If this problem of overrepresentation matters to us as a country, then we need legislation like Bill C-5. We need to give trial judges the discretion to let people serve their sentences in the community or to shorten their jail sentence to only what's necessary. Without such discretion, judges don't have the ability to consider the systemic factors that contribute to the commission of crime: colonial legacy, residential schools, poverty, over-policing of certain communities.

Bill C-5 is not about being soft on crime. Offenders who deserve long jail sentences will continue to get those sentences. Bill C-5 is about proportionality and giving judges the discretion they need to ensure justice is done.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present today.

[Eric Dumschat, Legal Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about Bill C-5 today. My name is Eric Dumschat. I am the legal director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada. I am pleased to be sharing my time today with my colleague, Steve Sullivan, who is our director of victim services.

Much of the information we will discuss today here is expanded upon in the written brief that we've submitted to the committee, and this includes the appropriate reference information.

MADD Canada is a national charitable organization with the mission to stop impaired driving and to support victims and survivors of this violent crime. We have volunteer-led groups in over 100 communities across the country, and indeed many of our volunteers are themselves victims and survivors of impaired driving.

Our work is aimed at providing support to victims and survivors, raising awareness about the dangers of impaired driving and saving lives and preventing injuries on Canada's roads. We are here today to talk about the provisions of Bill C-5 dealing with conditional sentences and how they would impact victims and survivors of impaired driving.

If the bill is enacted in its current form, it would allow for the return of conditional sentences for any first-time impaired driving offender who met the eligibility criteria, including those convicted of impaired driving causing death or the associated refusal offence.

To put this in context, in 2018, as part of Bill C-46, the government repealed, revised and re-enacted the Criminal Code transportation offences. As a result of this, conditional sentences were allowed for some new impaired driving offences that were previously ineligible for them, so long as they were now tried by summary conviction. However, impaired driving causing death was excluded from eligibility for a conditional sentence, presumably because it was deemed sufficiently egregious to remain a purely indictable offence that carried a maximum sentence of life in prison. This decision is in line with the unanimous Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Proulx, which held that conditional sentences should not be imposed when the need for denunciation and deterrence is so strong that incarceration is the only way to express society's condemnation of the conduct or to deter similar acts in the future.

MADD Canada believes that impaired driving causing death and its associated refusal offence meets this criterion. We recognize that it would be uncommon to seek a conditional sentence for someone convicted of impaired driving causing death; however, any chance of this happening is too high when a life has been taken by the actions of another.

MADD Canada does not believe that a conditional sentence for impaired driving causing death should be an option at all. To allow the possibility for an impaired driver who has caused the death to serve his or her sentence outside of a prison would undermine the seriousness of the crime and adversely affect many victims and their families. We need to remember that this is a completely preventable crime that continues to occur despite years—decades—of advocacy and education efforts by MADD Canada, other organizations and indeed the Government of Canada, yet Canadians still make the decision to get behind the wheel of a car while impaired by alcohol or drugs, and in doing so, they take the lives of numerous Canadians each year.

We understand that the changes contained in Bill C-5 are made in part to address the systemic racism inherent in Canada's criminal justice system and we support this goal. However, the government has determined that some restrictions on conditional sentences are in line with this objective and are constitutional and that certain offences should remain ineligible for conditional sentences under Bill C-5. With this in mind, MADD Canada strongly recommends that impaired driving causing death in section 320.14(3) and the associated refusal offence in section 320.15(3) of the Criminal Code be added to the list of offences ineligible for conditional sentence in any circumstance, as has been outlined in clause 14 of Bill C-5.

Thank you for the time and the opportunity to present to you today. I'll now turn things over to Steve Sullivan, MADD Canada's director of victim services.

[Jody Berkes, Counsel, The Canadian Bar Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. Paisana mentioned, my name is Jody Berkes. I join you today from the traditional territory of the Wendat, the Anishinabek Nation, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and the Métis nation. This land is covered by the Dish With One Spoon treaty.

If there is one message that the CBA has for the committee, it is this: Bill C-5 is not soft on crime. If and when Bill C-5 is proclaimed in force, it will not prohibit any judge from sending a single violent offender to jail. On the other hand, it will allow non-violent offenders who deserve a second chance an alternative to incarceration.

Mandatory minimum sentences have contributed to overcrowding in prisons, an over-incarceration of marginalized communities and increases in court delays as people litigate matters when they are guilty, instead of resolving them. Additionally, mandatory minimum sentences have distorted the principles of sentencing. The fundamental principles of sentencing from the common law are now codified in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code. Those principles are that “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

As a result of mandatory minimum sentences, instead of a sentence tailored to the seriousness of the offence and the record of the offender, we have a one-size-fits-all approach of jail for everyone, regardless of their circumstances. Allowing non-violent offenders to serve sentences in the community allows offenders to work to support their families, receive treatment for the addictions that caused their offending and give back to the community they harmed through restorative justice measures.

On the other hand, mandatory minimum sentences simply warehouse people until they can be released, often with diminished life skills and prospects for employment, and untreated for the problems that caused them to offend in the first place.

My colleague Mr. Paisana has spoken about the changes to the conditional sentence regime in Bill C-5, but the short answer is if an offence carries a mandatory minimum sentence, it is ineligible for a conditional sentence. As a result, without eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, the other aspects of this bill are useless.

Bill C-5 represents the first step in recognizing the harmful effects of mandatory minimum sentences. The CBA supports the repeal of all mandatory minimum sentences, except for murder. There is no harm prevented by mandatory minimum sentences but a lot of harm caused by them.

We look forward to answering the committee's questions.

[Tony Paisana, Counsel, The Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Tony Paisana. I am the chair of the CBA's criminal justice section. I am joined by my colleague Jody Berkes, the immediate past chair.

The CBA represents approximately 36,000 lawyers, students and jurists across Canada. The criminal justice section, in particular, comprises a mix of both Crown counsel and defence counsel, and it's from this unique, balanced perspective that we appear today and offer our commentary on Bill C-5.

I will be addressing you on the provisions in this bill relating to CSOs, or conditional sentence orders, and Mr. Berkes will deal with mandatory minimum sentences.

Put simply, the CBA supports Bill C-5. As stated in our brief, this legislation will lead to a fairer and more just sentencing regime, one that recognizes that criminal offences can be committed in various ways and that one size does not fit all, particularly when it comes to offenders from traditionally marginalized communities.

The lifting of prohibitions on CSOs is among one of the most important reforms in the criminal law over the last decade, in our view.

We make several points about CSOs, but I'll highlight three here.

First, CSOs are vital to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system and to ensuring that non-dangerous offenders are encouraged to rehabilitate rather than harden themselves within our prison system. I emphasize and reiterate that CSOs, by statute, can only be granted to non-dangerous offenders who commit an offence deserving of less than two years in custody.

Second, making CSOs available does not mean that you will receive them. Indeed, I successfully argued a constitutional challenge to some of these very provisions in a drug trafficking case called “Chen”, but the trial judge nonetheless sentenced my client to nearly four years in custody. The sky did not fall, but as a result of that decision, numerous other marginalized accused in British Columbia have access to CSOs where appropriate.

What we are talking about is affording sentencing judges more discretion, not less. Suggestions that serial rapists, human traffickers or other serious offenders will now be liberally afforded CSOs are fanciful, in my respectful view. These people will continue to go to jail, as they always have.

Third, the need for reform is urgent. As a result of a patchwork of constitutional challenges across the country, Canadians have inconsistent access to CSOs. If a drug-addicted mother of three commits a low-level trafficking offence to feed her addiction in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, she is eligible for a CSO in B.C. If that same offender commits that same offence in Winnipeg or Edmonton, she is not. This lack of uniformity is troubling and inconsistent with our federal system.

Each day that goes by, more non-dangerous offenders are sentenced to jail when they might otherwise be provided an opportunity to rehabilitate in the community, where access to programming, work, treatment and counselling are more accessible and cost-effective to the state.

Those are my comments on CSOs. I'll now turn it over to Mr. Berkes to touch upon mandatory minimum sentences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 12 of the House of the Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to the committee's first meeting with witnesses appearing in person since we started this parliamentary session.

We have here in person two witnesses from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Eric Dumschat and Steve Sullivan. We have, from the Canadian Bar Association, Jody Berkes and Tony Paisana. They are appearing virtually. From the South Asian Bar Association of Toronto, we have Janani Shanmuganathan, director. I think her camera is probably off, but she's there, I believe.

Each one of you will have five minutes as a group; you can split it among your team. Afterwards there will be rounds of questions.

I will give you and the questioners a 30-second warning signal, and then I will give an “out of time”. I try to be as liberal as possible in that respect.

It's now over to you. We'll begin with The Canadian Bar Association.

[Matthew Taylor]

I'll elaborate on what Mr. Di Manno said earlier.

The government did fairly extensive consultations on the ideas, the areas of reform reflected in Bill C-5. I'd point you to the Justice Canada website. There's a publication there that summarizes the consultations they did on the criminal justice system review, the round tables that were held by the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary.

Yes, there was fairly extensive consultation and input sought on issues such as conditional sentences and mandatory minimum penalties. The earlier question was, were those groups consulted specifically on the reforms as drafted in the bill? They were not.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Could you do that, and provide it to the committee? I've taken the liberty of checking on all those. I can confirm that they were all brought in by previous Liberal governments. However, if you could confirm that and get back to the committee, I would appreciate it. I don't expect the other members to take my word for it, but they'll take your word for it.

I'm a little alarmed to hear that there was no specific consultation. I heard about polling on mandatory minimum penalties, but specific consultation with specific groups who are more likely than others to be victims of criminals, and their feelings about a response to what's being proposed in Bill C-5....

Just quickly, Statistics Canada reports that those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual are at greater risk of being violently victimized. Now, this legislation—and I asked the minister about its impact on women—provides for conditional sentences for some serious crimes, as well as the removal of mandatory minimums. Were there specific consultations with various communities on how they would be impacted, from the perspective of a victim, if this legislation were to pass?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

There doesn't seem to be a requirement in Bill C-5 to keep any record of the use of that discretion. I'm wondering how we're going to check on whether that's being used fairly and whether we're meeting the goals of anti-racism. If we don't keep any records at all about the use of that discretion, how will we know it's being effective?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, too, want to go back to where I was the last time, but I have to say, since Mr. Brock made a comment about my position, my position on this is not that we save money for efficiency reasons, but that we save court time and court money to be applied to the most serious offences, which are the most threatening to the community. We need to ensure that people aren't released in very serious cases because of court delays, when we're taking up court time with things that I don't believe belong in the court system to start with.

It's not just about efficiency; it's about the use of our resources efficiently in the court system to better protect the community.

I'd rather be talking about decriminalizing the personal possession of drugs, but we're not, so I am going to talk about the discretion that's given, again, to police and prosecutors. That's where I left off.

There doesn't seem to be a clear criterion set out in Bill C-5 for how that discretion by prosecutors and police would be applied. I think it's an increase in discretion for police. I'm not sure it's really an increase for prosecutors, but there don't seem to be clear criteria on how to apply discretion.

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

I agree with you. The judge will surely Impose a sentence of imprisonment in a case like that. That's a problem for me, because in Bill C‑5, the population is being sent a message that says we, the legislators, do not believe these offences are serious and that the mandatory minimum penalties can be dropped.

I am convinced that in a situation like the one I described, the judge will assess a sentence of imprisonment. I have no fear of that. I can't believe that the judge would assess a fine of $100 to someone who shot at someone else. The problem is that we, the legislators, have a responsibility to the people—

[Andrew Di Manno]

What I can tell you is that, depending on the circumstances, the offence may be broader in scope. It's up to the court to decide on a penalty appropriate to the circumstances.

For these offences, Bill C‑5 maintains the minimum penalties of five years and seven years of imprisonment if a prohibited or a restricted firearm was used and the offence is linked to organized crime.

[Andrew Di Manno]

What I can say is that under Bill C-5, there are certain conditions that would be required for a CSO to be imposed—the first one being a sentence of less than two years—that it respects public safety; that it is consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing; and that it is not an offence of advocating genocide, torture or attempted murder or a terrorism or criminal organization offence of 10 years or more prosecuted by indictment.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

I want to move on now to conditional sentences. I think we all agree that it is a condition precedent within the code itself that a justice must be satisfied that serving a sentence at home would not endanger the safety of the community.

We also have section 752 in the Criminal Code, which is completely absent in Bill C-5. Section 752 defines what a “serious personal injury offence” is, and a serious personal injury offence can be any indictable offence involving:

(i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or

(ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person

In my opinion, for the offences of sexual assault, criminal harassment, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson and abduction of a person under 14, for which, pursuant to Bill C-5, conditional sentences would now be available, this would run contrary to section 752, which would then increase the amount of litigation within the courts.

Has the department considered the impact of section 752? Judges across this land have consistently ruled, particularly at the appellate level, that any time you have a serious personal injury offence, the whole concept of a conditional sentence does not qualify.

[Matthew Taylor, General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I can try to answer that.

As the minister said, he looked at a number of options with respect to addressing the negative impacts that my colleague has discussed from mandatory minimum penalties. His decision was that the approach proposed in Bill C-5 was achievable and contained, and could move in the short term.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

To all the participants, thank you for your attendance. I will not be asking questions specific to anybody. Anybody can respond.

The first point I want to address is the latter point from my colleague Mr. Garrison, who left the committee with the impression that there is some benefit to passing Bill C-5 because there's going to be an ultimate savings to the criminal justice system, first, in terms of cost, and second, in terms of expediency.

I can explain—hopefully, the panellists will also agree with me—that that is a complete fallacy. Eliminating mandatory minimum penalties will not decrease substantially the amount of charter litigation. As a member of the Ontario bar who has prosecuted in the Ontario courts for the better part of 30 years, I can inform you that there are charter challenges for just about every offence in the Criminal Code. It's not necessarily confined to gun offences.

Is the department prepared to acknowledge that there will not be a direct correlation, a substantial correlation, in the reduction of charter litigation if we eliminate these 14 mandatory minimums? Yes or no.

[Andrew Di Manno]

That's a very complex question, because the reasons are complex. In fact they go beyond the scope of Bill C‑5.

According to our data, some offenders, including indigenous people, Black people and people from marginal communities, are overrepresented for certain offences, including firearms and drug offences.

People who have committed offences sanctioned by mandatory minimum penalties are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you for that. I think it's an important point to remember when we're considering this that there are not only costs but savings from removing the mandatory minimums. We might get better outcomes for a cheaper price when it comes to the court system.

I want to switch and ask a question on a concern I have about increased discretion for the police in this bill in the absence of serious reform with regard to systemic racism in the police. I know the justice department is not responsible for that, but there are two provisions in the bill around which I'm concerned that in the absence of reform, there aren't safeguards to prevent systemic racism from continuing to operate.

The first of those is allowing police additional powers of discretion at the initial level of contact. My concern, as we've seen with too many police forces, is that discretion will benefit upper-middle-class white people who come in contact with the police, and not racialized and indigenous Canadians. The second has to do with record-keeping. Bill C-5 says that the police may keep records. Again, my concern in the absence of police reform is that those records will be kept on indigenous and racialized Canadians and will not be kept on others who come in contact with the police.

I wonder if the department has any comment on my concern about police discretion and record-keeping discretion in the absence of that serious police reform.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

The reason I ask these questions is that I'm one of those people who would like to see the court spend its time on the more serious violent crimes that really threaten communities. From what you're telling me now, if we pass Bill C-5, it will take a significant number of future challenges out of the court system completely.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for keeping me on my toes.

I want to start by asking a question about the number of mandatory minimum penalties that will remain on the books after Bill C-5 passes, if you have that figure. My recollection was that there were probably around 73 or 75 existing mandatory minimums or something like that.

[Andrew Di Manno]

I can start by saying that there haven't been specific consultations on Bill C-5, but there were consultations done at the criminal justice system round tables in 2016, and the mandatory minimum penalties that are being targeted in this bill are the ones that are particularly associated with negative disproportionate impacts on indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

As the minister noted earlier, indigenous persons are overrepresented with respect to certain firearm-related offences, and the same goes for Black Canadians, who are overrepresented with respect to import/export offences. I can also say that there's one in five indigenous women who are serving a sentence for a serious drug offence or conspiracy to commit a serious drug offence, and that by repealing the mandatory minimum penalties in those cases, the government is restoring judicial discretion to impose fit sentences in all cases.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here this afternoon. This is very important research—or meeting—that we are doing here. I look forward to all the presenters who will come forth.

In my time in Nova Scotia, when I was involved in the justice portfolio.... In Nova Scotia, we have a ridiculously high number in terms of overrepresentation in our correctional facilities of Black and indigenous Nova Scotians. I would say that overwhelmingly the research and the evidence are clear now, from the many people who have spoken on it since those years. There's clearly a problem in our system. Can you speak to me in relation to that?

What consultations informed the development of Bill C-5, specifically with groups representing racialized groups and indigenous people or provinces like Nova Scotia? What have you heard and can you tell me the impact that MMPs would have on that overrepresentation?

I look to whoever is able to answer that.

[Andrew Di Manno]

You are indeed correct. Many of the mandatory minimum penalties that will remain after Bill C-5 is adopted are five- and seven-year mandatory minimum penalties for offences in which a restricted or prohibited firearm is used, when the offences are in connection with organized crime. The mandatory minimum penalties that are targeted, let's say, for firearm offences in this bill are the ones in the “in any other case” category, which particularly relates to the use of firearms like long guns.

[Andrew Di Manno]

It's reasonable to expect that the reforms to CSOs will place a greater demand on treatment programs at the outset. However, mandatory minimum penalties are extremely costly in the criminal justice system, and they increase charter challenges. What ends up happening is that if we implement the reforms in Bill C-5, we expect that over time, while there will be an initial increase in requests for treatment and programs, we'll see long-term reductions in recidivism and more efficient ways of dealing with crime.

[Andrew Di Manno]

What I can say about Bill C-5 is that it's just one of the mechanisms that the government has put in place, not only to reduce criminality but also to impose fairer sentences that will serve the communities themselves. Some of the measures in Bill C-5 with respect to mandatory minimum penalties restore judicial discretion, and the same thing with conditional sentences of imprisonment: They allow judges to impose sentences with a community-based sanction when appropriate. With respect to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, again, there are mechanisms there that allow the criminal justice system to keep individuals outside of the criminal justice system and to get the help they need.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know that Bill C-5 is targeting systemic racism, but there's another impact of mandatory minimums that has been a concern for me—since everyone's citing their past—as a criminal justice instructor for 20 years, and that is the situation of women who are in abusive or controlling relationships. They often end up in the justice system as a result of the activities of their partners, particularly around drugs that they are quite often forced to deliver or hold on behalf of a coercive partner. Therefore, they end up under mandatory minimums.

I wonder if the Minister has any comments on how the bill will impact women who come into conflict. Again, because of systemic racism, a lot of those women are Black women and indigenous women.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, it's good to see you here today.

I'm interested in learning more about the conditional sentencing orders that are also part of Bill C-5. When I had the honour of serving as the Attorney General of Ontario, we introduced a similar notion dealing with bills, introducing bill.... That's in the province. In fact, I recall making a certain announcement with Mr. Brock when he was a Crown prosecutor. He was quite supportive of that initiative.

It was an opportunity to allow people who had some serious mental health or addiction challenges.... Instead of being remanded and incarcerated while they were waiting for their trial, they were allowed to be in a community setting, under strict conditions, where they could get support services. There was ample evidence to demonstrate that this would be far more beneficial to them and to society in general.

What evidence and benefits have you seen in terms of the use of conditional sentencing orders that have compelled you to reintroduce them through Bill C-5?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

The same day that you introduced Bill C-5, you were quoted as saying that this was not aimed at “hardened criminals” but at first-time, low-risk offenders. Specifically, you said this:

Think about your own kids. Perhaps they got into trouble at some point with the law. I bet you would want to give them the benefit of the doubt or a second chance if they messed up. Well, it is a lot harder to get a second chance the way things are now.

With all due respect to you, Minister, that tone-deaf response was not what Canadians wanted to hear one day removed from the commemoration, one day removed from our standing in solidarity against gun crime. You know that gun crime is on the rise across all of Canada, and particularly in my riding of Brantford—Brant.

Minister, this week, April 6, you then did not respond directly to a question posed by the Conservative member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. He brought to your attention the situation of a drive-by shooting, which this legislation captures. He asked you specifically how that is not a threat to public safety. The government could put into place a constitutional “safety valve” and have mandatory minimum penalties, with exceptions, to address the problems of over-incarceration. This could provide a perfect middle ground. Why wouldn't the government consider that?

Your response, sir, was that the “fallacy” of the member's argument was “clear”, and that you were eliminating MMPs to eliminate the bottom range for all offences. Then you drew another example and said that what you were talking about here was “where a person perhaps has a few too many on a Saturday night and puts a couple of bullets into the side of an empty barn”.

My question to you, Minister, is this. The discharge of a firearm with intent, or recklessly, deserves jail time. Would you agree with that or not?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and department officials. Thank you for your attendance.

It's my first opportunity to talk directly to you, Minister. Hopefully I'll get a number of questions in.

The first one I want to bring to your attention is the timing of your introduction to this particular bill. I remember that day very clearly, because, less than 24 hours removed from your presenting Bill C-5 in the House, we stood in solidarity as members of Parliament, and the entire House commemorated the École Polytechnique massacre from several years ago. We stood for the message that the government would stand strong against all forms of gun violence and to inform Canadians in very clear terms that we would take immediate steps to curb the ever-increasing tide of that criminal behaviour.

I think you'd agree with me, Minister, that the number one responsibility of a federal government is to keep its citizens safe. Do you agree with that?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I thank the minister for being here today.

I know that one of the motivations behind C-5 is to address systemic racism in the justice system, but I want to ask about something I think is very closely related. That's the overdose crisis in Canada.

In 2021, in British Columbia, 2,224 people died from an overdose and a poisoned drug supply. That's at least 2,224 families who lost fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, kids, cousins and neighbours. This is a rapidly increasing problem.

One way that you've talked about it in this bill is with diversion and reducing mandatory minimums, but the First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia reported that indigenous British Columbians are five times more likely to experience an overdose crisis and three times more likely to die from that overdose crisis.

Minister, my question to you is, wouldn't it be better simply to eliminate the criminal offence of possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for being with us today.

I almost want to start with the same warning as my colleague Mr. Moore gave you. I'm not sure we're going to agree on Bill C‑5, even though, on the merits, the Bloc Québécois has historically disagreed with mandatory minimum penalties and will continue to do so.

We do think it's preferable to allow judges to determine the applicable penalties in most cases, but not all. On the matter of decriminalizing the use of small quantities of drugs, we think that's more a health problem than a legal problem.

So perhaps we could agree on substance, but we have some reservations with Bill C‑5 as drafted.

You told us at the outset that the bill was designed to combat systemic racism. I'd say you're stretching a point. Systemic racism is a major problem that obviously must be addressed, but first we should determine what it is. I'm not sure that systemic racism, in the sense the present government intends, actually exists. However, that's another issue that we won't be addressing today.

To my mind, reducing the applicable penalties for certain crimes in order to prevent racialized individuals from winding up in prison is an odd way to address racism

Having said that, I'm going to ask you some more specific questions because I only have six minutes, and I can't have more than five left. As you'd expect, we won't be able to address the entire issue in five minutes.

However, I want to validate a point with you.

You say that mandatory minimum penalties would remain in force for serious crimes.

Do you think that weapons trafficking is a serious crime or not?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

We talked about over-representation earlier.

Bill C‑5 would grant significant discretion to police officers and prosecutors in criminal cases.

How would the changes made by the bill prevent the over-representation of certain populations in the correctional system?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

According to the government's backgrounder on Bill C‑5, the repeal of mandatory minimum penalties is part of an effort to promote judicial discretion for sentencing.

However, the bill would not remove all mandatory minimum penalties.

If judicial discretion in sentencing is important for some offences, why isn't it for others?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Where I'm getting the information, Minister, is directly from Bill C-5. Offences for which a conditional sentence would be available include sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing harm, trafficking or exporting, fraud over $5,000, robbery, breaking and entering, and robbery to steal a firearm. These are offences that are taking place in all of our communities. Under your bill, the perpetrators will now be able to receive a conditional sentence, otherwise known as “house arrest”, rather than jail time.

Minister, I'd like an acknowledgement on the source of many of these mandatory minimums that you say are for not serious offences. Do you know the origins in the Criminal Code of the mandatory minimum for using a firearm in the commission of an offence, for example, and for weapons trafficking? On those mandatory minimums, do you know when they were introduced?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing. It's good to see you again virtually, as well as the officials who are appearing with you.

Minister, I know you and I agree with each other from time to time. Bill C-5 is not going to be one of those times. I can tell you from the testimony that we've heard in our deep consultations with witnesses and communities, both rural and urban, as well as various victims groups, that this bill could not be more breathtakingly out of touch at the time we find ourselves in in Canada.

Removing mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crime, house arrest for serious offences against a person, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act trafficking, production and distribution minimums being eliminated for serious offences that are plaguing our communities.... This bill, quite frankly, flies in the face of those who are calling for safer streets and communities, and it is an affront to victims.

I heard in your opening remarks—it's quite heartening and I'm sure Canadians will be relieved—that you're maintaining the mandatory minimum penalty for murder. I guess that sets the bar fairly low, Minister. We're interested in making sure we have a justice system that's balanced, protects the rights of victims and keeps communities safe.

I want to jump right into questioning.

According to Statistics Canada, women were violently victimized at a rate nearly double that of men in 2019. We know part of this is due to the fact that, according to Statistics Canada research, women were five times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault. At your appearance at committee on March 10, 2020, you stated that, “despite the robustness of our legal framework in this area, there are still extremely low rates of reports, charges and convictions in sexual assault cases.”

With your Bill C-5, Minister, both sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing harm, and the offence of sexual assault under section 271 would have mandatory jail time removed, and an offender could serve their sentence from their home community.

Did you consult with victims of sexual assault before making the decision to allow the perpetrators to serve their sentence from home?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour for me to be with you this morning on the unceded land of the Algonquin Anishinabe people here in Ottawa.

I am accompanied by Deputy Minister François Daigle and subject matter experts from the Department of Justice: Matthew Taylor, who is in the room with me, as well as Carole Morency and Andrew Di Manno, who are participating in the meeting via Zoom.

Good afternoon to everyone in the room and to my colleagues online. Welcome to this meeting.

I'm pleased to appear today before this committee to speak about the important amendments proposed in Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This bill is part of an effort by our government to combat systemic racism and discrimination. These realities are experienced by too many people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, from their initial interactions with police to sentencing.

Bill C-5 includes three categories of reforms. First, it will repeal mandatory minimum penalties for all drug offences, some firearm offences and one tobacco-related offence. Second, it will allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. The third reform will require police and prosecutors to consider other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs.

These reforms have been long in coming. Indigenous persons, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities, particularly those dealing with mental health or addiction problems, are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, but especially in Canada's correctional institutions. This simply cannot continue.

An examination of the factors that exacerbate these disturbing issues reveals that some mandatory sentencing measures that limit judicial discretion have undeniably had a disproportionate impact on the members of those communities. These measures, which were intended to reduce crime by deterring offenders and isolating them from society, have proven ineffective, costly and harmful.

Between 2007 and 2017, indigenous and Black adults were more likely than other Canadians to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP. Their admission to federal custody with an offence punishable by an MMP almost doubled during those years. For example, Black Canadians comprised 43% of individuals admitted for exporting or importing drugs in 2016-17, and indigenous people comprised 40% of adults admitted for a firearm-related offence that same year.

The sentencing reforms that we propose are consistent with the recommendations that social and criminal justice stakeholders have been making for many years.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission noted the issue of overrepresentation of indigenous people in correctional institutions and called for its elimination over the next decade. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls also called for the government to evaluate the impact of MMPs on the overincarceration of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people and to take action to address the problem. The parliamentary Black caucus has also called for the elimination of MMPs.

The government is listening and taking appropriate measures. This bill would repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, but not all. We propose to focus on repealing MMPs that have had the greatest impact on the communities in question, while guaranteeing that the courts can continue to impose harsh penalties for violent and serious offences.

Let me be clear on this last point: these reforms will have no negative impact on public safety and will not signal to the courts that the offences concerned are not serious.

MMPs will be retained for serious offences such as murder, sexual assault, all sexual offences against children and certain offences involving restricted or prohibited firearms or that involve a firearm and are related to organized crime.

As for the second category of reforms, Bill C‑5 will increase the use of suspended prison sentences, also called conditional sentences, or CSs.

A CSO is a sentence of incarceration of less than two years that is served in the community under strict conditions such as a curfew, house arrest, treatment and/or restrictions on possessing, owning or carrying a weapon. CSOs will increase access to alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders while also furthering the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence.

The evidence is clear. Allowing offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to serve their sentences under strict conditions in their community can be more effective at reducing future criminality. Offenders can keep a job and maintain ties with their family and community. These measures bring back flexibility in sentencing by allowing judges to help people, not just jail them. For example, a judge can impose a CSO for an offender to serve their sentence at home while receiving appropriate mental health and rehabilitation supports.

The measures allow communities to take on the responsibility for the rehabilitation of their members through a community justice program that we are funding. Experts in the field and in the communities themselves tell us that this is the best way to move the community forward, to move society forward and to help everybody, including victims, heal while maintaining public safety. That is what CSOs do.

The reforms in Bill C-5 will remove many limitations on CSO eligibility, but not all. CSOs will be available only for sentences under two years for offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety. I want to emphasize this part, as I believe there is some misunderstanding that CSOs will become available for all offenders. I repeat: They will be available only where public safety is not at risk.

CSOs will also not be available for some offences, including advocating genocide, torture and attempted murder, as well as terrorism and criminal organization offences when they are prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

Finally, while it is important to enact sentencing measures that aim to reduce recidivism and overrepresentation, it is equally essential to ensure that there are adequate off-ramps at the earliest stages of the criminal justice process. This is especially true for conduct that could more appropriately be treated as a health concern.

To this end, Bill C-5 will require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with charges for the simple possession of drugs. Alternatives will range from taking no action at all to issuing a warning or, if the individual agrees, diversion to an addiction treatment program. These measures are in keeping with the government's public health-centred approach to addressing substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada.

The damage caused by this failed criminal justice policy is not simply a Canadian problem. I was in Washington last month and met with a number of bipartisan groups and think tanks working on criminal law reform. The message from all of them was that incarceration has failed. Many states, both Democratic and Republican, have abandoned MMPs because they simply do not work. The reforms we are proposing are the reforms they are advocating, repealing MMPs, bringing greater flexibility to sentencing, and diverting offenders out of the criminal justice system in the first place. These are solutions that will address the problems we face.

In addition to the reforms in Bill C-5, our government remains committed to working with our partners in the provinces and territories, as well as with Black, indigenous and marginalized community leadership in order to eradicate the overrepresentation of these communities in the criminal justice system.

Community safety is what we want. These reforms will help make that happen.

I look forward to answering any questions you have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Welcome to meeting number 11 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I would now like to welcome our witness, the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, who's appearing in person in the committee room.

I would also like to say that I don't have my flash cards today, so I'm going to rely on the minister and my colleagues to stay within the time. I will have to interject when needed to let you know your time has run out, but I ask that you stay within the time. Thank you.

I give the floor over to you, Honourable Minister Lametti.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, my only concern is that as we embark on the study of Bill C‑5, it would be good to have a sense at the outset of how many witnesses we're talking about. While I agree that we may not be able to resolve it today, I wonder if there is time to do a subcommittee meeting early next week so that we can actually hammer this out.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm very supportive of your plan for next week. I am very concerned about getting started on the drafting work so the drafters can work away while we're starting on the hearings on Bill C‑5.

I don't believe we can settle the question of the number of meetings today in the time we have available to us, but I think you presented a good plan for next week. I'm presuming that we will have what you said, with the minister and officials for the full two hours on the Friday, and then we'll split the time on the Tuesday, so I am supportive of those suggestions. Maybe we can leave the total number of meetings to be discussed at another meeting.

Thanks.

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

With respect to Bill C‑5, I'm of the opinion that due diligence is required. I don't think we should delay this, because it's important, and I'm aware of that. However, Bill C‑5 addresses two completely different issues, one is diversion for the use and possession of certain drugs, and the other is mandatory minimum sentences.

You may recall that this led us, after first reading, to ask the Minister of Justice to split Bill C‑5 into two separate bills, in order to expedite its processing. If we had been able to agree on diversion, which I think was more likely or easier, we could have passed this bill right away, but that was not the case. I don't want to go backwards; we have to deal with the situation as it is, but the fact remains that the fear I had at the outset, when we proposed splitting this bill, is still present. I can't imagine that we're going to get this resolved in five meetings.

My colleague Mr. Anandasangaree called me about this, and we discussed it. At the time, I told him that I hadn't really had time to think about it. Since then, I've thought about it and discussed it with people around me. What I would suggest, first of all, is that we leave some room to extend the study, if necessary. For the time being, I think we could already set aside four meetings to hear witnesses on the issue of diversion and four on the issue of minimum sentences. That would be a total of eight meetings. Then we could schedule two for clause‑by‑clause.

That's what I'm proposing to you today, Mr. Chair.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, we're proposing about five meetings for Bill C‑5, followed by clause-by-clause, with maybe a deadline for witnesses proportionate to how we usually do it, so maybe a witness list to be provided by next Wednesday around noon, and then the minister and the officials are available for next Friday, April 8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Brière.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your excellent testimony. It's been very informative. This whole study has been informative and all of you have contributed immensely.

Panellists, you're more than welcome to stay on or you can zoom off if you want.

I just have some housekeeping. I apologize to Mr. Moore. My own perceptions of time were not exactly accurate because I'm a novice in this position. I had estimated perhaps 30 minutes. It probably shouldn't take that long.

As you know, Bill C-5 has been referred to the committee and we have an obligation to study that. I was just getting some instructions as to committee business. I think as of Monday we were having our scheduled next study for PCEPA. The goal for the first hour is to have the witnesses come and attend and the last hour is for drafting instructions.

I believe Mr. Anandasangaree has some information in regard to the minister and departmental officials appearing for Bill C-5 on Friday.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said Monday. It was Tuesday for PCEPA. The first hour is with witnesses and the second hour is for drafting instructions. Then Bill C-5 and the study with respect to that, will be on Thursday.

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Minister of Justice denied that Bill C-5 would allow human traffickers to serve their sentences at home. It is crazy. The minister does not even know his own bill. Human trafficking is a vicious crime and traffickers prey on the most vulnerable. In Canada, a lot of them are indigenous women and girls.

Can the minister explain how giving sex traffickers house arrest will protect trafficking victims, and why does he think that this is okay?

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 3:14 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-5.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I spoke to the first iteration of this bill back in April 2021, I remarked at the time on how out of touch the Liberal government had become. If anyone from the new NDP-Liberal coalition actually took time to come and speak to mayors, chiefs and councillors, or the RCMP members in northern Saskatchewan, they would know that bills like this do far more to hurt communities than to help them.

When I speak to elected leaders, I constantly hear that there are violent offenders they do not want in their communities. In fact, they are searching for ways to keep them out. They wonder why these repeat offenders cannot remain in custody and why they are allowed to keep returning to victimize their communities. They are frustrated. They realize that when certain people are removed, they seem to have a time of peace and quiet. This bill would add to the frustration.

Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory minimums for offences such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, and discharging a firearm with intent. The list goes on. The Minister of Justice, just this afternoon, told us that he believes these are just minor offences. I do not believe these are minor offences.

Police officers, judges, prosecutors and many others in the communities already do everything they can for non-violent offenders to ensure they have every opportunity to stay out of prison. Sometimes the peace of mind that comes with mandatory minimums is essential to ensure our communities feel safe and are safe.

In northern Saskatchewan, there is a concerning trend of witness intimidation, as well as increasing recruitment of young people into gangs and the drug trade. Mandatory minimums assist the police and prosecutors to ensure the safety of witnesses. By keeping violent offenders off the street, greater opportunity is provided to engage in early intervention and prevent criminal gang recruitment.

March 17, just last week, Meadow Lake's RCMP Staff Sergeant Ryan How wrote an article in Saskatchewan Today. It reads:

From October 1, 2020, to March 15, 2021, Meadow Lake RCMP responded to 66 firearms complaints. In the same time frame in 2021 to 2022 RCMP have received 30 firearms complaints. Any level of gun violence is unacceptable and the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment is unfortunately still busy dealing with violent occurrences, while at the same time noting that this reduction in gun calls is welcome progress.

A focused formal enforcement project led by North Battleford Provincial GIS was put in place in early 2021 to dismantle one of the gangs involved in the violence and has resulted in the following convictions....

He goes on to list the names, the offences they are charged with and the sentences of several violent gang members. It is shocking that the charges include one that is being proposed to no longer have minimum sentences under this bill. The Government of Canada ought to be supporting more initiatives like the one Staff Sergeant How talks about and supporting enforcement officers like him who are investing time and energy in building relationships in the communities they serve, rather than basing Criminal Code policy on political ideology.

I am neither an RCMP officer nor a crown prosecutor, like some of my colleagues, but when I hear from experts on the ground that getting rid of mandatory minimums like those proposed in Bill C-5 would put our communities in greater danger, I tend to believe them. We need to be equipping law enforcement to carry out their duties and keep our communities safe, not neutering their abilities to keep violent offenders off the streets.

One of the questions that keeps coming up around this bill is regarding judicial discretion. While I agree that judges should have some discretion when it comes to sentencing, this is also the role of Parliament. Parliament, in the past, has assigned not only maximum sentences, which impact judges' discretion, but also minimum sentences. This has been done with Parliament's wisdom. It is up to us and within our power to change that, but it has always been the case that Parliament sets out the parameters whereby judges sentence people.

We are the ones who decide, through the Criminal Code, what is a criminal act, and we set out the parameters for sentencing. That is part of our job, and it is not partisan.

Many of the minimums being eliminated by this Liberal government were in fact introduced by previous Liberal governments. This is about ensuring there is an appropriate sentence for someone who commits a very serious crime. Again, as I said previously, Bill C-5 is not about minor and insignificant offences. It deals with what I would conclude are very serious offences, such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. I have not even begun to discuss the sections in the bill dedicated to drug-related offences.

Bill C-5 would also eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting and production of a substance under schedule I or II. Examples of those are heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. When I read the legislation, it seems clear to me that no one from the Liberal-NDP coalition has ever sat across the table from a chief and elders pleading to get and keep these drug dealers out of their communities.

When I first spoke to Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, I shared a story from a local paper. The story was about a judge's decision, arguments by the Crown prosecutor and the victim impact statements of some RCMP officers. Today I am going to take a few minutes of my time to share that story again, one of the victim impact statements of one of the officers. I truly hope today that all members in this House, even if they ignore everything else I say today, will listen to this story.

The statement said:

When I encountered the gold truck you were in north of Loon Lake the only emotion I felt was sadness.

I knew right away how this was going to end. It’s always the same, just a varying degree of tragedy. When I saw your co-accused run from the Equinox and point what may have been a gun at me, I just felt tired and defeated....

I knew what you would do when you came up to the road block. And you did the same thing every other desperate criminal does—you accelerated and swerved towards the police.

As you did that, I took off my seatbelt and accelerated my truck directly at you. I wanted to be able to at least have the chance to manoeuver in the cab if you and your fellow gang members started shooting at me. As I lined up my truck to yours head-on I fully expected to be shot but I tried to make sure my truck would stay on a straight path and hit you even if I couldn’t steer because you needed to be stopped.... Even after all of this, after hours of chasing after you, hours of being frustrated, angry, and tired, [I] was required to be of calm mind and use sound tactics as I drew my gun on you and the people with you.... At that moment I was furious that it had come to this. I was furious that your stupidity was causing me to miss an important family event going on right at that moment I had you in my gun sights. I was furious that I might have to shoot and kill you.... I didn’t shoot you...My coworkers didn’t shoot you, even though we were taunted and dared to do it by the people in the truck with you. Even though your actions caused one of my coworkers to almost be run over and killed. We made sure you were safe. It was a joke and a game to you. It was life and death for me, for my partners, and the public. I’m telling you that on January 17, 2019, you were lucky to be arrested by some of the most capable and experienced police officers in the country. They showed incredible restraint and professionalism to make sure you lived to be here today.

I had the opportunity to speak to Sergeant How after this and he shared with me how these events had become almost routine in his world. I am asking members to imagine this becoming part of the daily routine. I remember having to fight back the emotion.

Finally, this bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders for a number of offences. Allowing criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest puts communities in my riding at risk.

In closing—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the time has come to turn the page on many mandatory minimum penalties. This was a policy that in the end did not discourage crime. It certainly did not make our justice system any more fair. All it did was imprison far too many indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians. The evidence is in the numbers of the prison population, and the numbers are stark. Indigenous individuals represent 5% of the general population but account for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. This is double what it was 20 years ago. The number is profoundly higher for indigenous women, who represent 42% of those who are incarcerated, and these numbers are even more exaggerated in some provinces. Black inmates represent 7.2% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the general population. This is shameful.

The numbers are so high because of sentencing laws that focus on punishment through imprisonment. The centre of this is the mandatory minimum regime. The broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities. This rigid one-size-fits-all approach takes power away from judges to look at mitigating factors.

I want to be very clear: This is not a soft-on-crime approach and these are not hardened criminals we are speaking of. We are speaking of low-risk, first-time or non-violent offenders.

We are introducing legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-5 is an important step in the right direction, as the legislation would make reforms to sentencing. We are proposing to repeal MMPs of imprisonment for all drug offences and certain firearm offences. These MMPs in particular have been shown to have had a disparate effect on Black, indigenous, and marginalized communities.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest and curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family ties, community and health-related support systems. By repealing these MMPs, we will restore the judge's ability to impose an appropriate sentence, moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach.

Again, this is not a soft-on-crime approach. To be clear, we are keeping some mandatory minimum policies in place for murder, sexual offenses, impaired driving offenses and serious firearm offences, including those that involve organized crime. The powers of judges will not be limited. In fact, we will allow them to do the job they have been trained to do.

I was in law school, and that is where I was introduced to certain ideals or principles within a justice system, one being that the aim of justice is not just retribution. Mandatory minimums are just that—retribution. There are more useful aims, such as rehabilitation. We can make ourselves into better people even after we have wronged and especially after we have wronged. The justice system should be a part of that rehabilitation. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work in criminal law terms. They do not have a positive effect on recidivism. They tend to overpunish people who should be helped through other channels.

When it comes to deterrence, MMPs do not do any better. In sentencing for less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective and unduly punitive. A longer sentence is not going to do anything more than a shorter sentence will, except destroy entire lives. In America, for example, the notion that harsh minimums could seriously dampen the drug trade has collapsed in the face of the manifest failure of the drug war.

With the way our current justice system is set up, we have criminalized poverty, mental illness and problematic addiction. It is so much harder to get that second chance with MMPs in place. Once a person is out of prison, their opportunities are limited and their circle oftentimes becomes the people that they met in prison. This has to stop.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increase in the indiscriminate use of MMPs is problematic. They have proven to be costly and ineffective in reducing crime. Indeed, other nations have move away from this regime because it encourages cycles of crime.

MMPs are a failed policy, and we are turning the ship around. What we propose is a necessary reset for our criminal law, which is necessary to address systemic racism in the criminal justice system. This policy change is necessary, but further work must also be done.

We are also developing an indigenous justice strategy in collaboration with indigenous peoples, and we are developing a Black Canadian justice strategy. We will continue to address the social determinants of crime. Every action that we take to improve access to housing, mental health care, addiction treatment and youth employment helps build a safer country. Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum, and we must do more so that we are better informed.

In my life, I have come to understand certain principles and rules, and that we are not just our mistakes. We are not just the worst thing that we have ever done. I believe we are more than that. As a society, we should make no mistake that we will not be judged for our reason and our intelligence and for our technology and tools. We will not be judged by the towers we build. Ultimately, our society will be judged not for how we treat the powerful, the rich and the privileged, but for how we treat the poor and condemned.

The House resumed from December 15, 2021, consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, every single day 20 Canadians lose their life to an opioid overdose. That is 7,000 Canadians a year, yet in the face of an opioid crisis, Bill C-5, shockingly, eliminates mandatory jail time for producers and manufacturers of schedule 1 drugs like fentanyl and crystal meth.

Why in the world is the government making life easier for the very producers and pushers of this poison that is killing Canadians every single day?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned simple possession and that one of the goals of Bill C-5 is to reduce that issue. My colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, has tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-216, to address exactly that issue and, in the process, address the overdose crisis that is happening right now all across the country. This will save lives, if we pass Bill C-216, and will reduce simple possession by decriminalizing it.

Will the minister support my colleague's bill?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5, on which the government is moving closure, is an important bill that should be studied in depth.

The government seems to have a growing appetite for closure motions all of a sudden. This worries me. In the past, the Liberals decried the Conservative majority governments' abuse of closure. However, once they came to power in 2015, the Liberals moved one closure motion after another, although they have not done it as often in the past few years.

I have to wonder whether they will start using their manufactured pseudo-majority to abuse closure as others have done in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the Minister of Justice back to 2019 when we had a round table in Scarborough with a number of different stakeholders who were directly impacted by mandatory minimum sentences, particularly members of the Black community. We know that the statistics are quite relevant here because MMPs have disproportionately impacted members of the Black community, as well as indigenous communities.

Can the minister give us a sense of how the changes to MMPs in Bill C-5 would ensure that fair justice is administered when it comes to racialized and indigenous people, as well as talk about conditional sentencing orders and what kind of impact those would have on sentencing?

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C‑5—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C‑5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a very happy birthday to Mitch. I hope he has the time to celebrate with his family over the weekend.

Tomorrow we will call Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update, for the third day of debate at report stage, and we will continue on Monday, if that is necessary. Tuesday we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Wednesday we will continue with debate on Bill C-5, which is mandatory minimum legislation, at second reading.

I would also inform the House that Thursday, March 31, will be an allotted day and next Friday, a week tomorrow, it is our intention to begin consideration of the second reading of Bill C-13, the official languages bill.

Health-based Approach to Substance Use Act

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑216 from the member for Courtenay—Alberni, whom I like very much and have known since 2015. He is a noble-hearted man. I am confident that he brings his bill to us today, at the passage-in-principle stage, because he hopes to address this acutely alarming issue.

I will read out the summary because the bill has three parts. I would have thought the government would want to put these eggs in its Bill C‑5 basket, but apparently not. I am just thinking out loud, but the fact remains that the Bloc Québécois falls somewhere in between. I will explain its position.

First, this enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal a provision that makes it an offence to possess certain substances. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts.

Second, it enacts the Expungement of Certain Drug-related Convictions Act. We debated this and talked about how someone who gets stopped for simple possession is in trouble not only on human level, because they have substance abuse issues, but also because they are left with a criminal record and all the associated stigma.

The third part is important in my opinion. Substance use is a complex problem and phenomenon, and a national strategy on substance use is important, but what I find most intriguing is that the bill requires the Minister of Health to develop a national strategy to address the harm caused by problematic substance use.

The thing is, in the bill itself, it says this whole strategy, including the decriminalization of simple possession, will be implemented the year after the act comes into force. For now, I need to think about this because it raises some issues.

I am going to do something I have never done in the House. Medical assistance in dying is another difficult issue, but I have never shared a personal experience. I want people to understand that things have evolved. There is a thing called sociology of law. We have come a long way, and it is great to hear all members of the House because nowadays, in 2022, we no longer see problems associated with drug use as a crime issue; we see them as a public health issue, a socioeconomic issue and, sometimes, a mental health issue.

I had the privilege of having an experience in my life that made me grow. It was in 1998, 24 years ago. After that, I could never again look at a homeless person with multiple addictions in the same way when I saw them on the street. Why?

I had some communications students come to me and ask me for some ethical guidance. They told me about a place called Chez ma cousine Evelyn, which served as a kind of buffer zone. Speaking of diversion, there was a pilot project at the time. In order to get a bed, a place, a room in that house—and there were not many beds—you had to be homeless, an addict, and HIV positive. You had to have all three of those problems.

We set out looking for people like that downtown, and we identified a huge number of young people under 35 who met those criteria. Unfortunately, there were no resources.

We approached these people and got them to speak with us. They could be anyone, including me or anyone here, a grandson, my daughter or a neighbour's daughter. These people had a life story that had nothing to do with their current state. Some were remarkable. I remember one person who had studied at Oxford. We would have coffee very early in the morning and she would teach me about philosophy, even though she was at the point where she did not care about anything other than her substance use.

These people were well known to the local police and therefore could go to sleep at Chez ma cousine Evelyn, consume substances there and be supervised by workers who helped manage their consumption. What is interesting, they told us, is that the first few times they injected, they would hide in the bedroom to do it, even though they were allowed do it there without any problem. If the police saw them on the street late at night, needing a ride, the police would bring them back to Chez ma cousine Evelyn.

To make a long story short, we worked with them for three months and only then, and not before, were we able to turn on the cameras. When they talked to us, it was as though the cameras were not there. We learned a lot during that time. Chez ma cousine Evelyn was able to take them in when they had hit rock bottom, felt defeated and had a millstone around their necks. Some people believe that all it takes is resolve and keeping one's head above water, but these people kept going under right away.

Seeing this reality was quite the experience for me. When these people hit bottom, there is no one there for them. They themselves acknowledge that they have alienated everyone. In some cases, we were able to ensure that the individual could die at Chez ma cousine Evelyn surrounded by family members, with whom they had managed to reconnect. Those were intensely human moments.

Because of this experience, I am saying yes to decriminalization. However, we need a way to achieve that. A very interesting report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction points out that legislative intervention, meaning decriminalization, is ultimately only one of the pillars of a comprehensive approach, which takes time and effort to implement. Portugal, for example, scaled up prevention, treatment and harm reduction services two years prior to decriminalization.

Implementation of a pan-Canadian strategy should therefore precede decriminalization to ensure that the federal government or other levels of government do not shirk their responsibility by arguing that those people are no longer in the legal system.

That is the main problem we see in this bill. It is also the reason we would like to improve it. We will reflect on this.

[Matthew Hipwell, President, Wolverine Supplies]

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

My name is Matt Hipwell. I grew up in the firearms industry and lifestyle in rural Manitoba. As a youth, I was involved in various shooting sports. I was a member of Team Manitoba in the Canada Winter Games for the sport of biathlon. I spent a short stint in the Canadian Armed Forces reserves prior to joining the RCMP. I spent nearly 17 years in the RCMP, posted throughout Manitoba. During that time, it was front line policing, plain clothes drug enforcement, firearms training and use of force, and eight years with our emergency response teams. I feel I have a very diverse background in this sector, whether it be on the civilian side or the law enforcement side.

After leaving the RCMP, I joined the family business, Wolverine Supplies. I subsequently took an early retirement to move into the firearms industry, which supports and provides firearms to sports shooters, hunters, recreational shooters, law enforcement and the military across the country.

Historically, the government has spent billions of dollars on firearms legislation and regulations. However, in my opinion, we fail to get to the root cause. Mr. Bertrand touched on a few of those, with borders being one of them. We need to get to the root cause of the problem. When we want to solve a problem, using the analogy of building a house, we don't start with the roof and build down; we start with a strong foundation. I believe this is where we are lacking. We need to start at the bottom and work our way up.

This involves working with all partners. We often look at the law enforcement community only—if that—but there are the border and border services, the police and social services, whether they're child and family services. There are all of those different avenues that we need to be speaking with.

One partner that often gets overlooked is the industry. Our Canadian firearms industry is wide and diverse, just like our country is. There is a lot of expertise. There's a lot of knowledge across the country. This is overlooked when it comes to firearms regulations, licensing and so forth. We need to involve everyone, so that we can come up with the best common-sense solutions that will lead all Canadians to lead a safe lifestyle.

Currently, we have firearms regulations before Parliament. One is the order in council that prohibited over 1,500 types of firearms. As we've just heard, however, what has that stopped? Firearms violence has not stopped. It is still continuing. The legislation in place only affects the legal owners and the legal firearms that the government knows about and where they are. We need to get to a strategy that gets to the root. We need to look at the rationale, and we need to be consistent along that.

As was just spoken about, we have legislation that reduces sentences for violent offences. For example, under Bill C-5, some of the proposals are reducing mandatory minimum sentences for the offences of using a firearm or an imitation firearm, possession of a firearm while knowing it's unauthorized, possession of a weapon obtained by a crime and, one that leads back to our borders, importing or exporting knowing it's unauthorized. If we're reducing these mandatory minimum sentences, we are failing to hold people and individuals accountable for their actions. We need to get that accountability back and hold people accountable.

Along with this, I recently observed through CTV News an exposé on the homicide rates in Toronto. In Toronto this year, in 2022, there have been 12 victims, seven of whom were under the age of 25 and five of whom were under the age of 20. Out of the 17 people charged, 14 were under the age of 23 and eight were under the age of 20. This ties in with your social media and everything else being longer and longer.

We need to get to the root cause. Some of the legislation that's in place has been in place for years and has failed to reduce gun violence as it was originally intended.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ensure that the idea behind Bill C-5 is put forward this evening.

Bill C-5 advances an evidence-based approach to sentencing policies in Canada. It proposes to repeal MMPs for certain firearm offences and all those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in order to address unjust outcomes for indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and marginalized Canadians by remedying their overrepresentation in custody, including for offences punishable by an MMP.

MMPs have high economic and social costs, and they offer little or no return on our investment. They perpetuate unfair outcomes and offer a less effective criminal justice system. Bill C-5 is an important step that breaks away from rigid, one-size-fits-all sentencing policies that treat lower-risk and first-time offenders the same as hardened drug offenders. The reforms in this—

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that I am speaking to members from the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-5. I intend to focus on some areas where there appears to be some misunderstanding about the impact that repealing mandatory minimum penalties from the Criminal Code will have on our justice system and society more broadly.

I want to direct the member to take part in the committee, as well as the process where amendments can be made. We would welcome and review all amendments put forward by members at committee.

Let me make this clear from the outset. Repealing MMPs for certain offences does not signal that these offences are less serious. Instead, the government is aiming to restore judicial discretion to impose fit and appropriate sentences in more cases. These changes will also help address systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. Our approach is smart on crime and we will not take lessons from the previous Conservative government's failed approaches.

In Canada, sentencing courts are always required to consider public safety when imposing a sentence and to ensure that the system reflects both the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. I have faith that sentencing courts will continue to impose fit and appropriate sentence. I would also note that the courts understand the seriousness of offences involving firearms. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nur confirmed that serious penalties should be imposed for our firearm-related offences when circumstances warrant it.

Here are the facts. The MMPs targeted by this bill have disproportionately affected indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. In 1999-2000, indigenous peoples represented 2% of the Canadian adult population, but they accounted for 17% of admissions to federal custody. Since then, those numbers have risen significantly. As most recent available data suggests, they now account for 5% of the Canadian adult population, but 30% of federally incarcerated individuals.

What is more is that Black Canadians are overrepresented in terms of federally incarcerated individuals, representing only 3% of the Canadian adult population but 7% of federally incarcerated individuals. They are also overrepresented in respective import-export offences subject to MMPs in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

It is hard to ignore the evidence that shows negative trends that span well over a decade and have only been getting stronger. Repealing the MMPs in Bill C-5 would not reduce public safety. In fact, these reforms would contribute to enhancing public safety because data shows imprisonment, particularly for lower-risk offenders, is associated with higher rates of reoffending.

Bill C-5 offers an important way forward. It is evident from the calls for reform made by Canadian stakeholders, as well as organizations and commissions, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, that they believe these reforms will move criminal justice in the right direction. Having said that, I look forward to the member's feedback during the committee stage of this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I asked for this time in Adjournment Proceedings to give the minister another opportunity to answer a very simple question I asked him in the House in December with respect to Bill C-5: Is he willing to accept an amendment?

Opioid Crisis in Canada

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from my colleague's comments that he agrees with Bill C‑5, which seeks to eliminate policies that have filled our prisons with people who needed help and that ultimately targeted vulnerable and racialized Canadians?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to join this evening's debate. I want to thank the member for Yukon for initiating the very important subject matter we are discussing today in the chamber.

Something my constituents in Parkdale—High Park speak to me about regularly is the issue of opioids, opioid use and the opioid crisis that is claiming lives in Parkdale—High Park, in Toronto, in Ontario and right around the country. The deaths were occurring prior to any of us ever hearing about COVID-19, and they have continued throughout the pandemic, in some months exceeding COVID death rates. Unfortunately, these deaths will likely continue once we have finished with the pandemic. This underscores the urgency of taking action on this pressing issue.

The history of what we have done as a party was underscored very recently in this debate: treating the issue of opioid use, and drug use generally, as a health issue, not a criminal issue. I therefore want to turn back the clock a bit and remind Canadians about where we were prior to the election in the fall of 2015.

At that time, we had a government led by Stephen Harper that was basically denying this health nexus. That government was denying supervised consumption sites, or supervised injection sites as they were then referred to, from proceeding. With the inability of the previous government to grant exemptions under the relevant federal legislation to allow supervised injection sites to occur, this ended up at the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Canada v. PHS Community Services Society. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, which is somewhat rare for the Supreme Court of Canada, written by the chief justice, the court affirmed the constitutional rights that were at issue and sided soundly with the applicants in the case, going against the Harper government.

I am going to read into the record part of what was said. In paragraph 136 of that decision, the court said, “The Minister made a decision not to extend the exemption from the application of the federal drug laws to Insite.” Insite was the applicant seeking to run the supervised injection site. “The effect of that decision,” the court wrote, “would have been to prevent injection drug users from accessing the health services offered by Insite, threatening the health and indeed the lives of the potential clients.” There is the nexus. By denying that ministerial exemption, drug users' lives were threatened.

The court continued: “The Minister’s decision thus...constitutes a limit on their s. 7 rights,” which would be the rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The court went on to say, “this limit is not in accordance with...fundamental justice. It is arbitrary...[and] grossly disproportionate”. It said, “the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition”.

There the court said in a unanimous decision that what we are doing by denying the ability to run a supervised injection site is threatening the lives of Canadians. That is what was so heinous about the approach of the previous government. In October 2015, an election occurred, and we have had a different orientation on this side of the House since we have taken power.

What have we done since then? We got to work and approached this as a health care issue and an addiction issue, as opposed to a criminal matter. We passed legislation in the 42nd Parliament on it, Bill C-37. Rather than withholding discretion, we started to provide discretion, subject to the parameters that were outlined by the court in its jurisprudence. Supervised consumption sites then blossomed.

Since 2016, the record of this government has been to provide 38 different supervised consumption sites, which are operating, and grant the exemptions that have been required. We are trying to empower supervised consumption sites. We are also taking a fundamentally different approach toward diversion and toward treating drug use differently.

As to what that comports with, I can talk about Bill C-5, which has been tabled in this House. I had the honour to speak to it in December. We are taking an approach that is endorsed by the director of public prosecutions, who is at the federal level in the prosecution service, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They have said that rather than using police resources to criminalize people who are using drugs, we should be approaching this from a different perspective by offering them treatments and getting them out of the revolving door of the criminal justice system.

That is the approach we have taken, but much more needs to be done. It is why participating in this debate is so critical this evening. I am looking forward to advocating on behalf of my constituents, who want to see the needs of drug users attended to so we can avert the concerns we are facing now with the opioid crisis.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

The year 2021 became British Columbia's deadliest year for overdose deaths, with 1,782 people losing their lives and two months' worth of data still to come. In October alone, there were 201 deaths, which roughly equates to six and a half a day, but behind each and every number are beloved sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and the families and loved ones they leave behind.

I want to take this opportunity to honour two parents in my riding by telling the stories of their late children.

First is the story of Annie and her son Alexander.

Alexander was an athletic and creative soul who loved his family deeply, especially his daughter Bella, but he had experienced several traumatic events in his life, including the murder of his best friend. As a result, he struggled with anxiety, depression and PTSD. After a car accident, he was prescribed oxycodone by a doctor, but his struggle with mental health left him vulnerable to addiction, and he became dependent on it. Despite this, Alex managed to stop using by himself in 2016 and was able to maintain his sobriety until the pandemic hit. Unfortunately, Alex died on January 18, 2021, from carfentanil and benzodiazepine poisoning just days before his 29th birthday. Alex died alone on the floor of his locked bathroom, trying to hide his addiction. His death left a hole in his family, as his mother Annie lost her only son and as eight-year-old Bella lost her father.

Equally tragic is the story of Clint who was a kind and successful young man who had a loving family and was just about to move in with his girlfriend. Clint had managed to score his dream job and went out with his friend to celebrate. His friend brought cocaine, which Clint had never used before, but because he was celebrating, he decided to take some. Later that night, he died. It turned out that the cocaine had been cut with fentanyl, and Clint overdosed on a drug he did not even know he was taking.

The loss of Alex and Clint are unimaginable tragedies, passing in the prime of their lives, leaving behind loving families and promising futures, but these stories are all too common in British Columbia, where it is hard to find someone who is more than a couple of degrees removed from such a tragedy.

Since the loss of her son, Annie has been driven to make sure that others do not go through the same thing that she and her family have been through. Through her work with Moms Stop The Harm, she is fighting to make sure that we end the stigma around addiction and ensure that those who need it can get help and do not take tainted drugs.

I want to thank Annie and Clint's father Al for their advocacy and tell them that we are listening, but we have more work to do so that those who are struggling with addiction can get the help they need.

When simple drug use no longer needs to be concealed out of fear of criminal prosecution, government programs that provide for safer supply will be possible, and we can create the space for treatment to rehabilitate those who are suffering from addiction.

This method has shown success in communities across my riding and has overwhelming community support. In February 2021, an overdose prevention site opened in Squamish. In Sechelt, the Sunshine Coast's first sanctioned safe consumption site was established in July of 2020. There, trained staff provides support, which includes access to naloxone, counselling, overdose response and education, drug-checking and detox treatment options. These facilities work, as despite record-high opioid deaths, not a single person has died under a supervised consumption or overdose prevention site in B.C.

We need to support these sites that keep people safe, particularly in communities where indigenous people are disproportionately impacted by the opioid crisis. We need to build on the $200-million investment in substance use prevention and treatment services for first nations and the $116-million investment through budget 2021 to fund projects through the substance use and addictions program, but we also need to ensure that those who are suffering from addiction are able to get the help they need without fearing prosecution. Addiction must be recognized for the health issue that it is and not be treated as a criminal issue.

Our government has proposed taking steps in this direction with Bill C-5, which would require police and prosecutors to first consider diverting people to treatment programs and support services instead of charging and prosecuting them.

Preventing avoidable deaths needs to be the fundamental priority for our country. This starts with safe supply projects, including overdose prevention clinics and the financial tools with the substance use and addictions program. We have to work with jurisdictions when they are ready, but we also need to work directly with physicians to give them the tools they need to prescribe life-saving alternatives.

We will continue to work towards ending this crisis so that nobody else has to suffer the loss that the families of Alex and Clint have endured.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Chair, I will say two things. I worked closely with the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Bryan Larkin, to ensure that a bill I introduced in the House had their support. By the way, that bill is now part of Bill C-5, and that bill has their support.

Regardless of new spending, that bill will have the support of the chiefs of police, and I hope it has the support of my Conservative colleagues. It is my genuine hope that we rally across parties in the House and we do the right thing.

Of course we need more money to expand treatment options. I would say I actually do not want police to be the first responders for what is fundamentally a mental health crisis in an individual's life. I do not think that is the appropriate response. I think Portugal is probably too coercive, and Bill C-5 is probably too coercive in that way. We should get police focusing on criminals, not focusing on people suffering from mental health problems.

Ideally, that is the answer. To the member's point, we absolutely need much more significant funding to expand treatment options. That is an area I think we could work together on.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

moved:

That this committee take note of the opioid crisis in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yukon.

I join you today from the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, where we honour all indigenous peoples who paddled these waters and whose moccasins walked this land.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Yukon for his unbelievable hard work and dedication, both as Yukon's former chief medical officer of health and now as its member of Parliament, to end the toxic drug supply and opioid overdose crisis in Canada. I would also like to thank him for advocating so strongly for this important national debate to take place here in the House of Commons.

Our hearts go out to all the loved ones in communities of those we have lost to the worsening toxic drug supply and to opioid overdoses. For decades, effective drug policy has had four pillars: prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. Unfortunately, progress on harm reduction has met significant obstacles based upon ideology and not evidence.

Our government is working with provinces, territories and communities to develop a comprehensive, evidence-based strategy to address this ongoing tragedy. Over 20 years ago, Insite, the first safe consumption site, opened in Vancouver. It continues to save lives. The evidence is clear. Harm reduction measures save lives.

Since 2017, supervised consumption sites across Canada have reversed 27,000 overdoses without a single death on-site. Communities across Canada now have increased access to lifesaving naloxone, including remote and isolated indigenous communities. Our government will use every tool at our disposal to end this national public health crisis.

People are dying from toxic substances in the drug supply, and we will not turn the tide of the growing death toll until we address that reality. The pandemic has led to an even more uncertain and dangerous illegal drug supply, resulting in significant increases in overdose-related deaths. The provision of a safer supply of drugs is essential to help prevent overdoses, and it is a vital part of our comprehensive approach to the opioid overdose crisis.

Our government has invested over $60 million to expand access to a safe supply of prescription opioids. We also need to divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and toward supportive and trusted relationships in the health system.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has issued guidance stating that alternatives to prosecution should be considered for simple possession offences. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has also introduced Bill C-5 to get rid of the previous government's failed policies, which filled our prisons with low-risk first-time offenders who needed help, not to be put in jail.

This legislation would provide further space to treat simple drug possession as a health issue. Health Canada is also currently reviewing several requests from Vancouver, British Columbia, and Toronto Public Health for section 56 exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize the personal possession of drugs.

We are working closely with our provincial, territorial and municipal partners and with other key stakeholders such as the impressive network Moms Stop the Harm, with more than $700 million to reduce the risks, save lives and give people the evidence-based support they need.

Canadians can rest assured that fighting the opioid crisis remains a priority for this government. We will continue to do everything possible to save lives and put an end to this public health crisis.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. We have a really interesting diversity of witnesses. We have our keystone province police in Winnipeg on the ground with 40 years of experience, and then we have this very unique situation on the border.

I didn't realize that Akwesasne borders Ontario, Quebec and the United States. I knew it bordered the U.S. and Canada, but I didn't realize there was an interprovincial border there as well. I can't imagine all the red tape and bureaucracy you have to go through just to make your community safer. I look forward to asking you some questions.

I am going to start off with the Winnipeg Police Association.

President Sabourin, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate your opening remarks. Recently we spoke and talked about this committee and gun violence, gang violence, and I also brought to your attention Bill C-5, which was brought forward. I'd appreciate your thoughts on Bill C-5 as well. When we last spoke, you mentioned that in Winnipeg—which we know is one of the most dangerous violent crime capitals in Canada, unfortunately—calls for service increased 45% in the last 10 years, and violent and property crimes are up. In fact, you mentioned to me that the crime severity index for Statistics Canada had to increase their scale for Manitoba. I believe we went above 150, and 161 was our crime scale. We know very much what it's like on the ground in Winnipeg, and our hearts go out to those in Montreal who are experiencing a lot of that same violent crime.

You mentioned that meth and drugs are part of that. You also mentioned that you believe it may be the result of having the lowest incarceration rates in 20 years, because so many factors play into this. Can you explain to the committee your perspective on that and how you believe incarceration and violent crime are connected?

[Maurice Sabourin, President, Winnipeg Police Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the rest of the committee for the invite to speak at this committee level.

My name is Maurice Sabourin. I am the president of the Winnipeg Police Association. I have been so for the past eight years. I have been a proud police officer with the Winnipeg Police Service for the last 32 years, with experience in our property crimes division as a detective, our major crimes unit, stolen auto unit and our homicide unit. I have served with our association for the past 14 years and, as I previously mentioned, as president for the last eight.

Joining me today is Detective Phil Neyron, who is also a director with the Winnipeg Police Association. I felt that it was necessary to draw upon his experience. He is a detective within our guns and gangs unit, which is appropriate for the topic today. He is a police officer of 20 years.

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the topic today, Bill C-5, which I believe is very well intentioned, when you take into account public safety, gangs and the smuggling of guns. I do have some concerns about Bill C-5, as it possibly does not take into account the possibilities that could flow from this bill.

Public safety for us, in particular, is paramount. I think we are arguably one of the most violent jurisdictions in the country, and I would say probably the busiest per capita per police officer, even though we are at the top of the heap in terms of the number of police officers per 100,000 citizens. Gun violence is a daily occurrence in Winnipeg. Anything we can do to weigh in on helping solve this problem is much appreciated.

With the introduction of Bill C-5 and the proposal to remove minimum sentencing, I fear that's going to have a negative effect on public safety here in Winnipeg. As a member of our property crimes unit and our stolen auto unit, I saw the benefits of intensive supervision as well as incarceration and members of the criminal element being placed in incarceration and in remand.

The other negative effect that we have already seen is the potential for the purchase back of illegal firearms. What we are seeing on the street nowadays is as a result of that proposal. The cost of illegal firearms has doubled, which creates more of an opportunity for gun smugglers. When the possibility of a 300% profit over a 100% profit is an opportunity, people are willing to take more risk in smuggling firearms.

In addition, the firearms registry, obviously, has its pros and cons. The pro would be that there should be a better tracking of firearms when it comes to purchase and resale. That is beneficial. Unfortunately, the legislation could use some bolstering in that area. I think for the majority of the offences that are being committed on the street, it's not the legal gun owners who are committing these offences, and the majority of the firearms that are being seized are not legally registered. Winnipeg, in particular, is seizing pretty much the same number of firearms that are being seized in Toronto.

I'm more than happy to expand on any of the statements I have made, but that brings my opening statement to a close.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Recently, the Liberal government brought forward Bill C-5, which addresses, as you mentioned, mandatory minimum sentences. For those who don't know what that means, a mandatory minimum means that if you commit X crime you go to jail for a minimum of x amount of years or days or months. That's what a mandatory minimum sentence is, from my understanding.

So you're saying that you're already right now, without this Bill C-5, which will eliminate mandatory minimum prison time for extortion with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, firing a firearm that tends to injure someone.... It eliminates mandatory minimums for those crimes. You're saying that even without the elimination of those mandatory minimums with gun crimes, the RCMP are seeing now a revolving door; violent crime is committed Friday, like you said, and they're back out on the street committing crimes two days later.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of speaking to students in a grade 10 civics class this morning in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I asked for their feedback on Bill C-5.

They would like to know if the government is willing to amend the bill and keep mandatory minimums for extortion with a firearm; importing, exporting or possession of drugs for the purpose of exporting; and the production of hard drugs; that is heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. In their opinion, these serious crimes make sense with mandatory minimums.

If these kids get it, why does the government not get it?

Government Business No. 4—An Act to Provide Further Support in Response to COVID-19

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we look at how we treat addiction and mental health, we have to change how we talk about it. We have to see it as the disease that it is. Consumption treatment sites absolutely are important when we look at harm reduction, but the bigger, long-term sustainable solution is treatment and intervention. We need to focus on that.

Right now we have a situation in our community of Peterborough—Kawartha where the criminals who are dealing these drugs that are killing people are being put back out on the streets. Things like Bill C-5 are not helping with that. We need legislation that actually deals with this issue, to make sure the people who are dealing these drugs are held accountable.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will pick up where I left off earlier. The minister said that some 74 weapons had been seized by the RCMP. That is good, but it is not enough. Some 700 weapons were seized by Montreal police last year. And, again according to TVA Nouvelles, there are almost as many guns coming across the border per week as police across Canada seize in a year.

What we understand from the minister's comments is that current gun control measures are adequate, but more are needed. However, according to journalistic investigations, these measures are clearly not sufficient and are therefore not adequate. We need a change of direction. In Montreal right now, an American-style gun culture is taking hold. People are thinking of getting a gun to protect themselves and their children and they are obviously getting their guns illegally. In Montreal, young people are dying in libraries or on the street, in broad daylight or when it's not very late at night. Yet, the only measure adopted so far by the government has been to introduce Bill C‑5, which provides for the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms-related crimes. We're calling for something a little more serious to control guns and stop their illegal trafficking.

Does the minister have a plan? In the coming months, what does his government intend to do concretely to fight against firearms trafficking?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

In fact, as I have said, Bill C-5 ensures that we would be raising maximum penalties for serious gun crimes, because we believe that is the right thing to do. I would simply point out that, in addition to taking that position on Bill C-5, we have put in place additional gun control that does focus on illegal gun crime. That is how we are going to ensure that we create safer communities, Mr. Lloyd.

I know that the Conservative Party sometimes takes a fundamentally different view—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

A message from my constituents.... In your opening remarks, you said that there is one common denominator for all of these crimes and that's a firearm. Well, you're missing the obvious thing, Minister. The other obvious common denominator is the criminals themselves, and it's time to focus on the criminals in this matter.

You also claimed in your statement that you want to increase penalties on gun smugglers, yet Bill C-5, your government's policy, is seeking to reduce mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, in the last Parliament, when our Conservative colleague Bob Saroya brought up Bill C-238 to increase penalties for the possession of smuggled firearms, you and your party voted against that policy.

Why do your actions not match your words, Minister?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make it clear, Minister, that your government has been in power for six years. For six years, we've seen violent crime go up. We've seen violent crime with guns go up. We've seen deaths from drug traffickers go up to extraordinary rates. Again, 7,000 Canadians a year are dying from opioids. We're seeing this problem raging in Winnipeg, Toronto and especially Vancouver, where the NDP member is from. This is a serious issue, yet with Bill C‑5, we're seeing a reduction of or no mandatory minimum prison time for the people responsible for those deaths.

For my question, I'd like to now focus on the issue of gun smuggling. You talked a little bit about it, but what frustrates me in particular is where your government is investing its resources. We see the buyback program, in which we know no criminals will be providing their guns back to the federal government. That's not going to impact criminal gun behaviour, yet we know the buyback program will cost.... I've seen estimates from $1 billion to even $3 billion. It's going to cost the taxpayer maybe $3 billion. We know that RCMP resources, which are already stretched far too thin, are going to have to put thousands of hours towards this buyback program.

We do feel that the resources your government is focusing on the buyback program are misplaced. If you would invest $1 billion to $3 billion at our borders, I think we would see a lot fewer illegal guns from the United States smuggled in by gangs, used in drug trafficking and used to kill innocent Canadians.

I do want to ask you something specific about the smuggling across the border. We know that border communities are being used to smuggle guns and dangerous drugs through. We know that there are some first nations communities in Quebec, for example, that border the American and Quebec border. I'd like to know what discussions you've had with those first nations communities about providing them with resources to keep their people safe and to stop the smuggling of any illegal substances or firearms that may be coming through the border in those areas of our country.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Minister.

We don't share your belief that allowing criminals who use firearms in robberies, for extortion and serious gun crimes like that.... We believe they should go to jail and that would help clean up our streets. We are concerned that Bill C-5 is allowing these criminals to return to our streets and ensure violence continues.

Another issue that we know is deeply tied to gun violence in Montreal and Toronto is, of course, drug trafficking, pushing of opioids, fentanyl and heroin. We know opioids kill 7,000 Canadians a year, yet Bill C-5 also eliminates the mandatory prison time for drug traffickers, so we're quite concerned. We know gang violence and gun violence are deeply interrelated with drug trafficking, yet you're taking away the ability for mandatory prison time for those who commit dangerous, violent gun crime and those who are pushing drugs on people, which is killing 7,000 Canadians a year.

Again, we see Bill C-5 as completely opposite of what needs to be done to address gun violence and the gang and drug-trafficking activity that is fuelling that in our cities. In Manitoba alone, we had 372 drug-related deaths in 2020, so we find this to be very serious.

Does the minister believe leaving criminal drug traffickers on our streets, rather than putting them in prison where they rightfully belong for killing thousands of Canadians, will stop gang violence in Montreal?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Ms. Dancho, I do. Before I tell you why, I want to thank you for your advocacy and for bringing your experiences, both in Winnipeg and Montreal, to this committee.

I will say that Bill C-5 does ensure that a number of mandatory minimum penalties with regard to firearms offences, serious firearms offences, remain in place. Not only that, but as I have said, there are a number of serious firearms offences to which we propose to increase maximum penalties, which of course we trust our independent judiciary to dispense where appropriate.

I will also say, as I outlined in my remarks, that our government takes this issue very seriously, which is why we have introduced additional gun controls, particularly the banning of assault rifles. We are now going to take the next steps to do whatever it takes to reduce gun violence, because I believe we are all joined in that cause.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for being with us today on relatively short notice.

Minister, I've lived in Montreal for a number of years. It's deeply important to me that we see the issue of gun violence solved in that country, but we also see violent crime across Canada. I represent a riding in Winnipeg, and we're seeing increased violence there as well. In fact, across Canada, in five of the last six years, violent crime has gone up. Firearms-related offences have increased for six years in a row now. Homicides are at a 30-year high, and we know that at least one-third of homicides are committed with firearms. As long as I've been alive, homicides haven't been this bad. I think that's pretty serious, and we're hoping for serious action from your government.

Winnipeg itself is on track to surpass its 2019 homicide record, and it was also ranked the violent crime capital of Canada in 2020. Conservative members are taking the violent crime we're seeing surging across the country over the last six years very seriously.

However, we are also disappointed following one of the shootings this fall in Montreal. I think it was even the day after your government introduced Bill C-5, which removes mandatory prison time, as you know, for robberies with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent to injure, and using a firearm in the commission of a crime. We're quite concerned that, on one hand, we're seeing criminals using often illegally smuggled guns to harm our communities, and on the other hand, your government is taking away the ability to ensure mandatory prison time.

I'd like to know if you believe Bill C-5 will keep criminals responsible for the shootings in Montreal, and others across the country, off our streets.

Criminal Code

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising to give a speech as a member of the 44th Parliament, I want to take a moment to thank the people of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for re-electing me to this place on their behalf. It is a responsibility, honour and privilege that I do not take lightly. I am really grateful to them for sending me back here.

My re-election was made possible by everyone who supported my campaign, believed in me, had my back and helped me through this journey. With the dedication and professionalism of my team, the passion and commitment of our volunteers, the generosity and sacrifice of our donors and, of course, the love and support of family and friends, we were able to share our positive Conservative vision. I am grateful beyond words.

I would not be here without my amazing campaign team. I thank my campaign manager David Sverginsky, my official agent Doug Plummer, and the rest of my core team and staff without whom I would not be here. They are Russ Kykendall, Tony Reznowski, Yvonne Hundey, Anna Marie Young, Todd Gurd, Cheri Davies and Kim Heathcote; and the group of volunteers who canvassed with me almost every day: Archie Nugteren, Mark Etienne, Gerry Rupke, Steve Stellingwerff, Marius, Juliette, Hannah Kurjanowicz, Brandon MacDougall, and my predecessor, Bev Shipley.

I would also like to thank Julie, Angela, Holly, Candice and Jennifer for always being there and for their steadfast support throughout my political journey.

The sign crew put up over 3,000 signs. I thank them for their hard work and dedication.

A special thanks to my parents, Diane and Theo Rood, for their love and support. My dad took on the enormous task of installing the signs, removing them and just being there for me throughout this.

I thank my brothers Jeremy Rood and Steele Leacock, and my grandma, Helen Jamrozinski, for their love and support throughout this journey.

Going on to the bill that is before us, it should come as no surprise when I say the Conservatives are the party of law and order. We are the party that stands with victims of crime and their loved ones. We are the party that applies common sense and outcome-based principles to protect innocent Canadians from violent criminals who would harm others. We are the party that understands that it is criminals who are committing these crimes, not law-abiding firearms owners, anglers, hunters and sports shooters.

The Liberals claim to be serious about getting tough on crime, but their hypocritical actions speak louder than words. Last February, in the previous Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-22. The goal of this harmful legislation was to reduce the sentences for illegal gun smugglers and remove mandatory minimum sentences for many serious offences. That bill died when the election was called, but here we are again with the same bill, but with a different number.

Just months before the Prime Minister called an unnecessary election in the middle of a pandemic, my Conservative colleague introduced a private member's bill, which would have imposed tougher sentences for criminals who were caught smuggling or in possession of illegal guns, which is the larger problem.

Brian Sauvé, who is the president of the National Police Federation, has said that policies like what the Liberals are advocating for may be politically popular, but they fail to address the root cause of gun violence. He says:

The narrative is that we need to restrict gun ownership because that will curtail crime, when really the evidence is that illegal gun trafficking leads to criminals owning guns, which leads to crimes with firearms.

Therefore, we need to look at the source of the problem.

Crimes with firearms are exactly what the government claims it wants to stop, yet it voted against a bill and continues to fail to support legislation that will do just that. Does that sound like a government that is serious on tackling gun crime for the people of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex? It sounds kind of hypocritical to me.

Bill C-22 is back as Bill C-5, but with the same purpose. This legislation is a revolving door for criminals. It would do nothing to stop crime. It would do the exact opposite. It would repeal the penalties for crimes like weapons trafficking, reckless discharge of a firearm, discharge with intent to wound or endanger and armed robbery. It would also remove conditional sentencing for heinous crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, child abduction, human trafficking, vehicle theft and arson.

That tells me the Liberal elites in Ottawa do not care about our safety or the safety of our loved ones. Conservatives like myself will always fight against harmful legislation like Bill C-5. Canadians do not want the justice system to be a constantly revolving door. Common sense must prevail for all common good.

I studied criminology in university, and I have friends who are corrections officers, probation and parole officers. I hear the same thing from them all the time. It is the same people revolving through the doors committing the same crimes over and over again. If it is a provincial offence, which is two years less a day, they will not get the kind of help they would need. If they were sent to a federal facility, they would have help for mental health and addictions problems.

The government has a role to play in ensuring that Canadians, victims of crime and their families can exist freely and without fear in our society, but in Bill C-5, the Liberals are telling Canadians that these offences are no big deal. Is it no big deal that someone could leave prison, steal a car, rob several businesses, assaulting the occupants with a weapon, and then attack a police officer on their way out? Apparently, the Liberal government thinks that scenario only deserves a slap on the wrist, not a guaranteed minimum punishment for harmful criminal behaviour. In fact, what is proposed in this bill would allow someone who did all the above the opportunity to not even spend a single day in jail.

Again, as a Conservative, I have to stand here and attempt to bring common sense to a government that is clearly showing no indication that it has any sense left, common or not. In fact, some days it feels like the Liberals have removed the words “common sense” from the dictionary entirely.

At the end of the day, Bill C-5 gets soft on gun crime and gives great relief to criminals and offenders. It is missing any good reasons why this policy cares for, protects or prevents repeat offences against victims of violent crime in Canada. It misses the mark on what should be targeted to stop crime and illegal guns. As Winnipeg police constable Rob Carver said, “When we seize handguns, the handguns are always, almost 100 per cent, in the possession of people who have no legal right to possess them. They're almost always stolen or illegally obtained.” Again, it is not the law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters who are committing serious crimes.

Let us now look at the final part of this so-called landmark progressive legislation. During an unprecedented national overdose crisis, we have a government that is actively trying to enable the criminal proliferation of drug trafficking, importing, exporting and production. Where is the sense in that?

I heard from Louis, a constituent in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who asked me, “Can we address the fact that known drug dealers are getting away with murder? We lost a grandchild.” What Canadians want and need is a compassionate approach to mental health and addictions recovery, and this is not found in Bill C-5. In fact, no part of this bill even attempts to touch on the subject, and it is too busy enabling the pushers.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health estimates the economic burden of mental illness in Canada at $51 billion per year, which includes health care costs, lost productivity and reductions in health-related quality of life. Addictions and mental health issues have costly and far-reaching impacts in our society and must be given proper attention in legislation to combat the crisis.

When will the government put forward legislation to address this impact instead of using a real crisis to score cheap political talking points at the cost of protecting Canadians? The Prime Minister and the Liberal members across the floor are all talk. They talk big and they make sweet-sounding promises to address serious concerns about gender-based violence, opioid addiction, systemic racism and other forms of discrimination. They make boldfaced claims to be helping Canadians, but then offer nothing of use.

What I see, and what the constituents I represent see when the Liberals grandstand, is hypocrisy. I see before the House a bill that is soft on gun crime and soft on the criminal drug enterprise. Canadians know bills like Bill C-5 are contrary to evidence, countless news stories and the testimony of victims. It should be impossible to ignore the madness of the government’s relentless attempts to gaslight Canadians otherwise.

Canadians expect the government to stand up for the rule of law, to protect victims first and to stand up for their rights. The government should be targeting violent criminals, sexual offenders and criminal gangs, and ensuring that the Criminal Code protects Canadians. Any changes should be made in a well-informed manner that protects public safety.

As legislators, we must represent and reflect the values of the average Canadian, and Canadians consider the crimes that Bill C-5 relaxes measures against to be extremely serious. By reducing mandatory sentences for serious crimes, Bill C-5 says elected representatives do not need to be accountable to the victims of these crimes. The utter hypocrisy of this bill and those who vote for it is staggering.

To vote in favour of this bill signals a victory for violent criminals who commit some of the most heinous crimes against the most vulnerable victims in Canada. It comes at a cost to victims and their families, present and future, and to the dignity of our great nation. That is a fact I find unacceptable, and it is why I will be voting against the bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just following on from the previous question, Bill C-5 would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act by adding a new section after section 10. It would add a declaration of principles and a warning and referral system.

Many jurisdictions across Canada, including the Province of British Columbia, have flatly asked the federal government for decriminalization. It includes the chiefs of police. I wonder if my colleague can comment on the fact that this bill was probably a great missed opportunity to address that fundamental aspect of our justice system.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is asking about whether people should be going to jail for simple possession. I would ask her if she shares my interpretation of the legislation.

Here is what the minimum penalties with respect to drugs are in Bill C-5: with respect to drug dealers, trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, which does not sound like simple possession to me; importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting, which to me sounds like drug smuggling across the border; production of a substance in schedule I, including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth, which sounds like illegal drug manufacturing.

This bill is not addressing the simple possession issues my colleague is talking about. We can have a discussion about those kinds of things for simple possession and addictions all day long, and I would be happy to have the conversation with her.

This is about criminality and organized crime. Why would we be conflating that with simple possession? These are criminal organizations that are smuggling and manufacturing and distributing drugs. They should go to jail.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, neighbour and colleague for Red Deer—Mountain View for his excellent speech.

As this is my first opportunity to deliver a speech on behalf of the constituents of Red Deer—Lacombe in the new Parliament, I want to thank all of my volunteers and my family. Of course, I thank the voters of Red Deer—Lacombe for sending me here for a sixth term. My commitment to them is to do my best in representing the issues and values that we hold dear in central Alberta. One of those is addressed in this proposed legislation.

Many of the hard-working people in central Alberta are law-abiding firearms owners. They get up every day, go to work, follow all the rules, follow the law, work hard and pay their taxes. In return, they simply want to be treated with dignity and respect by their government. They want their tax dollars used effectively and efficiently, and none of them feel very good right now about the direction that our country is heading, particularly when it comes to the legislative agenda of this current government. They are very concerned and very worried about government's approach, which is soft on violent and dangerous crime.

Bill C-5 is another iteration of Bill C-22, which appeared just before the election was called in the last Parliament, and the bill is absolutely abhorrent, I believe, in the minds of most of my voters back in Red Deer—Lacombe.

I am a law-abiding firearms owner, and I am a former law enforcement officer in the conservation law enforcement field. My job was to go into situations and deal with law-abiding hunters and firearms owners on a daily basis. I would go into situations as a conservation officer or as a national park warden where virtually every person I dealt with had an axe because they were camping; a knife because they were fishing; or a firearm, bow or crossbow because they were hunting.

I did this with complete confidence that the people I was going to deal with and work with were going to be honest and forthright people for the most part, and I had nothing to fear and nothing to worry about from law-abiding hunters and firearms owners in this country. I am proud to say that I safely did my job with a respectful group of hunters, anglers, campers and outdoor enthusiasts for a number of years before I ended up in this place.

These are good people, and they do not deserve to be demonized by this current government. They certainly do not deserve to be taken to task or held accountable for dangerous, violent criminals who are operating under the auspices of organized crime in our large urban centres, such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary. Even in one of the largest cities that my colleague for Red Deer—Mountain View and I share, Red Deer, Alberta, which is a beautiful city full of good, honest, hard-working people, there is the odd one that causes problems. We need to be focusing on the ones that cause problems, which is the problem with the legislation before us today.

Ladies and gentlemen of Canada, and ladies and gentlemen of Toronto, who are watching need to know the crimes the people they voted for are actually reducing and eliminating mandatory minimum penalties for. One is robbery with a firearm. We would think that in a city such as Toronto, where there are virtually daily shootings being reported, that somebody would say, “Robbery with a firearm is a fairly serious thing and people should probably go to jail for that”, but not according to a Liberal member of Parliament members from that city.

Another is extortion with a firearm, which must be a pleasant experience for the victim. Why do we not do what Liberals do and get rid of any mandatory minimum prison sentences for somebody who is being extorted with a gun to their head? The third is weapons trafficking, excluding firearms and ammunition. Weapons trafficking is the illegal movement, sale and acquisition of firearms. This is the problem.

We know from people like professor emeritus Gary Mauser from Simon Fraser University that a person is very unlikely to be a victim of crime from a law-abiding firearms owner. In fact, when we take a look at the statistics from Statistics Canada going back to 2012, we know that 0.6 in 100,000 murders in this country were committed by law-abiding firearms owners. That is less than the average of 1.8 murders per 100,000 in the country.

The safest person we can be around in this country when it comes homicide is a law-abiding firearms owner, but we are going to make sure that smugglers and people who traffic firearms and bring these guns into the country would potentially face zero jail time for their actions. There is also importing or exporting knowing that a firearm or weapon is unauthorized, which is called “smuggling”, and it is smuggling firearms across the border.

This is the problem. This is what Liberals in la-la land think deserves no jail time whatsoever. If voters are in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, these are the people that they voted for and sent here and this is what they are doing to the community. The Liberals are saying to the people who voted for them that they are going to remove mandatory minimum sentences for people who smuggle guns across the U.S. border and instead blame and conflate issues on law-abiding firearms owners. It is absolutely disgusting.

Discharging a firearm with intent, when does that happen on the streets of Toronto? Daily, but if someone is the one with the gun, apparently in Liberal la-la land, they do not need to go to jail.

With regard to using a firearm in the commission of an offence, holding somebody up, committing a robbery, committing a carjacking, using a firearm, in theft or any of these other types of activities, if people take a firearm along with them, they should not worry if they voted Liberal. The Liberals are looking out for their interests and making sure they spend no time in jail as a result.

On possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, these are people that are not getting firearms licences like every law-abiding firearms owner in this country actually does. Canadians might be surprised to know that every single day all 2.1 million of my fellow law-abiding firearms owners are checked by CPIC to make sure that we are eligible to continue to possess firearms.

As a matter of fact, the law is written in this country that people cannot possess a firearm at all. Every firearm is illegal, unless they have a licence to have one. That is what the law currently says. Law-abiding Canadians by the millions in this country follow those rules on a daily basis and we are checked on a daily basis to make sure that we can continue to lawfully possess our property.

Instead of harassing people like me, the government is going to make life easier for people who are unlicensed. If people are found in possession of a basketful of handguns in downtown Toronto, they should not worry; they do not have an RPAL, the guns were smuggled and they might even be the smuggler. Guess what? They have the option of going home and sitting in their house and thinking hard about how bad they are because that is the Liberal solution to organized crime in our country. This is absolutely ridiculous.

On possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, these are guns we are not even allowed to have, so now we are talking about illegal owners. They should not worry; the Liberal Party of Canada has their back. If they have one of these, they do not have to go to jail, here is a “get out of jail” card just like in the Monopoly game; they do not have to face the consequences.

Possession of a weapon obtained by commission of offence is theft. That is someone who comes into my home and steals my gun. That is someone who comes into a rural property in the County of Red Deer, the County of Lacombe, the County of Ponoka, or any one of our communities, steals from us and may be purposefully there trying to steal our firearms. The Liberal response is because our disarmament policy for law-abiding Canadians is not working, they are going to let thieves out of jail for free for stealing a law-abiding citizen's property.

This legislation is absolutely ridiculous. It flies in the sensibilities of everybody. On these mandatory minimums just on the firearms, and not getting into the drugs and all of the other things that the government is reducing or limiting minimum penalties for, in this legislation, virtually all of them except for one, guess who introduced these pieces of legislation in the Criminal Code? Was it Stephen Harper or Brian Mulroney? One of them happened under the government of Stephen Harper. The other dozen of these provisions in the Criminal Code were put in place by none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Today's Liberals are certainly not yesterday's Liberals, ladies and gentlemen. Our country is not any safer with these guys at the helm.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I have numerous concerns about the legislation that directly affects my constituents.

By proposing this legislation, the Liberals have illustrated just how out of touch they are with the long-lasting effects of criminal activities on Canadians. Their commitment to protecting the rights of criminals tramples on the legal rights afforded to victims of crime and does little to address systemic inequities, including the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples, Black and marginalized Canadians in the criminal justice system. Instead, Bill C-5 would reduce the accountability of violent offenders and encourage their release back into the community instead of facing legal consequences that are proportionate to the crimes they have committed.

My Conservative colleagues have spoken at length about the impacts of the bill on firearm-related offences and weapons trafficking. Has the Liberal government forgotten how gun violence impacts people and communities across Canada?

Violent crime involving firearms is a growing threat to public safety in our communities. Even with the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, my constituents still rank rural crime and gun violence as one of their main concerns. These crimes continue to rise, and almost half of Canadians feel that gun violence is a threat to their community.

Bill C-5 would do nothing to stand up for Canadians. It instead chooses to weaken our laws and empower criminals. It would give more liberties to criminals who have guns than law-abiding Canadians who own guns.

When we look at the text of Bill C-5, we see that it actually would help those who prey on the vulnerable. It would reduce sentencing for drug trafficking, for gun crime and for importing drugs. I believe the average Canadian can clearly distinguish the difference between drug trafficking and someone who is suffering from addiction issues being caught with a small amount of drugs.

This bill would not help the latter. It instead would roll back the offences for the producers and manufacturers of schedule I drugs. It uses vulnerable Canadians to cover the true intent of this bill, which is to soften accountability for criminals.

On Monday, my Conservative colleague was attacked for not mentioning systemic racism in his remarks, as if to imply that Bill C-5 has anything to do with correcting racial injustices in our legal system. It is important to point out that in the six years that the Liberals have been in power, the proportion of federal prisoners who are indigenous rose from 24% to 30%.

I am also compelled to bring attention to the fact that the group of Canadians who are disproportionately affected as victims include women and girls, visible minorities, LGBTQ people, children and youth, lower-income families, those living in poverty, and people in northern and remote communities.

Bill C-5 does not mention the victims of crime. Instead the government wants us to believe that racial inequality exists only when we discuss offenders. Bill C-5 would decrease criminal accountability and ignores issues such as addiction, poverty and mental health issues. It ignores that the communities that experience higher levels of crime are most adversely affected themselves.

I would like to talk about the expansion of conditional sentences for crimes such as sexual assault. It is a complete affront to combatting violence against women by a government that hides behind the optics of feminism. Sexual assault victims already face a litany of traumas in our justice system, as they must contend with disclosing information that is intensely personal and private, which could result in victim blaming and often shame.

The bill would add even more obstacles to those trying to heal from sexual assault by allowing sexual offenders to serve their sentence at home. People on house arrest are generally not limited to constantly staying at home, as they can be permitted to leave for certain pre-approved locations and activities. Their movement and freedom may be controlled and monitored, however, unlike being incarcerated, house arrest allows them the ability to continue participating in society and at home.

I want to focus for a moment on the selected phrase “continue participating in society”, because I am unable to understand why sexual predators should be allowed this privilege, when the victims of their crime are not afforded the same respect.

There is no shortage of information about sexual assault survivors and the challenges our legal system faces in prosecuting it, not to mention the traumatization and re-traumatization of survivors throughout the process. Law reform and policy changes have brought about some necessary improvements to the way the criminal justice system processes sexual assault cases, but Bill C-5 is not one of those. It would violate a victim's right to protection, diminish the strength of our court system and may even be responsible for impeding a survivor's reintegration and participation in society.

The Liberals say that they are helping addicts and communities, but they actually would be reducing sentences and eliminating accountability for traffickers and manufacturers, while continuing to punish law-abiding firearm owners. My rural constituents continue to be the target of restrictive gun laws, while the government supports weakening the consequences for weapons trafficking.

The Conservatives believe we must take strong action to prevent criminal activity. We stand for victims of crime and we fight to defend their rights. Shorter sentences and house arrest are not a deterrent for sexual assault or firearms offences. The Liberals have promised that conditional sentences, such as house arrest, would never be considered over public safety. If so, why would they offer this sentencing option for sexual assault charges? I am unsettled at the thought that they believe there is a need for legislation that would allow sexual predators to serve their sentences within their community.

Conditional sentencing, as presented in Bill C-5, would not advocate for restorative justice; it instead would give offenders the opportunity to not only escape consequences for their actions, but would cross the line into revictimizing survivors of sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking. How can we expect to feel safe and protected when the government is advocating for offenders who are kidnapping 13-year-old children to serve their sentences in our neighbourhood? How is this any regard for public safety?

The government needs to work with its provincial counterparts to combat the increase in rural crime, not pass sweeping legislation that would lessen the penalties for the criminals.

There is nothing in Bill C-5 that explains how eliminating mandatory minimum sentences would undo the systemic racism the government claims plagues our justice system. It would blatantly miss its mark. It would endanger public safety, while doing nothing to help vulnerable Canadians in our criminal justice system struggling with addiction and mental illness.

Bill C-5 ignores the fact that, on its face, minimum mandatory sentencing is unbiased. There is ample administrative law jurisprudence that defines that where the statute gives discretion to decision-makers and they come to an unfair decision, the problem is the “maladministration” of the statute rather than the statute itself. If the Liberal government believes that mandatory minimum sentences perpetuate systemic racism because of the prevalence of racist policing and improper use of prosecutorial discretion, then why are they not introducing solutions to this problem?

It is disingenuous to say that this bill is being put forward to address the over-incarceration rate of marginalized Canadians. It is also false that Bill C-5 considers public safety over the rights of criminals. Punishing criminals and holding them accountable is only part of the Conservative Party's response to crime. We must also ensure that crime victims and survivors are treated with respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention was very thoughtful and I agree with most of what he said. I want to assure him that the issue of gun violence is something we are very concerned about, and our government will take decisive action in that regard.

With respect to Bill C-5, I wonder if the member could speak about conditional sentencing orders and how they will impact the criminal justice system, and about the need for judges to have the discretion to make important decisions about individuals who are before them in their courthouses.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here on the eve of the holiday season to discuss, at second reading, Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which was sponsored by the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, our justice minister.

Bill C-5 takes action on two legislative fronts. First, it seeks to scrap around 20 mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, that apply to firearm and drug offences. Second, it introduces the principle of diversion for simple drug possession.

I will focus more on the MMPs, and my esteemed colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will address the diversion aspect later and in greater detail.

I am particularly interested in this bill because I have a background in criminology as well. My first university degree was in criminology in the mid-80s, which more or less gives away my age. I therefore rise today in this House to speak to this bill partly from the perspective of a humble criminology graduate from the Université de Montréal.

Incidentally, what do criminologists do? They analyze crimes, penalties and risk thresholds, being as objective as possible in their analysis. Prevention, rehabilitation, support, assistance and, obviously, intervention are all in a criminologist's wheelhouse.

I believe in rehabilitation, unlike some Conservative colleagues. I believe that we can reduce crime and so does the Bloc Québécois. That is why we will support Bill C‑5.

Black Canadians represent 3% of the total population, but 7% of the prison population. Indigenous people represent 5% of Canada's total population but 30% of the prison population. That number jumps to 45% for indigenous women, who represent around 2.5% of the total population, if I am not mistaken. That is appalling. It is like a bad social novel, and it is shocking and unacceptable.

Fortunately, repealing some mandatory minimum penalties can do a lot to correct this unacceptable imbalance without, in my view, compromising the safety of Quebeckers and Canadians in any way.

Mandatory minimum penalties carry few benefits and introduce a number of problems, such as the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons. They also cost the system a lot of extra money, and yet they do not have the slightest impact or deterrent effect on crime. The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the principle of repealing some of these MMPs, once again. We agree on the substance of the bill.

However, I would like to express some reservations about the timing of the announcement of this bill to repeal mandatory minimum penalties, especially in relation to firearms. Is it not a bit inappropriate for the government to introduce this bill when we are seeing one tragedy after another in Montreal?

We must remember that the weapons used to kill our young people in the streets of Montreal and other cities come from somewhere. They are mostly weapons that enter the country illegally through our porous borders. Scrapping MMPs without firm measures from the federal government to counter the illegal importation of firearms sends the wrong message to the public.

To be clear, we are in favour of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for a first offence, but not for a second or third offence. Generally speaking, I am a big believer in second chances, but when people reoffend, that calls for a different approach. It is called accountability. Maintaining mandatory minimum sentences in such cases is important to Quebeckers. We do not want people to lose faith in our justice system.

We think it makes sense to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for firearms possession, but we have concerns about doing so for discharging a firearm with intent and robbery and extortion with a firearm. We do not support eliminating mandatory minimums in situations like that.

To sum up, there are benefits to eliminating some mandatory minimum sentences. Obviously, it would reduce the financial and administrative burden on the prison system. It would promote alternatives that support reintegration of offenders from Black and indigenous communities, who, as we know, are overrepresented in the prison system. Last but not least, these sentences do not tend to work. There is no empirical evidence to show that they influence a person's decision as to whether or not to commit a crime with a firearm.

When it comes to drugs, we saw the abject failure of the so-called “war on drugs” in the United States during the Nixon era. It was a failure. They filled the prisons, but accomplished nothing. Harsh sentences have not made so much as a dent in the brisk drug trafficking business, but they have added an enormous financial burden to our system and have had a tragic impact on the lives of many low-level offenders. Former Prime Minister Harper probably admired this tough-on-crime approach, the same way many Conservatives here do. However, the Bloc Québécois is against it. We believe in rehabilitation, prevention, and alternative, adapted sentences. Fines, therapy and community work are examples of other options that would adequately replace MMPs in many cases.

Before I wrap up, I just want to mention again that my esteemed colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will elaborate further by focusing more on the issue of diversion programs.

For all these reasons, the Bloc will obviously support Bill C‑5. I also want skeptics to know that this support does not mean that we are minimizing gun crimes. Quebeckers are more aware than anyone of the threat that guns currently pose to social peace.

For months, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Public Safety have sat on their hands instead of tightening the border. They have to get going and act on the Bloc's recommendations. Until then, Bill C‑5 is a step in the right direction, and we will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you happy holidays.

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

Madam Speaker, I have not given a lot of speeches as I have been here only two years, but as some of my colleagues will know, I try to be as non-partisan as possible. I find it to be getting more and more difficult, the longer I am here.

One of the things I like to do with every piece of legislation that is put forward is to try to find what I can support or what I think is good in that bill or piece of legislation, and what I think needs to be improved upon. Unfortunately, when I look at Bill C-5, I cannot find a single thing in it that I think is worth supporting.

I came to this Parliament, that is, I ran for elected office and I got elected, to solve problems, not to create new ones. I find it somewhat hypocritical of the government. It said we needed this urgent election, to come here, dissolve Parliament and have an election, because we needed to deal with things concerning COVID and deal with this pandemic. However, one of the first bills the Liberals have introduced is one that would basically make it easier for criminals to stay out of jail and on the streets. This is not for first-time offenders. This is not for simple crimes. This is for serious crimes, and I will get into that later.

This should be about public safety and victims, and dealing with the root causes of the problems we have with gun violence and the increase in violence across this country. We should be addressing poverty, drugs, gangs and criminals, not focusing on making it easier for criminals. This bill eliminates mandatory prison time for drug traffickers and those who commit acts of violence, and makes it possible to put criminals under house arrest versus doing time in prison. Ultimately, it is going to put victims at risk.

I want to read into the record, and I know it has been done before, exactly what Bill C-5 is going to eliminate from the mandatory minimum perspective related to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking excluding firearms and ammunition, importing or exporting knowing that it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, and discharging a firearm recklessly.

The issue is we have seen the government in the previous Parliament bring in an order in council that targeted the most law-abiding citizens in the country, our legal firearms owners, and made it more difficult for our hunters, farmers and sport shooters. However, at the same time, the government introduced, in the last Parliament, Bill C-22. This bill is identical to that previous bill, which makes it easier for criminals to get off those charges.

The previous speaker indicated that these are policies that were failing that were brought in by previous Conservative governments. No, these 14 mandatory minimums that would be repealed via this bill, of the 67 that exist, are ones that were brought in by prime ministers Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. These are not bills that were brought in under former prime minister Stephen Harper. These bills were brought in by previous Liberal prime ministers.

My question, in a rhetorical sense to the previous speaker, is why they did not get rid of all mandatory minimums, the other 53 mandatory minimums, if that is the case. They are keeping the ones the previous Conservative government strengthened under Stephen Harper and eliminating the ones that have been around for decades.

I just want to make that clear. They are eliminating those mandatory prison times for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings, and they are basically doing this because they view the laws as unfair. They are more interested in standing up for the criminals versus the victims and keeping our communities safe.

The next aspect of the bill is eliminating that mandatory prison time for drug dealers. There are six mandatory minimums that they are eliminating that target drug dealers: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purposes of exporting, and the production of a substance schedule I or schedule II drug; i.e. heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth.

Again, we have talked about this, and I fully acknowledge that it happens in my community. We have heard from communities right across this great nation about the opioid crisis and the need to help Canadians who are struggling with addiction. I have family members who have struggled with addiction issues, and I full appreciate that. However, they are not producing drugs, they are not running these meth labs, they are not trafficking drugs and they are not enabling the crisis in this country. There are other people we should be locking up, and we should make sure they serve the appropriate time without letting them off easy.

The next part of the bill talks about conditional sentencing. I am going to read the offences out, because it is beyond me why we would not want these criminals punished. These are not first-time offenders who have committed a theft because they are struggling to get by or do not have food. These are people who are doing serious things. We are talking about prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction of a person under 14, motor theft, theft over $5,000, arson for fraudulent purposes, etc.

I have an eight-year-old daughter. The last thing I want to see is for some hardened criminal who kidnaps my daughter, or the daughter or son of any Canadian for that matter, to be let off and not get the appropriate punishment because of this potential change in legislation.

I want to address the issue of simple possession. This is not what we are dealing with. Police officers already have a load of tools at their disposal to make a determination as to when charges should be laid. My colleague from Brantford—Brant spoke earlier and he is a former Crown attorney. There are some people here with a lot of knowledge who understand the justice system better than me, and I will trust them on how to address this stuff. However, my point, from a simple Canadian perspective, is that this bill would not do anything to make our communities safer and address support for victims.

I want to expand on the conditional sentencing orders, which allow judges to use their judgment when sentencing. I personally do not think there should be a reduction in penalties and a soft-on-crime approach when it comes to gun crime or repeat offenders. It is important that we do not forget the component of public safety when we consider our aim of reducing the overrepresentation of visible minorities in our prisons. We should be considering how to provide the right help and treatment for those suffering with addiction and mental health issues.

As long as I am a member of Parliament, I will continue to advocate for common-sense policies that keep criminals off our streets and respect law-abiding Canadians. I am committed to fighting for policies that keep our communities safe while ensuring that those who are suffering are getting the best help possible. I will not sacrifice public safety, and I will continue to fight for justice and proper resourcing to help those who most need it.

In conclusion, like many of my colleagues and I think the majority of Canadians, I believe serious violent offences committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison times. It is shameful that a bill is being brought here that would weaken the firearms laws in this country. I have serious concerns with this legislation, and I really think we can do better. I hope the government will do better.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, because this is my first time rising in this Parliament to give a substantial speech, if my colleagues allow me I would like to thank my riding of Pickering—Uxbridge and all of the residents for once again putting their faith in me.

I would also like to thank my team of volunteers, my riding association, my family and my mom, who is probably at the door. If anyone thinks I am tough, they have not met my mother.

I would also like to thank my parliamentary family who are here, too: the member for Kingston and the Islands and the Minister of Seniors. My grandfather was not here for this due to COVID. He is in Newfoundland but his MP, the MP for Avalon, is behind me here. My thanks to all for that.

I am proud to rise today to speak on Bill C-5. I have listened to this debate through the course of the week. The Conservative arguments have been incredibly disappointing and frankly disconnected from reality. I want to speak on this because I think it is incredibly important that we speak in facts about the reality in this country and what is going to keep Canadians safe. Conservatives love the idea of mandatory minimum sentences because they feel safe, but they do not actually keep Canadians safe.

I enjoyed listening to the speech of the hon. member before me. I enjoy hearing where we could improve things further, but we must stop continuing the failed, so-called tough-on-crime policies that we know do not work. They do not keep Canadians safe. They do not reduce crime, and they certainly do not help those individuals who could be rehabilitated.

I think it is really important to talk about some of the things I have heard over the course of this debate this last week. Something that Conservatives talked about was a rise in crime. They tried to blame that on Liberal policies, but in fact their Conservative so-called tough-on-crime policies were in effect when they quoted previous years of high crime rates. They do not understand that criminals are not wondering who is sitting in power on this side of the House and whether they should commit a crime. They do not realize that the actual laws of the land were the Conservative policies that were not based in the reality of reducing crime. In jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, for example, they have seen that by implementing rehabilitation there have been significant decreases in crime rates. They have seen people be rehabilitated and, in some cases, jails standing empty because they are able to deal with the social issues that in a lot of cases undermine this.

Let us not be naive. Of course there are criminals who commit egregious crimes and absolutely need to be held accountable for them. Anyone who commits a crime needs to be held to account for it. What I have heard over the course of this debate from my colleagues, as well as from those in the NDP, is that there are judges to determine extenuating circumstances and the nature of a crime. Sitting here in this chamber, this place of extreme privilege, we cannot paint everyone with the same brush. It would be fundamentally wrong. We are not here to make a determination on each granular situation of each crime that has been committed in this country. We have in place a legal system that allows the prosecution to present its case and the defence to present its case, as well as a judge and a jury in many cases to determine the facts of a case, rather than a group of parliamentarians who do not have all the details. We are to set a framework of what we think is fair and reasonable for the criminal justice system.

It has been proven time and again in multiple jurisdictions that mandatory minimum sentences do nothing to discourage crime. All they do is overpopulate the criminal justice system with marginalized, racialized and indigenous communities.

On that point, for example, in 2020, even though indigenous people represented only 5% of the overall Canadian adult population, they represented about 30% of incarcerated inmates. That is the fact. It is shocking to me because Conservatives behave as if justice is blind and anyone who is in jail has committed a crime.

Once again, I recommend that those who think that way ought to think about their own privilege. We do not think about the fact that there are many individuals in this country who come from a place of privilege, who may have committed or been charged with crimes and who could afford the best legal defence team that money could offer. Maybe they are not faced with historical trauma or systemic racism as they go into the judicial system and may never find themselves facing the harshest penalties, because of that privilege.

Not all Canadians have that privilege. In our justice system, this is why we see an overrepresentation of people who have mental health issues, who are from racialized communities or indigenous populations. Anyone who suggests that there are not systemic barriers or systemic racism in our justice system probably does not have a very good grasp on the reality of how a lot of people live in this country. I fully recognize my own privilege in making these statements.

However, I believe, fundamentally, as the previous speaker said, that as a parliamentarian, our job is to move forward on legislation to help Canadians, even if it means lending my privilege to speak up for those who do not sit in this place, who do not have that opportunity to share their experience of how the justice system is not fair and equitable for all people across this country, and to share how mandatory minimums further create those barriers and the inability for some people to have that chance to be rehabilitated and get out of the cycle of crime and poverty.

I would also like to speak about the examples the Conservatives keep raising of heinous crimes I know Canadians would be quite upset about. They are suggesting that this bill would somehow mean that those crimes would go unpunished. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, crimes could still come with harsh penalties and consequences for individuals' actions. However, the point of this legislation is to fix past wrongs, as I just spoke about, and the systemic barriers and racism in the criminal justice system, while still allowing judges to hear from victims, to hear the facts of a case, to hear if offenders are repeat offenders, and to govern themselves accordingly to make the most appropriate determination in sentencing.

I know I am running out of time, and will just conclude with the following. This would allow for the ability to actually rehabilitate people, in particular younger adults or those who have lived a life of poverty, and would actually provide them with the opportunity to turn their life around, instead of what Conservatives would like, which is for us to turn our backs on them.

We owe it to Canadians across this country to start breaking down systemic barriers and the systemic racism in our criminal justice system while keeping Canadians safe, and actually doing so in ways that give us positive results.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, because this is my first speech in the 44th Parliament, I hope the House will indulge me to spend a minute to thank the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for again putting their trust in me and sending me to this place for a third time. It is a privilege to be here, and I carry that trust on my shoulders every day. I could not be here if it were not for an amazing campaign team, an army of volunteers and the support of my family. Being here, I really feel the weight of the responsibility of being the voice for approximately 100,000 people on beautiful Vancouver Island.

I am very pleased to be rising today to speak to Bill C-5, which tries to start the conversation on serious criminal justice reform. It is a conversation that we have been waiting for in Canada for quite some time, and it begs a question: Why are we here as members of Parliament?

I am not here to make a fancy video for an email fundraiser. I am not here to launch serious attacks against the government or for a great clip. When it comes to a subject as weighty as this, we each have a responsibility to treat the subject matter before us with the seriousness and responsibility it deserves.

In the 42nd Parliament, I was honoured to serve as my party's justice critic. When dealing with subject matters involving the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Criminal Code of Canada, and when we know that the decisions we make and the reforms we pass in this place have real-world consequences for people, it adds another layer of gravity to the debate and the deliberation.

When I look at Bill C-5, I see the intent of the government. It also had an intention in the previous Parliament, which was interrupted by an unnecessary election call, but it honoured that part of its mandate to bring forward criminal justice reform. As to whether it goes far enough, that is the question before us. I would argue no, it is indeed an important first step, but this bill makes me realize there is so much more that could have been done.

We talk about low-hanging fruit. This fruit is almost on the ground compared to what could have been achieved. The Liberals should find it in themselves to seize the moment and be bold, because I do not think they realize that a significant percentage of Canadians out there are asking us as parliamentarians to seize that moment, to make that once-in-a-lifetime change that would have a significant effect on people's lives.

I want to walk through sections of Bill C-5, and I am going to start with the part that deals with mandatory minimum reform. I have sat through a significant part of the debate on Bill C-5 on Monday, yesterday and today, and I have to disagree with the Conservatives' position. I am hearing terms like “hug a thug” or “criminal-first agenda”, and they not do justice to the seriousness of the subject matter before us.

If we here to follow evidence-based policy-making, the evidence all around us, in peer-reviewed journals and examples from countries all around the world, shows that mandatory minimums simply do not achieve their stated objective. They do not deter crime. They do not reduce rates. In fact, they have been such an abject failure in terms of expanding prison populations, many states around the world have started to roll them back, even in Texas. Texas has decided that system does not work.

We do not know what motivates people to commit crimes. The reasons are as varied as the individuals themselves. Do we think that someone who is about to commit a crime will stop for a single moment to think they had better not do it because they could possibly be put in jail for 14 years as punishment? No. The punishment is not a deterrent. The heat of the moment is often what motivates people to commit crime.

I think that the approach of mandatory minimums, its philosophical underpinning, is a lack of trust in judges to make the right decision. In our corner of the House, we believe that judges are the only ones who understand the facts of the case, the unique circumstances of the individuals and the factors surrounding the crime that was committed.

The Criminal Code, lest we forget, already has provisions which allow judges, through subsection 718.2, to take aggravating factors into account. Judges can look at the severity of the crime, whether it was perpetrated because of racially motivated hatred or whether it was against a person with a disability. They can take all of those factors into account and can increase or reduce the sentence as necessary.

We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach to criminal justice because no two cases are the same, and no two individuals who appear before a judge are the same. I have every faith that, if a hardened criminal who has not learned his or her ways and is again appearing before a judge for a similar crime, that the judge is going to be fully capable of looking at the individual's record and doling out the appropriate punishment.

I will leave it at that because the part I really want to focus my attention on is the part that would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Bill C-5 would add a declaration of principles, and a warning and referrals section. In my mind, these are good, important first steps, but they come nowhere near the importance of actually moving towards full decriminalization.

My home province of British Columbia is the epicentre of the opioid epidemic. Communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, particularly Duncan, are seeing the effects of this every day. It is an epidemic that, over the last six years, has left a wake of carnage. It has destroyed families, and loved ones are gone forever, for something that we had the power to prevent through good policy-making, but have so far failed to do so. That is what I was talking about when I referred, in my opening remarks, to missed opportunities and not seizing the moment to implement bold policy.

Warnings, referrals and a declaration of principles is in no way a replacement for the decriminalization that we need to go. I am very thankful that I am in a caucus with members such as the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who today introduced a bill to do just that, because, if the Liberals are not going to go that way, we are going to show Canadians the path we could have taken had they elected a New Democratic government.

The reason this is a problem is that last year, the public safety committee released a report on systemic racism in policing in Canada. The bill before us would give far too much discretion to police officers, and there are so many racialized Canadians, Black and indigenous people in Canada, who have a fundamental distrust of the police. They are still having problematic interactions with the police. However, the bill would give police officers the ability to make the decision as to whether to engage in a warning or a referral, or to press criminal charges. I do not believe that is right. The City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia, the City of Toronto and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police all support decriminalization, and they are calling for this bold move.

To conclude, I would like to see the government take the bold step of referring Bill C-5 to committee before we get to the second reading vote, which would allow the committee to study the bill and possibly expand it beyond its current mandate. If we have a second reading vote and then refer the bill to committee, the mandate of the committee will be severely limited. I am asking government members to allow this to happen so we can hear from the experts, expand the scope of the bill and truly get ahead with the bold criminal justice reform this country so desperately needs.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

My colleague is absolutely right. What we need to understand is that with Bill C-5 and with the removal of mandatory minimums, providing punishment and mandatory minimums is not enough to create the equitable justice we are looking for. We need to find and build that proper framework around society to provide supports for victims of, for example, gender-based violence as the member referenced, and to provide support for those who are suffering from addictions. That fulsome and wholesome approach is the way we will have a more equitable and more fair society, not by punishing people for simple non-violent crimes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

Earlier this week, I too had the opportunity to give a speech on Bill C-5. As I studied the bill, several things came to mind and jumped out at me.

Unfortunately, this feels a bit like a kitchen sink bill. The government is combining two very different subjects, when diversion and decriminalization are two very sensitive issues. It is also combining crimes involving the possession of firearms with simple drug possession offences. Having worked for an organization that tries to help people turn their lives around, I am very familiar with that subject.

My colleague even touched on the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for sexual assault in the context of the rising rates of femicide.

Is the member aware that Quebec is also in the midst of a crisis involving gun crime, that the mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec are asking—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to participate today in the continuing debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A great deal of time has already been spent describing the objectives of the bill, its proposed reforms and the expected impacts of it. I support these changes and really believe they will make a significant, positive contribution to our criminal justice system and contribute to efforts to address the disproportionate impacts that existing criminal laws have had on certain communities in Canada.

We know certain communities in Canada and in other countries are involved in the justice system at higher rates than others. In Canada, the over-incarceration of indigenous persons and Black Canadians is very well documented. Many of these reasons are systemic, including our laws on sentencing. It is clear the issue of over-incarceration must be addressed by revisiting our existing sentencing laws. That is exactly what Bill C-5 proposes to do.

Canada is not alone in recognizing the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, has proven to be a costly and ineffective approach to reducing crime. Indeed, many jurisdictions around the world are moving away from this approach to the criminal justice system. While MMPs can be a forceful expression of government policy in the area of criminal law, we know they do not deter crime and can result in unjust and inequitable outcomes, which contradicts the purpose of our justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear about these issues.

Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum. Evidence-based policy is informed by relevant research, including comparative studies from other countries. By examining a particular policy's successes and failures, we can develop reforms that build on what we know works and addresses what we know does not work.

For instance, while the United States, both at the federal and the state levels, has historically made great use of MMPs, in the last decade many states have moved toward reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on non-violent and drug-related charges. These trends reveal a shift motivated by, among other things, a need to address high levels of incarceration and the corresponding social and fiscal costs. This is being done by governments of all political stripes in the United States, and I encourage all parties in the House to recognize the true impacts of MMPs and work to continue to improve our justice system.

Some in the U.S. have termed the removal of MMPs as being a “smart on crime” movement. This approach recognizes the need to address high levels of incarceration of young Black and Hispanic Americans who are disproportionately negatively impacted by the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the U.S., particularly, as I have noted, for non-violent, drug-related offences.

Some have also pointed out that mandatory minimum sentencing actually encourages cycles of crime and violence by subjecting non-violent offenders, who could otherwise be productive members of society, to the revolving door of the prison system.

Recently, the President of the United States indicated his intention to repeal MMPs at the federal level and provide states with incentives to repeal their mandatory minimums as well.

Other countries have made similar changes. For example, in 2014, France repealed certain MMPs, predominantly citing evidence showing the reconviction rate had more than doubled between 2001 and 2011, increasing from 4.9% to 12.1%.

When we examine the trends in like-minded countries, we can see a clear policy shift toward limiting the use of mandatory minimum penalties to the most serious of cases and restoring judicial discretion at sentencing.

While international comparisons cannot be the only lens through which we develop sentencing policy in Canada, particularly given our unique cultural traditions and diversity, such comparisons provide a useful backdrop to which we assess the adequacy of our own sentencing laws.

Currently, the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provide MMPs for 73 offences, including for firearms offences, sexual offences, impaired driving, kidnapping, human trafficking, sex trade offences, murder, high treason and drug-related offences such as trafficking, import/export and production of certain drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Thirty offences have been amended in the last 15 years, almost entirely by the Harper government, to increase existing MMPs or to impose new ones.

Bill C-5 would reverse that trend and in so doing it would make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all. It would repeal MMPs for 20 offences, including MMPs for all drug-related offences as well as for some firearms ones.

These reforms should not be viewed as a signal from Parliament that drug and firearms offences are not serious or are not noteworthy of important denunciatory sentences in appropriate cases. They can be very serious, and I have full confidence in our courts to impose those appropriate penalties.

I realize that I am running out of time, but I have a lot more to add to this. It is a very interesting debate and I look forward to this discussion continuing.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize the passing of bell hooks today. She was a trail-blazing Black feminist author who brought the intersectionality of race, gender and class into the public consciousness, and really helped shape the conversations that we continue to have today. My condolences go out to her family and to countless people across the world, especially the Black women she touched through her writing. May she rest in power.

The conversation on Bill C-5 is one that I have been having a lot throughout my life, since my university days when I was studying criminology and throughout law school when I was studying the justice system. In the past six years, as a member and the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the question and purpose behind what our justice system is meant to do and what our prison system is meant to do really help guide the moral framework of communities and societies.

Access to fair justice is a vital pillar of our due process. While we have made progress over the past six years, the fact remains that our justice system is not yet properly equipped to provide access to everyone. We see that in Black and indigenous communities and among people who struggle today to find a job, make a living and build a better life for themselves. It is because of their interaction with the justice system.

There are Canadians suffering from addiction and dying from overdoses or withdrawal because the law states that drug possession means jail time. This is not fair justice. Studies show us that mandatory minimums for lesser offences like this do not solve anything and often do more harm than good. They force first-time offenders into a cycle that prevents them from building a better life for themselves.

When people talk about the supposed success of these programs, they are bringing individual lives down to a statistic of those who are being imprisoned. They are too busy trying to appear tough on crime to stop and ask whether these policies are actually accomplishing anything productive and accomplishing what our justice system is meant to accomplish. The supposed success of the mandatory minimums they point to is the over-incarceration of people in Black and indigenous communities. As far as I am concerned, that makes them a failure.

It is time for a better approach. That is why I am pleased to participate—

The House resumed from December 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands does like to pack a lot into the question.

Appointing a minister to say that the government is going to do something is not a result. We hear this time and again. There are so many examples of the government saying that it is spending x number of dollars on this or that they have appointed so-and-so to study this. Nothing happens in terms of changes on the issues. Again, a minister has been appointed, but there is no plan before us to tackle the very issues I addressed in my comments.

When we talk about discretion, there is a difference between the discretion for simple possession and supporting and having a universal process and agreement on it. Even further, on some challenges, there should be mandatory jail times for robbery with a firearm, prison breach, sexual assault, kidnapping, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000. When it comes to that, there is a difference between simple possession and all these things that are included in Bill C-5.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start with this. Someone who is battling an addiction does not need a jail cell: they need treatment. They should not be judged. They should be helped. I think there is universal acceptance of that statement. There is not a Canadian or a member in the House who does not know, by a degree of separation, somebody who has been impacted by battling addiction.

Here is the sad part of where we cannot agree. Violent criminals, drug dealers and traffickers should be held accountable with mandatory jail time for preying on vulnerable people. I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5 in the last Parliament, and in my opinion it is a terrible bill that protects drug dealers and people who are trying to profit from and prey on those battling addictions as opposed to protecting the victims of crimes.

Here is what Canadians are not being told by the government in this legislation. There is not mandatory jail time for simple drug possession. That does not exist. Sadly today, what also do not exist are anywhere near enough treatment beds to get people who are battling addiction the help they truly deserve.

The government called an unnecessary election a couple of months ago. It took 62 days for the House to come back, and one of the government's first bills here does not give more beds or a program to create more beds across this country to help those battling addiction. Rather, on page 10 in the Speech from the Throne, there is a simple line that says, “there is more work to be done on mental health and addiction treatment”. That is it. There is no plan or strategy, but rather eliminating mandatory jail time for very serious crimes.

The Minister of Justice said earlier in question period, and I heard my colleague from the NDP say a little while ago, that there are still serious consequences for serious crimes. I think they have a very warped definition of what a serious crime is in this country.

Let me specifically say that Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory jail time provisions relating to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, and using a firearm in commission of offences. There is also the expansion of conditional sentencing, where the bill would allow greater use of conditional sentencing orders such as house arrest.

Some of the new eligible offences in the bill would include arson for fraudulent purposes. Somebody who commits arson by burning somebody's home or property down may be eligible for house arrest in their own home. The height of irony of that knows no bounds.

The bill does not help people in this country who are battling addiction to opioids or other drugs, whatever they may be. What we know is that police officers already have the ability to use their discretion when determining whether to lay charges. One of the most profound and impactful opportunities I have had in my two-and-a-bit years as a member of Parliament has been to do ride-alongs with the Ontario Provincial Police and the Cornwall Police Service in my community of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I saw first-hand, late on a Friday night and early into the morning, the amazing work that our frontline police officers do. I also saw, thankfully and confidentially, their ability to use that discretion on the front line. I saw that discretion was being used. What was not there was the availability and ease of getting treatment for somebody who clearly had an addiction issue, so they could get past their problem. Over and over again, we talk to law enforcement about tackling this issue and getting better service for treatment. Getting people the help that they deserve needs to be top priority, not letting off drug traffickers for gun crimes or violent criminals with the opportunity for more lenient sentences after they have been convicted.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has previously issued a directive to prosecutors to avoid prosecuting simple drug possession cases unless there are major public safety concerns.

That is clear. This bill would do nothing to change all of that rightful practice that is in place. Instead it would give breaks and the opportunity to provide breaks to people who are trying to destroy the lives of people battling addictions and profiting off it.

In my riding, there have been several news stories of how the opioid and addiction battles, not just in eastern Ontario but across this country, have unfortunately only gotten worse during the pandemic. I look at a news release that came from the Cornwall police service and the Eastern Ontario Health Unit, warning about increases in drug-related overdoses in Cornwall and area from April of this year.

Inspector of field operations for the Cornwall police services, Chad Maxwell, says, “Opioids are endangering the lives of vulnerable members of our community and we are dependent on everyone to take this messaging seriously.”

I look at the headline in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, “A hidden pandemic in the Cornwall region—opioid overdoses and deaths”; or the headline in the Morrisburg Leader, “Opioid overdose numbers rise during pandemic in EOHU region.” The Seaway News shared the same news back on April 9.

As we wrap up Parliament in the next few days for the year, having been back for a few weeks, when I go back home, I have the opportunity to liaise, as I mentioned, with the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, the Cornwall police service and the Akwesasne Mohawk Police. I also have the tough job of having to hear the stories of parents who have lost a child or sibling to addiction. I go back to them this week to tell them that there is no more money for residential treatment beds for people battling addictions, that there is no plan to address it or to fill that massive gap we all heard about in the recent election and that we know exists. However, I will have to tell them that there is a bill on the table that would lower the bar for convicted violent criminals.

Whether it be in Morrisburg, or Cornwall or Crysler, addiction impacts every community in the country. I would encourage members from the Liberal and NDP side, who are strongly promoting this bill, to ask their constituents if they want an increased number of residential treatment beds as a priority for this Parliament or if they want the list that I exhausted earlier of all the mandatory jail times where leniency can be given upon conviction for these serious crimes.

I will wrap up today by quoting something that was in our Conservative platform earlier this year, “Canada’s Conservatives will treat the opioid epidemic as the urgent health issue that it is.” The last thing those suffering from addiction should have to worry about is being arrested. Any interaction the government has with them should be focused on keeping them safe and helping them recover. We believe that law enforcement should focus on dealers and traffickers.

We need more residential treatments. We need a better plan at the federal level and in every part of our country to get people the help they need and deserve. Bill C-5 would not go after dealers and traffickers appropriately. It would lower the bar and open the door. That is wrong. Our opposition will stand every step of the way against this terrible, misguided bill.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that it is fairly simple. We support abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, there are shootings practically every week in Quebec and Canada.

We have asked the ministers and the government to take a first step to show that they are serious about this issue and that they can tighten gun control. However, the government's first step was to introduce Bill C-5, which will eliminate certain mandatory minimums for firearms offences. That sends a peculiar message.

I understand that there is never a right time to introduce any legislation, but we have to move forward with this type of bill. The proposal to split the bill would make it possible to take the time to better study each element.

We should remember that the situation in Montreal is difficult right now. We are asking the government to take action to control gun trafficking, but Bill C‑5 does not seem to be the appropriate response.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not go so far as to say it is a panacea. We cannot lump everything together because every case is different, as evidenced by the fact that Bill C‑5 covers 20 specific mandatory minimum sentences. I have expressed reservations about some of them, especially gun crimes, so I think we need to keep things in perspective.

Judges have all the skills to determine which response to a given offence will keep people safe. Two different people commit the same offence, but the response to each can be very different.

We cannot lump everything together and say that all mandatory minimum sentences should be abolished tomorrow morning. I think it has been shown that they can be beneficial in some cases.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

First, I would like to say that on the issue of gun violence, nothing in Bill C‑5 removes penalties for those involved in serious gun crimes.

My question is simple. With respect to the discretion that judges have to assess the specific circumstances of a case, does my colleague agree with me that judges are in a better position to have that discussion than members of the House?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate Bill C-5. I have to say that this is not a straightforward subject; it is extremely complex.

As I am not a lawyer, I, too, have to make sense of it all. I want to thank the office staff of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who have really helped clarify this issue. Bill C-5 addresses two extremely important issues. I believe it would be worthwhile to have two separate debates, and I will move a motion about that a little later.

Debating both issues at the same time is complicated because we might be against abolishing mandatory minimum sentences and in favour of decriminalization. This complicates the debate a little. In the case of mandatory minimums for offences committed with a firearm, we are looking at 20 specific mandatory minimums. In the case of simple drug possession, we are looking at decriminalization. I think we need to look at these two issues separately.

As I said, I am not a lawyer. However, I have heard lawyers on the same team debate this subject and it is hard to have a simple opinion. It is hard to choose black or white, because there are several grey areas in all of this. We will try to untangle it all together and weigh the various arguments.

There are several arguments in favour of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, and there are several against it. In my opinion, it is important that we consider all the arguments.

The Liberal government promised to quickly reintroduce Bill C‑22 from the last Parliament. It also promised to reintroduce what we referred to as Bill C‑236. By merging these two items into one bill, the government is giving the impression that it wants to act hastily. However, when we try to move too fast, we often make mistakes or do things wrong. I think the impression we give people is important.

In the current context, Bill C-5 sends out a peculiar message. Let me explain: Canada is in the midst of a gun violence crisis. My colleagues have likely heard me talk about firearms and the situation in Montreal and other major urban centres during the various question periods. Almost every day, we hear about a new firearm death.

The circumstances and timing are therefore not really appropriate. We have been calling on the minister for three weeks to take the first real step to combat the trafficking of illegal firearms, and to tighten gun control and border measures. Ultimately, the first step the government took was to introduce this bill, which proposes eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearms offences.

The message that sends is a bit odd. It does not really reassure anyone. Montreal families are worried, especially mothers who have lost a son and are waiting for gun control measures to be tightened. People are afraid to go out in the evening and take a walk in their own neighbourhood, which used to be safe. I doubt that these people feel reassured when they are told that the only thing the Liberal government has done so far to combat gun trafficking is to abolish the mandatory minimum sentences related to such offences.

The context is different and we, as parliamentarians, have to consider that. Everything is changing. The context is changing. When Bill C‑22 was introduced, the context was different, even though this was a problem across the country. I think that we have no choice but to take that into consideration.

I am talking specifically about firearms because I am very familiar with this file. It should be noted that some mandatory minimum sentences that are set to be eliminated have to do with drug possession while the opioid crisis is raging both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. It is rather odd to be introducing this bill at this stage.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois is usually in favour of the principle of rehabilitation and crime reduction in a different context.

There is a tendency to have a fairly high degree of trust in judges, and I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and the flexibility needed to decide what sentence to impose for an offence.

It is important to keep in mind that if certain mandatory minimum sentences were to be abolished overnight, that does not mean that someone who has committed offences will not be charged. It means that we are leaving it up to the judge to decide the best way to ensure public safety.

If a mandatory minimum sentence exists, the judge can impose a harsher sentence if they feel that that is the right thing to do. However, the judge cannot go below the mandatory minimum. That is my concern. If individuals can be punished for their offences, but rehabilitated in ways other than being sent to prison, I think that can be beneficial. People often become more criminalized as a result of entering this cycle. Other options need to be considered. That is a pretty strong argument, I think, for abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

Another argument is that it has long been accepted that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter certain kinds of targeted crimes. For example, it is a well-known fact that mandatory minimum sentences have virtually no effect on drug trafficking. Research in the United States and Malaysia has proven this. Both countries have strict minimum sentences for drug trafficking. However, this has not led to any change in drug use within the population. Rather, this only puts more small dealers in prison. Unfortunately, the focus is on the bottom of the ladder, when these individuals are often not irrevocably on that path. We could remedy all that and not necessarily send them directly to prison.

As for the effects of mandatory minimum sentences on firearms, no credible study has established that sentences have a deterrent effect on firearms offences. I think that someone who is planning to commit a crime or who commits a crime that is not premeditated does not say to themselves that they will not do it because there is a mandatory minimum sentence for that offence. Those who commit gun crime are either not aware of the consequences or they do not care about them and will commit the crime anyway.

I believe that even though the context is problematic, we agree that abolishing mandatory minimum sentences can be a good thing. However, it is not just about the context. Some details warrant further study.

In this case, Bill C-5 abolishes several mandatory minimum sentences for second and third offences. As I was saying, mandatory minimum sentences for a first offence may impact social reintegration, but keeping certain mandatory minimum sentences for second or even third offences could be justified to uphold the credibility of our legal system.

For example, the use of a firearm or imitation firearm to commit an offence is currently punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of three years, which also applies to a second or subsequent offence. Under Bill C‑5, this would be scrapped.

However, an individual who uses a firearm or imitation firearm for a second or third offence deserves to be held accountable for that, in my view. It is worth considering.

My time is running out, so I will not have time to go into the second item that this bill addresses, diversion. What I would suggest to the government is that it simply split the bill. The government should withdraw Bill C‑5 and introduce two new separate bills. I think that would be a good solution.

The first bill would deal with diversion, which is represented by the part entitled “Evidence-based Diversion Measures” in the current Bill C‑5. The House could vote on the principle of the bill at second reading.

The second bill would deal with mandatory minimum sentences and would be sent to committee before second reading. That would give members a chance to examine the principle of the bill prior to second reading and propose amendments that would change its scope. Immediate referral to committee before second reading would allow for a full study on the subject.

That is the Bloc Québécois' proposal to the government. I hope it will be well received.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I will also just recognize the impact that the opioid crisis is having. We are seeing a record number of people dying. I presented a motion in the last Parliament regarding steps we could take, including recovery programs, investments and so on.

Some of the debate here seems to be a little off as far as debating Bill C-5. I am thinking about mandatory minimums. I think of a girl called Heather Thomas, who died. She was suffocated and killed when she was 10 years old, and her body was thrown into a lake not far from where I live. The criminal was also stalking someone I love.

I wonder about mandatory minimums for people who do these sex crimes against young people. Can the member comment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member opposite about the conditional sentencing orders that are being introduced here in Bill C-5, to see how that will impact his community and ensure that there is more fairness in the criminal justice system.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge privilege and honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-5.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the people of Courtenay—Alberni for re-electing me for the third time. I am deeply honoured. I also want to extend my thanks not just to my supporters but to my family as well, especially my three children, who have been there supporting me on this incredible journey to fight for our country and for their future.

When it comes to Bill C-5, we are hearing a lot from the Liberals that this is a silver-bullet approach to addressing racial injustice and the overdose crisis by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences and a few other firearms and tobacco offences. This is naive, and it is misplaced.

As New Democrats, we support removing mandatory minimum penalties for all but the most serious offences. This means that we support the removal of mandatory minimums for all drug offences, expanding access to alternative incentives for personal possession and diversion programs. Decriminalization of personal possession remains the preferred option for minor offences, as it would remove police, prosecutors and courts as barriers to addiction treatment.

When it comes to the crisis we are dealing with, we need to ensure that we are taking action quickly. The idea of making conditional sentencing more widely available for court sentences for minor drug cases is just not enough to address the runaway public health emergency, this opioid crisis, that is taking place, which is in parallel to the COVID crisis.

A simpler and less costly approach is the full decriminalization of possession of drugs for personal use and the expungement of previous criminal records for personal possession, combined with access for drug users to get a regular safe supply, treatment and supportive housing. We are talking about a comprehensive strategy to address the overdose emergency and save lives. This needs to happen urgently.

We could be debating a more comprehensive strategy, but instead the government has put very little effort in the bill before us, choosing instead to reintroduce almost exactly the same bill from the 43rd Parliament, which could have been passed. Instead, they held an unnecessary and costly election. The Liberals have failed.

Canadians who use drugs must be free from the threat of criminalization and the fear of losing their liberty and access to substances on which they depend. Criminal records for personal possession must be expunged to remove an often insurmountable barrier to employment and housing. We must assure the right of users to a safe supply of low-barrier, regulated drugs as an alternative to the poisoned substances, which are resulting in an epidemic of overdose deaths. Access to treatment therapies that address the root causes of drug use must be available as a component of public health in our system, and supportive housing, complete with the wraparound services essential for maintaining healthy lifestyle balance, must be made available.

New Democrats are not alone in calling for a comprehensive approach to addressing the overdose crisis and the implementation of these measures. We are in good company.

First and foremost, Canadians across the country support the overall decriminalization of possession for personal use. With every passing month, the calls for decriminalization become louder, as Canadians are confronted with the evidence of the overdose public health emergency in their communities.

Every one of us in the House dreads the call from a constituent who has lost a son, daughter, parent or friend to an overdose from a poisoned drug supply. I have received this call far too often over my six years in the House, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the majority of my constituents know a family affected by the tragedy of overdose.

I hear from them about drug users hiding in the shadows in fear of apprehension and criminal prosecution. In fact, my daughter was just at the funeral a week and a half ago of her friend, an 18-year-old young woman who died from a poisoned drug supply. Sadly, this situation is not uncommon to hear about in the House.

In addition to hearing from everyday Canadians, we have heard from public health experts from across the country. Dr. Bonnie Henry, the B.C. provincial health officer in my province, continues to call for decriminalization. Most recently, Dr. de Villa, the medical officer of health for the City of Toronto, as well as the former medical officer of health for Yukon, who now sits in the House, and their colleagues from one municipality and provincial jurisdiction to another, from coast to coast to coast, are pleading for simple possession to be decriminalized.

It is not a matter for the criminal justice system. It is a health issue. We keep hearing the government say it is a health issue, but it is still treating it as a criminal issue. In this bill, the government is continuing to do that.

These are the same public health experts that I just mentioned, who guided our response in the COVID-19 pandemic. We listened to them and heeded their professional advice often, and now we are ignoring them when it comes to the opioid crisis. They are saying the same thing, that we need evidence-based science to lead us out of this terrible crisis, and they are being ignored by the government. They are calling for decriminalization of possession of illicit drugs. This bill could have done that.

Standing with the public health community are Canada's police chiefs, who also called for decriminalization. They know first-hand the failure of the criminalization of drug use. They know first-hand the deadly consequences of exposure to an increasingly toxic supply of street drugs across this country. Increasingly, we are hearing the same message from local and national media across the country. It is like Groundhog Day. Every day we read another editorial by journalists who are hearing from their readers and seeing the evidence of a public health emergency that requires the decriminalization of personal possession, the expungement of criminal records, access to a safe supply of low-barrier regulated drugs, therapeutic support through treatment programs, and supportive housing for those in need.

We are in good company in calling for these measures. Public health experts, law enforcement officials, the media and everyday Canadians across the country, persuaded by overwhelming evidence, have determined that exposure to death by overdose must stop now.

The evidence that is underpinning this call for a comprehensive approach is an 87% increase in opioid overdose deaths in Manitoba last year over the previous year. In British Columbia, as we just heard, there were over 200 deaths in one month. That is the most on record. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it worse, forcing the closure of harm reduction locations and driving users further underground. Currently it is estimated that eight people are dying every day in Ontario, over six in B.C., and 20 across our country. In fact, the overdoses have increased in all regions of this country. We are seeing how it is disproportionately impacting Black, indigenous and racialized Canadians.

In October, B.C. chief coroner Lisa Lapointe noted that illicit drug toxicity killed 201 people, the same number as an entire year of deaths 10 years ago. She is calling for a regulated safer supply and decriminalized possession of small amounts for personal use. Just last week, she said that a comprehensive plan to ensure access to safe supply is essential. Shifting from a punishment and stigmatizing regime to a decriminalized, health-focused model is a critical step in reducing suffering and saving lives.

Again, we keep hearing from the Liberals that they are treating this as a health issue. We have heard the overwhelming advice from police chiefs and health officials that we need to take the first steps, which are decriminalization of personal possession and providing a safe supply.

Why has the Liberal government chosen not to listen to its own health professionals? To end the stigma, the government needs to act, but the stigma starts with the Prime Minister. He has not taken action. He is ignoring his own health experts. He is ignoring parents. He is ignoring the moms and the dads, the parents who have lost loved ones.

I am going to go straight to Gary Mason, who wrote this in The Globe and Mail:

I feel a sense of hopelessness. Giving out free drugs such as heroin to “addicts” just seems to be too big a leap for governments and society generally. Allowing people to die from their addictions is easier to accept. Which is just crazy when you think about it. Imagine seeing more than 8,500 people die from a drug overdose in just over five years as easier to accept than making a courageous effort to do something that could really make a difference.

At this point, what is there to lose?

I guess the answer is votes.

It is true that politicians are in the way of saving lives right now, and people are dying as a result of the inaction.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. In my respectful opinion, everything in Bill C-5 concerned with removing those offences, which are currently delineated under section 742, the conditional sentence regime, all relate to serious violent offences.

To the member's point, kidnapping, sexual assault, criminal harassment and abduction are all serious personal injury offences. In my speech, I was trying to indicate that there are absolutely zero references to amending section 742 to highlight that those offences the bill is delineating can still be substantiated by way of a conditional sentence.

A condition precedent to section 742 is that justice must be satisfied that an offender serving that sentence in the community does not pose a risk. Those offenders convicted of a sexual assault, criminal harassment or kidnapping most definitely pose a community risk. Moreover, section 752 of the Criminal Code talks about excluding any offences where there is a serious personal injury offence. Kidnapping certainly qualifies for this, as do sexual assault, criminal harassment and abduction.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-5, a seriously flawed and dangerous piece of proposed legislation. My commentary and opinion on this are shaped by my experience as a lawyer for almost 30 years, the last 18 years as a Crown attorney for the Province of Ontario.

A week ago today, members in the House stood in solidarity to honour and remember the victims of the Montreal massacre. Fourteen women were murdered, and 10 women and four men were injured. That day was an opportunity for the House, and especially the Prime Minister and his government, to stand strong against all forms of gun violence and to inform Canadians in very clear terms that they would take immediate steps to curb the ever-increasing tide of this criminal behaviour. What is most disturbing is that, less than 24 hours removed from this commemoration, the justice minister introduced Bill C-5, which was a tone-deaf and ill-timed response from this government.

The Prime Minister in the last election promised peace, order and good government. He said that Canada needs leadership that would not back down in the face of rising extremism and that he would take action to put an end to gun violence in our communities. Bill C-5 is the complete opposite of this pledge and proves to be another example of virtue signalling to all Canadians.

Bill C-5 is identical to Bill C-22, which was first introduced in the last Parliament. That bill never made it past the second reading before the unnecessary federal election was called. The bill would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for 14 of the 67 offences in the code, 13 for firearm offences and one for a tobacco offence. Notwithstanding what we have heard over the last week by the justice minister and his government, this dangerous bill is not targeted at less serious gun crime.

As an example, let us take a look at section 244(1) of the code, which reads:

Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person

I would ask any member of the House to somehow convince me that that would constitute a less serious gun offence.

The bill would also eliminate all six mandatory minimums for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These include the very serious offences of trafficking, importing and exporting, and the production of controlled substances. I invite members to think about that for a moment. This soft-on-crime, ideologically driven Liberal government believes that those who traffic and produce fentanyl, the most deadly and lethal form of street drug, which is being sold to millions of addicts, is causing an opioid crisis, and results in daily overdoses and deaths, should not expect to receive a minimum period of incarceration. It is utterly shameful and dangerous.

As a rookie member and political aficionado in Ottawa, I have repeatedly heard a false narrative from the Prime Minister and his government that Prime Minister Harper is to blame for everything that has gone wrong in this country. Perhaps it is about time for this government to engage in some self-reflection.

Contrary to the justice minister's talking points about the government “turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy”, the fact remains that it is keeping the other 53 mandatory minimums in the code intact and keeping most of the ones introduced by the Conservative Party. The justice minister needs to be reminded that it was former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1977 and prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1995 who introduced several mandatory minimums for firearm offences.

These penalties have been rooted in our criminal justice system since the early 1890s. Legislators, over the decades that followed, have relied upon mandatory sentencing tools to mitigate inconsistencies in the exercise of judicial discretion. A key feature of our system of government is that Parliament constantly reviews all legislation and passes new legislation to ensure its laws, including sentencing laws, properly align with the demands of justice. Those demands of justice speak very clearly that there is a tremendous increase in gun violence across this country.

Conservatives believe that serious violent offences committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison time. If government members will not take our word on this subject, then perhaps they will listen and reflect on what eloquent jurists have said about gun violence in our communities.

Firearm use and possession is not a momentary lapse in judgment. Heavy regulation of firearms and ammunition means that those who possess them had to make a concerted effort to do so. A person does not stumble upon an illegal handgun. There is a process of purchasing from a trafficker and secreting the handgun to avoid detection and prosecution. There is a high degree of deliberation and contemplation. Loaded firearms, especially in public, add a dimension of heightened risk.

Hear the words of Justice D. E. Harris:

A person with a gun in their hands has a god-like power over life and death. Virtually all that is necessary is to point at another person and to apply a few pounds of pressure on the trigger in order to end a human life.... The ease of killing with a gun...is an exigent danger to us all.

He said, “Such immense power with so little reason must be opposed with everything at our disposal.”

Listen to these chilling words from Justice Molloy in the decision of Ferrigon:

A person who loads a handgun with bullets and then carries that handgun, concealed on his person, into a public place is by definition a dangerous person. Handguns are used to shoot people. A person who carries a loaded handgun in public has demonstrated his willingness to shoot another human being with it. Otherwise there would be no need to have loaded it. That person is dangerous. He is dangerous to those with whom he associates; he is dangerous to the police and other law enforcement personnel; he is dangerous to the members of his community; he is dangerous to innocent bystanders, including children, who may be killed or maimed by stray bullets.

According to Public Safety Canada, violent crime involving firearms is a growing threat to public safety in our communities. Gun violence is on the rise: an 81% increase in violent offences involving guns since 2009; one in three homicides in Canada are firearm related; and 47% of Canadians feel gun violence is a threat to their community. Gun violence impacts people and communities across Canada. It happens in urban, suburban and rural communities across every province and territory, in all age and socio-economic groups and, last, among those who own guns and those who do not.

This is a moment in time to strengthen our gun laws to emphasize the principles of denunciation and deterrence. This is not the time to advance a soft-on-crime bill that puts communities and victims at risk.

Mandatory minimum sentences are an important tool for ensuring, not inhibiting, justice in sentencing. Rather than eliminating a judge's ability to assess a proportionate sentence, mandatory minimums set a stable sentencing range for an offence, permitting citizens to understand in advance the severity of the consequences that attend the commission of that offence.

The justice minister stressed that Bill C-5 was not aimed at hardened criminals but at first-time low-risk offenders. He was quoted on December 8, stating:

Think about your own kids. Perhaps they got into trouble at some point with the law. I bet you would want to give them the benefit of the doubt or a second chance if they messed up. Well, it is a lot harder to get a second chance the way things are now...

That is such a disturbing message from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I cannot think of any other example of being tone deaf to the obvious. We are indeed focusing on serious violent offenders and not misguided, mischievous youthful first offenders.

The Liberal government claims the bill is to address racism in Canada's criminal justice system. As noted by the Alberta minister for justice, Kaycee Madu:

While Ottawa’s new justice bill...contains some reasonable measures, I am deeply concerned about the decision to gut tough sentencing provisions for gun crimes....Removing tough, mandatory penalties for actual gun crimes undermines the very minority communities that are so often victimized by brazen gun violence. I also find it disingenuous for Ottawa to exploit a genuine issue like systemic racism to push through their soft-on-crime bills.

As a former Crown attorney, I am very much aware and wholeheartedly accept that there is a disproportionally higher rate of incarcerated indigenous and Black Canadians. We as parliamentarians have the tools necessary to put into place measures to address this problem. We already have principles that mandate jurists to consider the background of indigenous offenders.

The Liberal government last year committed $6.6 million to produce better informed sentencing decisions based on an understanding of the adversities and systemic inequalities that Black Canadians and members of other racialized groups faced.

Furthermore, Parliament has an opportunity to put into place a safety valve known as a constitutional exemption that would allow judges to exempt outliers for whom the mandatory minimum would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

This flawed and dangerous bill would also substantially alter the conditional sentence regime, which would now allow such a sentence to be imposed for sex assaults, criminal harassment, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson and abduction.

What I found most ironic is that yesterday we heard from the justice minister that this legislation would reduce a significant amount of charter challenges and speed up the disposition of criminal cases. What he failed to address was how the changes to the conditional sentence regime would result in a plethora of increased litigation as the proposed amendments were lawfully unavailable.

A condition precedent to the availability of the conditional sentence is that a justice must be satisfied that serving a sentence at home would not endanger the safety of the community. Offenders convicted of sexual assault, criminal harassment, kidnapping and abduction are indeed dangerous.

Furthermore, section 752 defines the above offences as a serious personal injury offence, which the provincial appellate courts have consistently excluded from conditional sentence consideration.

The number one priority for the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. The Liberal government has been derelict in its responsibility. This soft-on-crime, ideologically driven bill needs to be defeated.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have struggled today to listen to the debate in the House and hear many members talk with the assumption that this is a level playing field and that people come to be involved in crime from a place of equality. I appreciated that the member took some time today to talk about that not being accurate. There is uniqueness to each story and each individual, and that needs to be accounted for.

I also appreciated that he said today that Bill C-5 is part of the solution. The problem is that it is only a part of it. We know that individuals who are suffering from the opioid crisis need access to a safe supply and that decriminalization is the best way to move forward. This is keeping people in the criminal system.

Would the member not agree that decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use is a better strategy?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-5.

This bill was introduced during the previous Parliament. It is very important for all Canadians, but especially for Black Canadians and indigenous people. It is also important for the safety of Canadians in general, because Bill C-5 seeks to address two problems with our system.

First, it is important to do away with minimum mandatory penalties in the penitentiary system. Second, the bill provides for more flexibility, more latitude, which is a good thing when it comes to conditional sentencing.

I therefore hope that all members will not only support the bill, but also add measures that are in keeping with the spirit of the bill, so that we can do even more. In my opinion, it is extremely important that my colleagues support this bill.

I want to begin by talking about mandatory minimum penalties.

It makes no sense to keep incarcerating people and eliminating the flexibility that every judge and court needs.

Judges have a responsibility to judge a situation and enhance Canadians' safety. They also propose a sentence that reflects the severity of the crime that was committed.

Removing flexibility and having parliamentarians set an arbitrary duration makes no sense. This does not help keep Canadians safe and, in many cases, it also punishes people because they receive the wrong sentence.

Members of the House of Commons enjoy two remarkable benefits. The first is that we have the right to visit any Canadian Armed Forces unit; the second is that we have the right to visit prisons or penitentiaries.

In 2015, after my election, I did that very thing. I would not say it was a pleasure, but I can say that it completely changed the way I look at Canada's penitentiary system. I had the chance to visit institutions where the incarcerated were serving maximum, minimum or medium sentences.

It was remarkable and it really opened my eyes. I saw the conditions people were living in. I must say, in all sincerity, that I do not think those conditions are conducive to rehabilitating incarcerated people. I soon came to the conclusion that we have to leave prisons for people who truly pose a risk to Canadians.

People may have mental health or addiction issues for any number of reasons: not having been able to keep a job, learning survival of the fittest on the streets of Canadian cities. These people do not need to be incarcerated. They need access to other options, such as addiction treatment. These are people who may never have felt a sense of belonging.

As a father of three and grandfather of two, I know just how crucial that sense of security and belonging is to young people. Some never have that with their family, so they find it with a gang because there are no other options.

I feel it is our duty as parliamentarians to find and fund ways to make sure that these people have other options before throwing them in jail. As I said, prison is the worst possible place to put people if we are hoping to mould them into model citizens. That is not how it works. I would encourage my colleagues to visit a prison during their time in politics. They should see how it works with their own eyes.

I am hearing some people say that because handgun use is skyrocketing in my hometown of Montreal and other Canadian cities, this is not the right time to introduce a bill like this. They are saying that they do not want to lighten the penalties in place, that it is not the right time. I have to ask, though, when will it be the right time?

Let us look at the situation logically. In the current environment, where these minimum sentences exist, we are seeing an increase in the use of handguns. Nothing has changed. For a generation, we have been tightening up and toughening up penalties, but the result has been the skyrocketing use of handguns. Let us then try something different. We cannot keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. That does not make sense.

I think we need to start looking for a new model, a new way to respond to the current situation. We have to trust that judges will use their judgment. We need to invest money to give these young people options other than street gangs. Bill C‑5 is a step in the right direction.

I hope we will be bold enough to do things differently and provide a solution that can finally keep Canadians safe.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it truly is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill today. It is unfortunate that we are already seeing the government's soft-on-crime approach come up at the first available opportunity.

Bill C-5 is the unfortunate perfect example of this approach. This bill would do nothing to make our communities safer for Canadians. Instead, it would reduce punishments and accountability for drug dealers and for those who commit violent gun crimes. This bill would see the individuals responsible for harming our communities serve their time in our communities alongside victims, rather than in prisons where they truly belong.

Bill C-5 would be responsible for eliminating a large number of mandatory minimum sentences for some of our most serious crimes, like robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent and extortion using a firearm. These are just a few of the crimes that would no longer be served with mandatory minimum sentences. If this bill is passed, it clearly would not achieve the result of making Canadian communities safer.

The crimes this bill would affect are incredibly serious offences. Canadians would be alarmed to learn that the mandatory minimum jail time for the possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking would all be reduced by this bill.

The government must assume Canadians lack common sense if it thinks this bill would stop gun crimes by reducing the mandatory minimum prison sentences for criminals. The Liberals propose that this bill would help those struggling with addiction to find the treatment they so desperately need. Canadians who are struggling with addiction should be able to access treatment. Instead, this bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for the criminals who traffic and import or export these deadly substances under schedule I or II.

To be clear, the Liberals are proposing to let drug traffickers and manufacturers off the hook, while at the same time claiming this would help people suffering from addiction. This pandemic has shown us just how serious the opioid crisis is in parts of our country. Now is the time we should be cracking down on those who are poisoning our communities. The Liberal solution is to take away the mandatory prison sentences those fuelling this crisis should face.

We have heard a representative of the government state that it would be getting rid of the minimum penalties put in place by those nasty Conservatives. Many of those laws were put in place during the mid-90s, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was prime minister, by the Liberal government of the day. The Liberals blaming Conservatives for the laws of a previous Liberal government is a little steep.

The Liberals try to convince Canadians they are helping addicts and communities, but what they are actually attempting to do is reduce the sentences and eliminate accountability for those who traffic and manufacture the drugs that fuel crime, addiction and death in this crisis that we are seeing in communities across our country. Instead of punishing gangs, they are attempting to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners.

We have a very thorough system in place in our country for law-abiding firearms owners. The firearms community, hunters and sport shooters are all in agreement that we need a robust system. Background checks are already in place. They are proven to be very effective. It should be no surprise that we do not understand how this bill would tackle firearms offences by eliminating mandatory prison sentences for the gangs and criminals who do not follow the already robust system.

It should not be a surprise that during the last Parliament, the government had its members vote against a Conservative private member's bill that would have seen punishment for those who traffic weapons strengthened. Now we see the government proposing to weaken the punishments. The disconnect could not be more obvious.

I have seen what these types of offences can do in my own community of Oxford. Canadians are seriously concerned about the rise of violent and drug-related crimes in their communities. It is extremely concerning to see the government taking a soft-on-crime stance and not one that stands up for victims and their communities.

As a former police chief in my community, I have witnessed the struggle that officers have had to continue to go through in keeping our communities safe. Instead of providing officers with the expansion of resources, the Liberal government would like to see fewer protections for our victims and softer punishments for criminals. We are talking about criminals. These are people who have been convicted in our courts, convicted of crimes such as robbery with a firearm, trafficking firearms, and the production of schedule I or II substances, such as heroin, cocaine or fentanyl. These are the people the government would like to see let out of their sentences earlier.

Further, the government would like to see the expansion of the use of conditional sentences. Kidnapping, sexual assault, human trafficking or the abduction of a minor are all crimes the government would like to see criminals serve on house arrest in the communities where these crimes were committed.

We keep hearing the government say that it wants to help those struggling with drug addiction. We know the justice system and police in our country already have the ability to utilize discretion in dealing with folks who are struggling with addiction, such as for a simple possession. The government needs to get serious about the expansion of support for people who are struggling with addiction and their mental health.

Canadians have elected all of us to the House to take action. Where is the action on the call that was passed in the House for the institution of a national three-digit suicide prevention hotline? This would be an example of concrete action. It is unfortunate that it seems the only reason the government is dragging its feet on this action is because it was one of my Conservative colleagues who proposed it.

We heard the Prime Minister state that one of his reasons for calling a $600 million election in the middle of a pandemic was because of a lack of co-operation with the opposition parties in the House. Where is that co-operation from the Prime Minister's government? It took two full months, after what the Prime Minister called our most important election in Canadian history, to get the House back to sitting. Now that we have reconvened, the government takes one of its first opportunities to introduce a bill that is seriously concerning to Canadians. Drug and gun traffickers and manufacturers belong in prisons, not in our communities.

This bill is what sport fishermen would call a “catch and release”. It really is not going to help our communities.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this being my first time rising to give a speech of this length, I wanted to pause to give some thanks. First of all, I thank my neighbours across Kitchener Centre for placing their trust in me to be our community's voice in this place, as well as the hundreds of people who joined to knock on doors and make phone calls. In particular, there was a core group: Jackie, Devon, Ros, Joanna, Janet, Zoe, Scott, Wayne, Noah, Greg, Brenden and Jenna. As well, I give a special thanks to Mats for all the work over the last three years leading up this point, and of course to Asha, who managed both campaigns. I would not be here without them.

I give a final thanks to my mom, my dad, my brothers Brad and Rob, and my sister Emily. They have been there alongside me every step of the way, including knocking on doors and making calls, all of which has led me to having the privilege to speak in moments like these, in this place, on our community's priorities.

This brings me to Bill C-5. I would like to start with what I appreciate about this proposed legislation, which is the stated goal of addressing systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system. By targeting mandatory minimum penalties, I appreciate that the government is seeking to address the fact that in 2020, despite representing 5% of the Canadian adult population, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates; that the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted with an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty has almost doubled between 2007-08 and 2016-17, from 14% to 26%; and, finally, that in 2018-19, Black inmates represented 7% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the Canadian population.

By removing the mandatory minimum penalties included in this bill, I appreciate the government’s intent to address these injustices. That being said, we need to be honest with ourselves. Mandatory minimum penalties do not deter crime, and all mandatory minimum penalties contribute to systemic racism. However, Bill C-5, as currently proposed, targets less than one in five of all mandatory minimum penalties in full. That is just 13 out of 73, less than one-third in full or in part, or 20 out of 73, and only 10 of the 28 that courts have already found unconstitutional.

In this way, it seems reasonable to assess this bill as one of half measures. I have been in this place for only just over three weeks, and I often hear the word “reconciliation” used. On this topic, I would like to read call to action 32 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which states the following:

We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.

I note, particularly for the members in this place who purport to support every single one of the calls to action, including, I assume, call to action 32, that this does not say one in five.

I would also like to read call to justice 5.14 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which states the following:

We call upon federal, provincial and territorial governments to thoroughly evaluate the impact of mandatory minimum sentences as it relates to the sentencing and over-incarceration of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people and to take appropriate action to address their over-incarceration.

I have heard the members who are concerned about crime, including the most recent speaker in this House. To be clear: Removing mandatory minimum penalties is really about placing our trust where it should be, which is in the judiciary.

In place of mandatory minimum penalties, sentencing judges would still be required to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence, taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors. This includes the risk to public safety. It also includes the individual and all relevant circumstances of the case in front of them, including acknowledging and redressing the realities of colonialism and systemic racism in the lives of indigenous people, Black Canadians and other racialized groups.

A final point I would like to make is that this bill misses a significant opportunity, which is that even with mandatory minimum penalties removed, people across the country would still be going to jail for simple possession of illicit drugs and would continue to die from addiction and from a dangerous supply. We would continue to be applying an outdated understanding of drug use from the 1980s instead of applying the very clear public health advice from experts, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which we have in front of us. That advice is to decriminalize illicit drugs, to offer a regulated safe supply, and to treat this like the mental health and addictions crisis that we know it to be.

So far this year, in my community alone, we have lost 120 community members to a poisoned drug supply. Since January 2016, across the country, over 25,000 lives have been lost, each one a preventable death. For this reason, I support the calls made by others in this House, encouraging the minister to move this bill to committee before second reading so its scope can be expanded to include decriminalization.

In closing, I would like to offer two considerations to the government. The first is to consider expanding the list of mandatory minimum penalties to be repealed by this bill to address the government's stated intent of addressing systemic racism. The second is to consider offering clear evidence that the small fraction of mandatory minimum penalties currently included to be repealed by Bill C-5 would in fact reduce the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in federal prisons.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time that I have been able to rise in debate in the House of Commons in the 44th Parliament and I would like to begin by thanking a few people.

Throughout my career I have been a public servant and I am honoured to once again be serving the good people of Kootenay—Columbia. The past 20 months have been a difficult time. Many have answered the call to assist fellow Canadians, and have done so quietly and without acknowledgement. Today, I want to acknowledge one of those groups. My sincere gratitude to the constituency and Hill staff employees who have worked tirelessly under difficult circumstances to diligently support every member of this House and the constituents we serve.

There is no elected path to this House, this chamber, that does not involve the tremendous support of family. Today I would like to take a moment to thank my wife, Heather, for her commitment to our family and democracy, and for her unwavering support for the work I do here on behalf of Kootenay—Columbians and, indeed, all Canadians. Pursuit of the greater good always comes with sacrifice. I am so proud to be the beneficiary of her love and support.

Today we will be talking about mandatory minimum sentences as part of the Bill C-5 discussion. I would like to begin by setting the record straight. Colleagues across the aisle have once again taken serious legislation and are using it as a tool for political division. They have created a nice narrative for themselves, suggesting they are hard at work undoing the Conservative mandatory minimum penalties, when in fact the majority of mandatory minimum penalties that Bill C-5 stands to eliminate are applicable to firearms offences that were actually introduced by previous Liberal governments.

For those listening at home, Bill C-5, presented by the government, includes the removal of mandatory minimum penalties for criminals who commit firearm offences, including but not limited to using a firearm in commission of offences, weapons trafficking and robbery with a firearm. The government would rather send criminals who commit these offences home.

Bill C-5 hits close to home both personally and, of course, professionally, as I served on the front lines of the war on drugs and have dealt with violent offenders throughout my career. What I know to be the absolute truth is that it is difficult to come up with solutions to big problems like the ones we are addressing today without hearing from the victims. I have been in the room with parents who have lost a child to an overdose and I have investigated and arrested the most violent criminals. I have first-hand experience with the front lines of these issues and see a clear and widening gap between where this bill currently sits and where we need to get to in order to make changes.

While we come to this House from different perspectives, I do believe that everyone in this chamber has a desire to do right by Canadians. Let me be clear to my colleagues across the aisle. If they want change, this bill will not get them there. In fact, based on my first-hand experience, Bill C-5 will move us further away from where we need to be in our collective pursuit of safer communities.

Canadians need to know and I want to be crystal clear on what the Conservative position is. Convicted violent predators, those individuals who prey on the innocence of our daughters and sons, deserve to go to prison, not to the comforts of their own home, yet the government seems politically determined, at the cost of safe communities, to send these criminals on a backyard vacation.

Through Bill C-5, the government also seeks to eliminate six mandatory minimums in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that target drug dealers. They include trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing, exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting; and the production of heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. The government's own messaging leads Canadians to believe they are simply helping those who struggle with addictions. The minister fails to point out that the mandatory minimums being eliminated are in place for those who target criminals who prey on those with addictions. There are far too many Canadians struggling with addiction. Instead of being focused on removing and reducing consequences for criminals, Bill C-5 should instead be focused on offering the help that is so desperately needed for those who suffer from addiction.

My Conservative colleagues and I believe strongly that those struggling with addictions should be the priority and receive the help that is needed. We have an opioid epidemic across this country and in British Columbia the situation is pronounced. Far too many parents and loved ones are receiving that dreaded phone call, where they are left to process the brutal reality that their child has suffered an overdose.

I would like to take a moment to address the issue of drug use and recovery. The road to recovery, of which I have both professional and personal experience, is very difficult and a long-term commitment. Successful crime prevention starts with our youth and must continue throughout their lives. Education programs can be successful if delivered at the appropriate time. However, with addiction to opioids, for example, the effort and success takes years. We do know the present system is not successful and that it does require change, but we need an approach that is a positive solution for rehabilitation, one that is configured to help those who are addicted, instead of helping those who are profiting from the addiction.

Given the decline in mental health and its connectivity to the issue we are talking about today, I would like to take this opportunity to join my colleagues in calling on the government to commit to an implementation date of funding the national three-digit helpline in this House, unanimously passed in the 43rd Parliament. The government owes it to Canadians to activate that line and create meaningful legislation that will actually serve to make our communities safe. We asked yesterday for a date for 988 to be activated and there was no response.

Contrary to what the minister claims, this is not about reducing mandatory minimum penalties for simple possession. Mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession do not exist. Bill C-5 would do nothing to address that. Instead, it would eliminate mandatory prison time for drug traffickers who commit acts of violence. It would allow criminals who have committed violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest rather than in prison and puts our communities at risk. I would really like to know who the government consulted. Did they talk to the victims?

Organized crime and gangs prey on our youth. A friend of mine had a 12-year-old daughter who was approached in an elementary school playground by a gang member and was tricked into using crystal meth. By the time the girl was 13, she had stolen most of her family's valuables to support her addiction. The organized crime gang forced her into prostitution. To consider reducing minimum sentences for these gang members is not a solution.

The minister says the purpose of the bill is to tackle overrepresentation of indigenous people and Black Canadians in our prisons. According to a recent article in The Globe and Mail, the bill would not meet that objective. The article states that for “a bill that is ostensibly about racial justice, every single provision in this bill is entirely race neutral.” For nearly a year, the government has asserted that the selected mandatory minimum penalties disproportionately affect Black and indigenous people, but has offered no evidence to suggest they will meaningfully redress overrepresentation.

Bill C-5 leaves in place the harshest mandatory minimum penalties and their brutal effects for indigenous women, in particular. According to the 2019 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, a report released by then Minister of Public Safety, almost half of the women sentenced to mandatory life sentences are indigenous and most acted in the self-defence context of lifetimes of abuse and trauma. Clearly these women are victims and not the greatest risk to public safety in Canada, yet Bill C-5 would continue to serve Canada's harshest penalties. All Canadians deserve a more fair and just criminal legal system. Nanaimo, B.C. has a very successful restorative justice program. This is where we need to focus our path forward.

We are left to wonder who the government consulted on this legislation and whether those voices are present in this bill's current form. I am also left to wonder about its understanding of enforcement, as the bill adds to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act a set of principles that peace officers and prosecutors should use for determining whether to lay charges for possession. Surely the minister knew that police officers already had the flexibility to do this.

Conservatives have serious concerns with the government's proposal to allow criminals to serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including sexual assault, human trafficking and kidnapping. This bill would put communities and victims at risk.

In closing, I ask all colleagues in this House consider the real-life outcome that they will be enacting by choosing to make life easier for violent offenders and drug traffickers. It seems apparent that we should instead be holding these criminals accountable for their actions and focus instead on creating meaningful legislation that will help victims and those with addictions to make our communities safer.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-5.

It proposes important reforms to reduce the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

I am going to spend my time primarily talking about conditional sentence orders. I would like to bring to this conversation today my experience as the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Attorney General of Ontario. As we all know, responsibilities in the administration of justice lie at the provincial level. In my comments, I will share some of the frustrations I felt, when I was in my provincial roles, with some of the changes that were made during the Harper government that are trying to be undone by Bill C-5.

As we all know, a fair and effective criminal justice system is critical to ensuring that Canadians feel safe in their communities, have confidence in their justice system and trust that offenders are being held accountable in a manner that is equitable and transparent and that promotes public safety in Canada. The unfortunate reality is that far too many people face discrimination and systemic racism at all stages of our criminal justice system. This problem has been exacerbated by tough-on-crime sentencing policies, including the indiscriminate and broad use of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment, generally known as MMPs, and added restrictions placed on the availability of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. These restrictions were meant to keep Canadians safe, so to speak, but this missed the point because conditional sentences are never permitted in cases where public safety is put at risk.

These restrictions have prevented judges from imposing non-custodial, community-based sentences, even in cases where these sentences would otherwise be appropriate under the circumstances. This one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing denies the reality that offences can be committed in a broad range of circumstances with varying degrees of seriousness. Someone who steals to feed their family is less blameworthy than someone who steals goods to sell on the black market. One-size-fits-all sentencing has too often used the latter example as the baseline for sentencing laws and this has created problems in our justice system. MMPs also run counter to the fundamental principle of sentencing, namely that sentences must be individually tailored to the particular circumstances of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender before the court.

Bill C-5 is an important step forward to provide alternatives to incarceration where appropriate, including for indigenous people and Black Canadians. One important component of the proposed reforms is a series of amendments to the conditional sentencing regime that would allow the regime to fulfill its original purpose, namely to address the overreliance on incarceration for less serious crimes.

To better explain the importance of Bill C-5's amendments in this area, let me take a moment to speak about their original legislative purpose. CSOs were enacted in 1996, and I believe Allan Rock was the Minister of Justice in the House at that time. They were enacted as part of a comprehensive set of reforms that recognized the need to address Canada's inflated incarceration rate, particularly as it related to indigenous people.

A CSO allows an offender who does not pose a threat to public safety to serve a prison term of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, including house arrest and curfew. The law governing CSOs provides judges with the ability to impose a broad range of conditions that balance public safety against other important objectives, including rehabilitation. For example, a judge can require an offender to attend an approved treatment program, which can help address the underlying reasons that led to offending in the first place. This makes good sense to me. As Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Attorney General of Ontario, I addressed this, because if an inmate or offender is sentenced two years less a day, that person goes to a provincial prison.

In my previous roles, I visited enough jails in Ontario to know they are not the best places to be. For someone who is facing an addiction or mental health issue, jail is not a place where they will get the right care, as opposed to being in a community. Evidence shows that allowing offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, while maintaining access to employment and community and health-related support systems, is far more effective at reducing future criminality than harsh penalties such as incarceration.

Indeed, evidence gathered after the original enactment of CSOs supports this finding. Within the first few years of the implementation of CSOs, recidivism rates declined and the incarceration rate decreased by 13%. Criminal Code amendments enacted by the Conservative governments in 2007, with former Bill C-9, and in 2012, with former Bill C-10, have since severely restricted the availability of CSOs. These amendments made CSOs unavailable for all offences prosecuted by way of indictment that are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life, as well as those punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years if the offences resulted in bodily harm or involved drugs or the use of a weapon. The reforms also introduced a list of ineligible offences to the CSO regime, including for non-violent property crime.

Because of these restrictions, the use of CSOs was significantly diminished. Statistics Canada data shows that the number of cases resulting in a CSO decreased from 11,545 cases in 2004 to 7,022 cases in 2018. Studies have further shown that these restrictions have had a disproportionately negative impact on indigenous people. These restrictions have also resulted in an increased number of charter challenges and calls for reform.

Bill C-5 would return the CSO regime to what existed prior to the 2007 amendments while ensuring that CSOs are unavailable for offences of advocating genocide, torture and attempted murder, as well as terrorism and criminal-organization offences that are prosecuted by way of indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more. They would also continue to be unavailable for any offence carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. CSOs would thus become accessible for all other offences where the sentencing judge determines that a custodial sentence of under two years is appropriate, provided that the court is also satisfied that imposing a CSO would not endanger public safety and would be in keeping with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

This approach would allow sentencing judges to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment for all offenders, consistent with the sentencing principle of restraint, which requires sentencing courts to take into consideration all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders. These amendments strike the right balance between ensuring the availability of alternatives to incarceration where appropriate and recognizing the importance of public safety where serious offending is at issue.

This legislation is a key milestone in our government's ongoing efforts to transform the criminal justice system. I applaud our government for proposing reforms that would realign CSOs with Parliament's original intent, an approach that evidence shows would directly contribute to reducing the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in our criminal justice system, and would afford more opportunity for rehabilitation and better reintegration in appropriate cases.

These are the kinds of things that, when I was the Attorney General of Ontario, we were asking the federal government to undertake. I am thrilled to see that this is taking place through Bill C-5. I am also quite thrilled that in my new role as a member of Parliament, I am able to speak to this bill and will be supporting it. I encourage other members to vote in favour of it as well.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the voters of Ottawa South. This is my seventh consecutive election. I am honoured and privileged to represent such a magnificent riding, a very diverse riding, with over 82 languages spoken and over 160 countries of origin. I like to describe my riding as “the United Nations of Ottawa South”.

A great deal of time has already been spent describing the objectives of Bill C-5, its proposed reforms and expected impacts. I support these changes, and I believe they will make a significant positive contribution to our criminal justice system. They will also contribute to efforts to address the undeniable and disproportionate impacts existing criminal laws have on certain communities in Canada.

We know that certain communities in Canada and other countries are involved in the criminal justice system at higher rates than other people. In Canada, the over-incarceration of indigenous persons and Black Canadians is well documented. The reasons for this are systemic, and they include our laws on sentencing. It is clear to me that the issue of over-incarceration must be addressed by revisiting our existing sentencing laws. That is exactly what Bill C-5 proposes to do.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, has proven to be a costly and ineffective approach to reducing crime. Indeed, many jurisdictions comparatively around the world are moving away from this approach to criminal justice. While MMPs can be a forceful expression of government policy in the area of criminal law, we know that MMPs do not deter crime and can result in unjust and inequitable outcomes. The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear about these issues.

Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum. Evidence-based policy is informed by relevant research, including comparative studies from other countries. By examining a particular policy's successes and failures, we can develop reforms that build on what we know works and address what we know does not work.

For instance, while the United States, both at the federal and state levels, has historically made great use of MMPs, in the last decade many states have moved toward reducing or outright eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on those for non-violent and drug-related charges. These trends reveal a shift motivated by, among other things, a need to address high levels of incarceration and the corresponding social and fiscal costs. One could speak to a California legislator about how expensive it has been for the state of California over the last several decades.

This is being done by governments of all political stripes in the United States, and I encourage all parties in this House to recognize the true impacts of MMPs and work to improve our criminal justice system. Some in the United States have termed this the “smart on crime” movement. It is an approach that recognizes the need to address high levels of incarceration of young Black and Hispanic Americans, who face disproportionate negative impacts because of the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the United States, particularly, as I have already noted, for non-violent, drug-related offences.

Some have also pointed out that mandatory minimum sentencing actually encourages cycles of crime and violence by subjecting non-violent offenders, who could otherwise be productive members of society, to the revolving door of the prison system.

Recently, the President of the United States indicated his intention to repeal MMPs at the federal level, where he has jurisdiction, and provide states with incentives to repeal their own mandatory minimums as well. Other countries have made similar changes. For example, in 2014, France repealed certain MMPs, predominately citing evidence that the reconviction rate had more than doubled between 2001 and 2011, increasing from 4.9% to 12.1%.

When examining trends in like-minded countries, we can see a clear policy shift toward limiting the use of mandatory minimum penalties to the most serious of cases and restoring judicial discretion at sentencing. While international comparisons cannot be the only lens through which we develop sentencing policy in Canada, particularly given our unique cultural traditions and diversity, such comparisons provide a useful backdrop against which to assess the adequacy of our own sentencing laws.

Currently, the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provide MMPs for 73 offences, including for firearms offences; sexual offences; impaired driving; kidnapping; human trafficking; sex trade offences; murder; high treason; and drug-related offences, such as trafficking, importing and exporting, and the production of certain drugs like cocaine and heroin.

In the last 15 years, 30 offences have been amended, almost entirely by the previous Harper government, to increase existing MMPs or to impose new ones.

I was in this House when those amendments were made by the previous government, and when they were introduced, and I had an opportunity to debate them at the time. I was opposed to them then, and I am opposed to them now. I was particularly struck at the time by evidence that was presented to the House, produced by the criminal law policy division in the Department of Justice, where the director happened to be a former Progressive Conservative member of Parliament. The evidence adduced and presented by the Department of Justice indicated that the amendments the government of the day was pursuing would not achieve the outcomes it desired. It had been warned and forewarned, not only by opposition members at the time, but also by the think tank insider at the Department of Justice.

Bill C-5 would reverse that trend, and in so doing, it seeks to make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all. It would repeal MMPs for 20 offences, including MMPs for all drug-related offences, as well as some for firearm-related offences. This is not a signal from Parliament that drug and firearms offences are not serious and not worthy of important denunciatory sentences in appropriate cases.

Firearms and drug offences can be very serious, and I have full confidence in our courts to impose appropriate penalties. Bill C-5, as I said, would not repeal all MMPs in the Criminal Code. This bill does not propose changes to the penalties for child sexual offences and other sexual crimes, nor would the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment for murder be changed.

Some will argue the government should have done away with all mandatory minimum penalties. Others will be critical of the government's decisions to reform the MMPs that are included in this bill. This bill is an important and balanced step forward, and I know our justice minister is always open to considering further changes in the future.

Despite there being differences of opinion as to the role of MMPs in our sentencing laws, I would not want these views to distract us from our job, which is to examine the important changes in Bill C-5. We have a good bill before us that has been welcomed by a broad range of stakeholders. It would make critically important changes, not just in the area of MMPs, but also with respect to conditional sentencing and the way the criminal justice system addresses simple drug possession.

I will be voting in favour of these changes because I am convinced they will make our justice system fairer and better. I urge all members on all sides of this House to support the swift passage of Bill C-5.

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

Madam Speaker, allowing judges and police officers to make decisions is important, because they are the ones who are very familiar with the subjects and the people.

Earlier I heard a colleague say that they were going to abolish all sentences. That is not at all true. As I understand it, sentences could be two years, as is currently the case, but they could also be five years, or six months with rehabilitation.

Can my colleague tell us again about the importance of clarifying Bill C-5 with respect to prevention and rehabilitation measures for minor crimes?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House today and debate Bill C-5. This bill proposes legislative measures that would repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties and give prosecutors the discretion to deal with simple drug possession as a health issue rather than a criminal one.

I would like to begin by telling you what I think is the most fundamental aspect of this bill that provides for the independence of the judiciary with respect to sentencing.

Before I had the privilege of serving the voters of Kings—Hants in the House, I was a lawyer, so I can say with assurance that the circumstances of each case are usually different. For these reasons, when it comes to sentencing, I think that not allowing judges to use their discretion is a problem.

I had the privilege of listening to this debate on the same bill before the House in the 43rd Parliament, about the aspect of judicial independence and judges' discretion. I want to make a link to what I believe to be generally a Conservative principle, namely that we allow local decision-makers to use their discretion when available. It is the idea of decentralizing decisions to local governments, provincial governments, when available and necessary. My friends from the Bloc Québécois would certainly appreciate that as well, with respect to the devolving of powers.

I also see that in this legislation. We sit here as parliamentarians. I have heard the Minister of Justice and other members of this House provide circumstances and cases that could be used to talk about how this bill could impact sentencing and judicial outcomes. The reality is no one in this House knows the particular circumstances of a case that is going to happen three or four years from now. At the end of the day, we want to allow our judges, our judiciary, to make those decisions and weigh both mitigating and aggravating factors. As I mentioned before, in my time as a lawyer, not all circumstances of a case are the same. Fundamentally, this allows our judiciary the discretion to make those decisions.

The member for St. Catharines, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in his remarks earlier today talked about the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has found that mandatory minimum penalties, in some cases, are unconstitutional. It is up for debate in this House, but they are not effective at actually reducing crime. I have heard conversations among colleagues in this House about how we tackle crime and how we can challenge some of those points. I agree that there needs to be work done outside of this legislation. This legislation is not a silver bullet to solve that, but this is legislation that would help provide that discretion to judges and reduce the systemic challenges that indigenous and Black Canadians face.

I have mentioned many times in the House that I have the privilege of representing the three indigenous nations of Kings—Hants: Sipekne'katik, Glooscap and the Annapolis Valley First Nation.

While talking with the leaders of these communities, I heard about how the structure of the criminal justice system can create inequality, and how first-time offenders can become lifelong criminals after spending years in prison for simple drug possession, instead of receiving rehabilitation services or the necessary support to turn their lives around.

As opposed to trying to work to rehabilitate individuals and look at certain circumstances, we are putting people in jail for a minimum period of time, even if the circumstances do not warrant it. That is the reality.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I would like to thank the Chair for giving me time to talk about Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Canadians want a criminal justice system that makes them safer and reacts quickly and effectively to crime. They expect the criminal justice system to produce equitable outcomes for all.

Unfortunately, we know this is not the case for all Canadians. There are many reasons for this, including the way our criminal laws are drafted and how they are applied.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has demonstrated the courage to acknowledge that our criminal justice system and our laws do not always produce the most appropriate outcomes for everyone, and that has taken decisive action to correct this. In so doing, we are providing our courts and decision-makers within the criminal justice system with the flexibility they need to make better decisions for everyone.

Bill C-5 proposes needed law reform in three areas. First, it would give sentencing courts greater discretion to impose fit sentences by repealing mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for some offences in the Criminal Code and all offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Second, it would provide sentencing courts with greater discretion to impose fit sentences by repealing unnecessary restrictions on the granting of conditional sentences of imprisonment. Third, it would require police and prosecutors to consider diverting simple possession cases away from the criminal justice system and to a health treatment program.

Traditional criminal justice system approaches to offences in simple drug possession cases are not working. This new approach would produce better outcomes for the accused and for society more generally.

At the heart of this bill is a recognition that those responsible for administering our criminal justice system need to have discretion in responding to crime. This is completely appropriate because the ability of our criminal justice system to produce appropriate outcomes is based on the proper exercise of discretion.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said on many occasions that the proper exercise of discretion is essential to the effective operation of our criminal justice system. I am in perfect agreement.

Bill C-5 would repeal all mandatory minimum penalties for six offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and for 14 offences in the Criminal Code. In so doing, it would restore judicial discretion to sentencing courts.

Some people may say that this means that the sentences for these offences will now be shorter and that, by doing away with these rigid sentencing rules, we are sending the message that these offences are not serious.

I would respond by saying that judges would impose appropriate penalties based on facts before them. A fit sentence is just that: one that is appropriate in all circumstances. If a particular trial judge's decision is inappropriate, our system enables this to be corrected through an appeal.

I also have complete confidence that the courts will continue to view these offences with the seriousness that is warranted. Repealing MMPs for certain offences involving firearms does not mean these offences are not serious or that courts will not recognize their level of severity. On the contrary, courts across Canada consistently comment on the fact that firearms-related crimes are particularly serious and should be addressed in correspondingly serious ways. That will not cease to be the case because of this bill, and offenders who deserve to go to jail will still go to jail.

What will be different, however, is the following. There would be fewer charter challenges, prosecutions would be faster and sentencing decisions would be better tailored to the circumstances of individual offenders. When courts are sentencing indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities, they will have the ability to meaningfully consider the circumstances of the offender before them to make a sentencing decision that properly takes circumstances into account. I urge all members to support these changes.

In our platform, our government committed to continuing to combat gender-based violence and fight gun smuggling with measures that we have previously introduced, such as lifetime background checks to prevent those with a history of abuse against their spouses or partners from obtaining firearms licences; red-flag laws that would allow immediate removal of firearms if people are threats to themselves or others, particularly to their spouses or partners; increased maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment; and enhancing the capacity of the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to combat the illegal importation of firearms.

Bill C-5 also proposes to restore judicial discretion for sentencing courts through amendments to the conditional sentence regime. Conditional sentences were created in 1996 to provide an innovative way for courts to sentence offenders by allowing them to serve their sentences in the community under strict punitive conditions, but also rehabilitative ones. These changes recognized that imprisonment at correctional facilities is not always necessary. These changes also responded to the fact that indigenous people were disproportionately being sent to prison and that this had to change.

The conditional sentencing regime has always disallowed the use of conditions sentences for offences punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty. Sentencing courts also have always had to be satisfied that serving a sentence in the community would not pose a public safety risk, and a sentence had to be less than two years. However, over time, additional restrictions placed on this tool have diminished its effectiveness and made it unavailable in a wider range of cases. This has taken away judicial discretion by removing an important tool for addressing over-incarceration.

With the changes proposed by Bill C-5, the government is correcting course from the previous Conservative government's limiting of CSOs so that courts can better respond to the specific facts before them. They will still only be available in cases where public safety would not be impacted. These are welcomed evidence-based changes that are broadly supported and that will make an important difference in our criminal justice system.

Lastly, I would like to briefly address the changes relating to simple drug possession.

The opioid crisis affecting many Canadian communities has focused the spotlight on the harms of drug addiction. It has forced communities to find innovative solutions, but it has also helped demonstrate that a response to addiction based on health measures and social action is far more effective than other means, namely criminal justice measures that stigmatize users and create barriers to their rehabilitation.

The government has long recognized the importance of making greater linkages between the justice system and other social systems, including health care. The proposed measures in this bill would do just that. This bill would encourage police and prosecutors to move away from charging and prosecuting for simple drug possession in appropriate cases and, instead, direct people into other appropriate systems that are better able to respond to the root causes that contribute to their interaction with the justice system in the first place.

If we think about it, instead of being charged and prosecuted, which can result in job loss, separation from family and community and increase the possibility of reoffending, the system would facilitate the supports needed, keep the offenders working and keep them in their communities. This is smart criminal justice policy that has been proven to work, and I strongly support these changes.

The reforms contained in the bill are long overdue and have garnered wide support. I know that many people would have preferred that the bill go even further, but I also know that the Minister of Justice said that this is only one major step in a broader effort to make our criminal justice system more equitable for all. It is essential that we take this step now.

I am asking all members to support this important legislative measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Based on what I hear from my colleagues, rural areas in Alberta and Saskatchewan are experiencing serious problems with people breaking into isolated homes while the owners are present. These people show up drunk, high and armed. These offences happen often and are a huge problem. This type of breaking and entering in rural areas is a problem that we are trying to stop.

However, by introducing a bill to reduce penalties, the government is sending the message that criminals can continue to commit crimes because even if they are caught, nothing will happen. That is the problem with Bill C‑5.

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

Madam Speaker, it brings me no great joy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑5.

The first thing I want to point out is that this bill is an exact copy of Bill C‑22, which was introduced and debated in the previous Parliament. Then there was an election, so now we have to start over. On second thought, maybe starting over is not such a bad thing, because if Bill C‑22 had been adopted in its entirety a few months ago, the mandatory minimum sentences for a number of important offences would have been reduced. At least now we have a chance to change things.

The main reasons that led me to become a Conservative MP have to do with public order, national defence, public safety and sound economic management. More than anything else, it was the Conservative approach to public order that really prompted me to become a Conservative MP. I was elected for the first time in 2015, but, unfortunately for my party, the Liberals won that time around and have been in power ever since.

Since 2015, we have witnessed drastic and tragic changes to how public safety issues are addressed. Victim protection has changed, and criminals have been given more rights. That really worries me.

Personally, I blame the Liberals, of course, but also the New Democrats, who, unfortunately, systematically support the Liberal approach. The Bloc Québécois tends to do that as well. As a Quebecker, I often have a hard time understanding how my Bloc colleagues can be so far to the left on these issues, but that is another debate. As I see it, the approach in Bill C‑5 is totally ideological and utterly incomprehensible.

Here are some examples of crimes for which Bill C-5 will reduce minimum sentences: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited firearm; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; possession for the purposes of weapons trafficking; and discharging a firearm.

If Canadians and Quebeckers were listening carefully to that list of the various crimes involving firearms, most people would say that that does not make sense and that reducing the penalties for such offences is out of the question. If people had a clear understanding of what is being debated today, if people were polled, the vast majority would say that this makes no sense and that there is no reason to reduce the sentences of criminals who commit these kinds of offences. That is what the average person on the street would say.

Of course, each member has a duty to represent their constituents, about 100,000 people on average. The Liberals are going to say that this is what people want, and the NDP will support them. Unfortunately, we Conservatives are in a minority. However, I can guarantee that if we asked Canadians about this, the majority, over 50% of them, would surely say they are against this type of measure.

We also must remember that the Liberals have had a change of heart. The offences I just listed were included in the Criminal Code in 1976 under the Liberal government at the time, which was led by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the current Prime Minister's father. Back then, the left and right saw crime very differently, and we can all agree that these were important measures that did the trick.

Today, over 40 years later, we are trying to understand why Pierre Elliott Trudeau's son has a totally different perspective on this issue and is taking his government in a direction that puts public safety in jeopardy.

What is more, Bill C‑5 deals on one hand with firearms and on the other hand with drugs. Let us be clear: We are talking about sentences for traffickers, not addicts or drug users. This is not at all about managing people who use drugs for various reasons and all the risks that entails. This is truly about traffickers, those who sell, produce and traffic in drugs such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

On that, I would like to read what my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton said in the House yesterday. I find it very relevant when we are talking about fentanyl. He said the following:

We have an opioid crisis in Canada today. Every day, approximately 20 Canadians lose their lives to an opioid overdose. It has increased by 88% since the onset of COVID, 7,000 Canadians a year. The Liberal government's solution is to roll back mandatory sentencing for the very people who are putting this poison on our streets, endangering lives and killing 20 Canadians a day.

That is the main issue, that ideological and philosophical approach to criminals.

As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton so wisely pointed out yesterday, how are Canadians supposed to agree with eliminating harsh sentences for drug traffickers, the people who are responsible for the fentanyl that kills 20 Canadians a day? Where is the logic there? I cannot wrap my head around it, and neither can most of my colleagues.

I would like to hear my colleagues from other parties, like the Bloc Québécois members and even some from the Liberal Party, acknowledge that the Conservatives are right and that the government is going too far with Bill C‑5.

This is not the right way to tackle the problem. As I was saying, this has nothing to do with addicts. When speaking about people who use for various reasons, a Bloc member said earlier that we should be proactive in tackling this problem. To be proactive, to help drug users, we would have to go after the traffickers who get those drugs onto the streets and whose actions lead to the death of 20 Canadians every day.

What is worse, the Prime Minister appears to think all of this is okay. He does not seem to grasp the problem, and the government does not seem to be able to find the right approach. If this were based on facts or on some logic that people could get on board with, it would be fine, but no, the government seems to think its ideology is perfect. This is unacceptable.

I remind members that Bill C‑5 would reduce minimum penalties for crimes that involve the use of a firearm. There has been talk in Montreal about firearms and the trafficking of guns through the United States for several weeks now. People are bringing in weapons from all over the place and selling them on the black market. There are 14-, 15- or 16-year-old kids using these weapons on Montreal streets. Toronto has had the same problem for many years. Quebec is now grappling with this issue, as firearms are becoming increasingly prevalent in Montreal.

While police, judges and the justice system try to find a way to control this problem, here in Ottawa we are debating a bill that, ultimately, tells gun traffickers that they need not worry, and that if they are arrested, they will not be sentenced and that everything will be fine; that it is no big deal if they sell guns; and that there is nothing to worry about if they buy and use guns. Bill C‑5 sends the message that traffickers should not worry, they can do what they want, they will only get a little slap on the wrist and it will not really be that bad.

The same goes for drugs. Usually, in a society where the rule of law, law and order, is important, people who are considering selling drugs should say to themselves that they will be put in jail for some time if they are caught, so they should perhaps reconsider.

Instead, the government is telling them that there is no need to worry, that they can sell drugs to young people and that it is not serious if 20 people die every day. In my view, it defies logic.

The bill also refers to conditional sentences and house arrest. It is as though the Liberals want to empty jails completely by sending inmates to serve their sentences at home.

The bill contains a long list of crimes for which sentences will be decreased, including criminal harassment, sexual assault, abduction of a person under 14, trafficking in persons, motor vehicle theft, and breaking and entering, all of which are not minor crimes. Instead of being jailed, offenders who commit these crimes will be told to stay home and celebrate. That means a person who has committed a sexual assault could be under house arrest in a neighbourhood close to the victim. That is just ridiculous.

Let us get back to firearms. Last month, the media reported that the integrated RCMP Cornwall border integrity team had commenced a firearms smuggling investigation after a boat crossed the St. Lawrence River and made landfall near Cornwall, Ontario. The criminals unloaded three large bags from the boat into a vehicle and departed the area. The RCMP conducted a roadside stop of the vehicle and seized a large number of firearms, including prohibited and restricted weapons and high-capacity magazines. Inti Falero-Delgado, a 25-year-old man from Laval, Quebec, and Vladimir Souffrant, a 49-year-old Montrealer, were placed under arrest.

Under Bill C‑5, the two individuals involved in this arms trafficking and smuggling incident would not receive minimum sentences. It is unlikely either of them would go to prison. They would probably get a conditional sentence or, at worst, serve their sentence at home. That is how it works in real life because, in real life, criminals always think about the possible consequences of their crimes.

Criminals are aware that the government keeps reducing the penalties. That is why there has been a 20% increase in violent crime in Canada since the change of government in 2015. Criminals who want to commit a crime or live a life of crime will benefit from the measures the government is proposing. The hardened criminals will influence the younger ones and tell them not to worry because the Prime Minister's government made sure that things would not be so bad for them.

The other point I would like to raise has to do with systemic racism, which the government claims this bill will help to combat. It is not relevant to say that this will have an impact on Black and indigenous communities and other racialized groups. These groups may be proportionally overrepresented in prisons, but the notion of crime should not be related to race because that does not change anything. A crime is a crime, regardless of the skin colour of the person committing it, whether they are Caucasian, Black or indigenous. As soon as a crime is committed with a weapon, then race should no longer be a factor. The government is pulling the wool over people's eyes by saying that this bill will combat systemic racism. It is a false debate. There is no connection there.

We need to consider other solutions when it comes to incarceration and overrepresentation. Reducing sentences will not solve this problem. On the contrary, it will give just about any group more leeway to commit crimes, since they will be less concerned about the fear of incarceration.

I have a very concrete example of this. Three or four years ago, Bill C-71 was introduced to enhance gun controls. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security at the time, and I was the one who asked representatives from indigenous groups to come and share their thoughts on the bill. I would remind the House that it is because of Bill C‑71 that gun owners are now required to apply for a number from Ottawa to sell a gun or transfer it to someone else.

That approach to public safety is debatable, but that is what we have, so that is fine. I asked indigenous people to appear before the committee to tell us what they thought. They were very clear that they felt it was irrelevant. The indigenous representative from Saskatchewan made it clear that there was no way a father wanting to follow tradition and pass his gun on to his son would contact Ottawa and ask for an authorization number. No one would do that.

My first reaction was this: Any time someone has two hands and picks up a gun, it is a public safety issue, regardless of whether the person is indigenous, White or Black. In my view, race has nothing to do with public safety. The fact remains that, until we hear otherwise, Bill C-71 does not apply to indigenous people. I had asked the former minister of public safety, but he did not have an answer.

They want to play with these ideas to get a message of openness across in the media. However, when I am talking about public safety, I prefer to have the facts: When someone picks up a gun and shoots, race becomes irrelevant. These are very sensitive issues, and I hate when the Liberals use them to try to score political points and make themselves out to be the best and most open of the parties. In reality, that is just not true.

I will finish by saying that Bill C‑5 is a bad bill because it is trying to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes and make them believe that it will solve systemic racism. In fact, all it will do is help criminals commit more crimes, and it will do nothing to help Canadians.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary noted, minimum mandatory provisions somehow seemed to have become the ceiling rather than the bottom of the spectrum.

Any suggestion that Bill C-5 would remove sentencing or make serious crimes less punishable is simply wrong. What it really does is to allow judges to exercise what their name implies. They judge things. They have the discretion to apply justice appropriately to the specific situation. In a serious situation such as the one the member was alluding to, I have no doubt they will do their job effectively.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill proposes sentencing and other amendments that would provide greater flexibility to the criminal justice system and support appropriate and proportionate responses to crime. In doing so, the proposed changes would help to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in the criminal justice system, including by repealing sentencing laws that have been shown to disproportionately impact these groups.

I applaud the government for showing leadership on important issues like this. Recent events remind us that systemic racism and discrimination are real problems in the criminal justice system, and the consequences of leaving these problems unaddressed are significant. We know that many systemic factors contribute to the seriousness of this problem. These systemic factors can be addressed only through deliberate and sustained action by all those responsible for aspects of the justice system and other social systems that interact with it. That said, our criminal laws and the responses they dictate significantly impact what can and cannot be done by those in the criminal justice system. These laws affect those who engage with the criminal justice system as accused, as offenders, as witnesses or as victims.

Conservatives' sentencing reforms have resulted in the increased use of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment, or MMPs, and additional restrictions on the availability of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. These changes have limited judges' ability to impose proportionate sentences. They also affect judges' ability to meaningfully consider the background or systemic factors that impact indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized people, and they play a part in bringing them into contact with the criminal justice system.

Unsurprisingly, we have seen significant increases in incarceration rates for members of these communities in the last two decades. For example, in 1999, indigenous people represented about 2% of the Canadian adult population but accounted for about 17% of admissions to provincial, territorial and federal custody. As of 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 5% of the Canadian adult population but represented 30% of federally incarcerated individuals, with indigenous women accounting for 42% of all federally incarcerated women.

Similarly, in 2018, Black individuals represented 7.2% of the federally incarcerated population but only 3% of the Canadian population. We know that Black people are also more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP than are other Canadians. Data from the Correctional Service of Canada from 2007-17 reveal that 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people who were federally incarcerated between those years were there for offences carrying an MMP. That is why repealing those MMPs is expected to reduce the overall rates of incarceration of indigenous people and Black Canadians.

Bill C-5's proposed reforms are informed by extensive consultations with a broad range of justice system and other partners across Canada, including Crown prosecutors, defence lawyers, indigenous leaders and communities, academics, victim advocates, restorative justice proponents, representatives of frontline community support systems, and representatives from such areas as health and mental health, housing and other support programs in the social system.

The bill also responds to calls for reform from various commissions of inquiry, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario criminal justice system.

Parliamentarians have also noted the detrimental effects of MMPs. For instance, the August 2016 interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice”, found that MMPs have negatively impacted indigenous persons and members of marginalized communities, including those with mental health challenges. Similarly, the Parliamentary Black Caucus in its June 2020 statement called for the review and repeal of MMPs and the removal of limitations on CSOs.

The common theme in all of these calls for reform is the recognition that the broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs and the Criminal Code's current restrictions on the use of CSOs have had numerous negative impacts, and that those impacts have been disproportionately felt by indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

They have also made our criminal justice system less effective and less efficient. I believe this bill would help to restore the public's confidence in the criminal justice system by providing much-needed discretion to sentencing judges, who are aware of all the facts of a case. It would allow them to impose sentences that respond to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the individual before the court.

The bill would achieve this important goal by repealing 20 MMPs, including MMPs for all drug-related offences and for some, not all, firearm-related offences. The bill would also lift many of the restrictions on the availability of CSOs in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety, allowing them to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest or curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family, community and health-related support systems.

Most Canadians would agree that conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool and should be available for judges for appropriate cases. I would expect that they would be used in less serious cases, and I am confident that judges could make the appropriate assessments as to their use.

Lastly, this bill would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to criminal charges for the simple possession of drugs, such as issuing a warning or diversion to addiction treatment programs. These measures are consistent with the government's approach to treating substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada as a health issue rather than a criminal justice one.

I would like to conclude by noting that I am aware that Bill C-5 has already been met with widespread support by communities and those responsible for the justice system in Canada. Some have gone so far as noting that it is among the most progressive criminal law reform bills introduced in many years. Like many others, I believe the government is on the right track with this bill, and I urge Parliament to support its swift passage. I look forward to hearing the views of other members.

The House resumed from December 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member from Kingston and the Islands, who said earlier that the debate was philosophical in nature. I would say that that is absolutely the case and that I am ready to participate in it since my background is in philosophy.

Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

After spending 25 years as an ethicist, I simply cannot leave ethics at the door just because I have become a politician. People associate ethics with its notions of obligation and punishment, but I would to suggest that being ethically minded requires that we be flexible in our thinking so we can try to imagine a more just future. Indeed, ethics is the search for what is just.

That is really what we have to do here as legislators. We need to know that being just is an elusive target. Doing what is just is not a given. We must nonetheless attempt, with what is being proposed in Bill C-5, to find what is just knowing that it may be changed by those who come after us. Any law, any bill has an ultimate goal. Ultimately, a law or bill is the means to an end, it is a means to an ideal that transcends it.

During my career, I had the chance to see two different sides of crime. I worked with the police force, but also with correctional institutions. I will start with the latter.

I was at the Bordeaux jail as an invited guest as part of a rehabilitation program called Souverains anonymes, which gives a voice to inmates on radio shows. My last meeting was last December, for Christmas, and we celebrated the fact that we were in lockdown both inside and outside the walls.

Among the inmates I met addicts, hardened criminals, people who did not get it. I also met many unintentional criminals, people who might have gone down the wrong path because of tough life circumstances, but I cannot second-guess the judge.

I met a lot of people who were not where they should be; they knew it and they felt it. Of course, this was in the context of a rehabilitation program. I also saw how overrepresented some groups were, including racialized populations. We talked a lot about indigenous peoples today, but what I saw more was the racialized populations. It was shocking for me to see them with my own eyes. It was not a statistic, a simple number on a page. I could see that there was prejudice at play and we have to question that.

I also served as an advisor to the police chief of the Montreal police force. In that capacity, I had to advise him on the difficult choice of whether to go to court or not. Some cases were easier than others. However, when it comes to petty crime, when we want to promote neighbourhood policing and community living, it is tough to take legal action every time. During that period, I saw the best and the worst, including punishment, conciliation and community policing.

When we are talking about diversion and deregulation, we must bear in mind that these are powerful words. Ethics seeks to give meaning to conduct, and meaning is the direction we need to go in.

Decriminalization means removing a given offence from the Criminal Code, whereas diversion sets criminal justice proceedings aside in favour of a more restorative approach to justice. The reason we are talking about these terms today is that the world is changing, as is our understanding of what is just.

Scare tactics and a tough-on-drugs approach did not work. Public policy must strike a balance between three imperatives. The first imperative is moral order, because losing one's freedom is a big deal. It means losing one's dignity. The second is the public health imperative, because drug use is often a public health issue. The third is the public order imperative because, when it comes right down to it, this is about protecting the public. What are the values underpinning these imperatives?

Obviously, if we want to foster reconciliation and community living, I believe we must look beyond the offence itself. Drug use is a public health issue that must be treated as such, without ruling out criminal prosecution when it is warranted.

Diversion is one solution that Quebec has chosen to address a public health issue. I believe in rehabilitation. I have seen inmates turn over a new leaf and move forward, reducing the number of people in prison and the costs associated with their incarceration, and most of all the social costs that come with the stigma. Mandatory minimum sentences are costly and, as everyone has said today, there is no guarantee they will work.

In the Bloc Québécois, we support eliminating certain sentences. However, no one can ignore what is happening in Montreal and in a number of Canada's major urban centres, where readily available firearms have become a scourge. For this reason, we believe that this is not the time to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to firearms.

Rather, we believe that, in this area, the Trudeau government has failed in its duties. It should be exercising its powers rather than delegating them to the municipalities or provinces.

To sum up, Bill C‑5 has noble objectives, but I nonetheless believe that it should be sent to committee to iron out its kinks. While I do not believe that mandatory minimum sentences are a deterrent to criminals, we must move beyond partisanship and take a serious look at this bill.

In conclusion, the federal government must ensure that people feel safe or safer. Police officers often say that people do not fear being unsafe; they fear feeling unsafe. We must therefore do everything we can to ensure that people do not feel unsafe.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

She emphasized her previous professional experience in community-based services. As I was listening to her speech, I thought of my own previous experience as Quebec public safety minister. She said that Bill C‑5 sends a somewhat contradictory message and then she also pointed out that minimum penalties do not guarantee that violence will be reduced.

It is easy for the Conservatives to staunchly support law and order when they are not the ones paying to build prisons, since the provinces and Quebec are responsible for paying the bill for these decisions.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the always-on-point member for Trois-Rivières.

I feel a sense of bewilderment today as I rise to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I have many questions and concerns.

As my party's status of women critic, and having observed an increase in cases of femicide and gender-based violence, I feel confused about the strange message the government is sending with this bill. I am going to broach the sensitive issue of mandatory minimum penalties by talking a little about my proud history working with community-based services.

I will then speak to the flaws in the bill and will conclude by talking about what I would like to see in terms of combatting violence and sending a strong message against hate and discrimination. I know that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has addressed the bill from a legal standpoint and that my colleague from Trois-Rivières, as a renowned ethicist, will certainly bring an ethical perspective into this debate.

I want to mention again that I worked in community-based services, more specifically for an organization focused on alternative justice and mediation. I truly believe in alternative and restorative justice, which is why I am in complete agreement with the Bloc Québécois's traditional position. With respect to mandatory minimum sentences, my party is in favour of an approach to justice that fosters rehabilitation and crime reduction.

Considering that mandatory minimums have few benefits and introduce many problems, such as the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons, in addition to increasing system costs and failing to deter crime, the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, the problem is that the Bloc Québécois believes this is a bad time to abolish mandatory minimums for firearms offences, because many Quebec and Canadian cities are seeing an influx of firearms, due in particular to the Liberal government's failure to implement border controls.

Several women's groups are very concerned about this issue and would like to see better gun control, because this can even impact femicides. Abolishing mandatory minimums without strong action by the federal government to counter the illegal importation of firearms at the border sends a contradictory message. My colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, the public safety critic, has asked many questions about this.

Although abolishing mandatory minimum sentences for possession of firearms is something we can get behind, abolishing them for certain gun crimes such as the discharge of a firearm with intent, robbery or extortion with a firearm, as proposed in this bill, seems inconsistent with the government's claim of maintaining mandatory minimums for certain categories of serious crime. We will need to take a serious look at this aspect of the bill, as I am sure committee members will do.

I want to point out that the Bloc Québécois spoke in favour of introducing the principle of diversion for simple possession of drugs in the last election campaign and in debates on Bill C‑236. Community groups that work with the homeless and do excellent work with street outreach workers reached out to me on this subject during the last election campaign.

We in the Bloc Québécois want to point out that such a measure will only be effective and truly efficient if investments are made in health care to support health systems and community organizations. They need funding to support people with addiction and mental health problems. I was also reminded of this during the last election campaign. This does not happen by itself.

On that note, we in the Bloc want to point out that the Liberal government refuses to give an answer on the issue of funding health care to cover 35% of health care system costs, despite the unanimous call from Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, without these investments, it is difficult for community organizations to respond to the growing needs resulting from rising homelessness in municipalities, even back home in Granby.

The pandemic has not helped matters, but rather has exacerbated the problem. Once again, the Bloc Québécois is speaking up for Quebec, where diversion is a principle that is fully recognized and integrated into many areas of the justice system. For instance, when it comes to children's rights, extrajudicial measures have been available to young offenders since the 1970s, thanks to Claude Castonguay's reform of the Youth Protection Act. Having worked at an organization that worked with that legislation and with young people, I was able to see the concrete impacts of alternative work, which leads young people to question their actions, to prevent them from ending up in the criminal justice system.

There is also the Programme de mesures de rechange pour les adultes en milieu autochtone, a program that makes options other than criminal prosecution available to individuals from indigenous communities.

There is also the Programme d'accompagnement justice et santé mentale, which gives individuals who have committed a crime and are fit to stand trial a chance to get a reduced sentence or possibly even enter a diversion program, which is very good for them.

More recently, the Programme de mesures de rechange général pour adultes, which is currently being rolled out, gives adults charged with certain offences the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and make amends for their crimes without going through the usual judicial process set out in the Criminal Code. The organization I worked with helped to implement the program, and I think it might be a success.

Lastly, there is the Court of Quebec's drug addiction treatment program, which allows for delayed sentencing so drug offenders can get clean through court-supervised treatment. It also facilitates close collaboration between the court and addiction resources to develop a treatment plan that includes crucial therapeutic, rehabilitation and reintegration components. The program is currently available only in Montreal and Puvirnituq. How can we expand it?

As the previous examples show, the principle of diversion is not new in Quebec's judicial ecosystem.

Quebec's Bill 32 is all about diversion as well. Minister LeBel's office pushed the government to focus on adopting Bill 32, which sought to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system. The bill introduced the concept of adapting enforcement to give municipalities more leeway when it comes to ticketing marginalized individuals, such as people experiencing homelessness and those with mental health issues or addiction.

Quebec has already committed to diversion programs in several areas, including youth, indigenous affairs and petty crime, and it is currently exploring this avenue through Bill 32.

As the critic for status of women, I have to note that year after year, we see an overrepresentation of indigenous women in the prison system. People have been sharing statistics throughout this debate. My Liberal colleagues have cited some, but I want to reiterate that indigenous women accounted for 38% of women admitted to provincial and territorial sentenced custody, and for indigenous men, that figure was 26%.

In the federal correctional services, indigenous women accounted for 31% of female admissions to sentenced custody, while indigenous men accounted for 2%.

Are mandatory minimum sentences contributing to increasing the overrepresentation of Black or indigenous people in the prison system? By all indications, they are. What is more, as critic for status of women, I have unfortunately observed that indigenous women are disproportionately affected.

I would like to add that diversion is beneficial for individuals, because the stigma attached to drugs and the barriers that come with a criminal record are sometimes disproportionate to a simple possession offence, and this can lead to a lifetime of consequences.

In closing, as someone who worked in community-based services, I am sensitive to a number of considerations connected with this bill. One thing is certain: This bill should not absolve us, as parliamentarians, of any responsibility, especially given that firearms crimes are a major concern in light of recent events, in which innocent victims have been killed with firearms.

While we agree with the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, we must not minimize gun crime or the importance of ensuring the public's sense of safety and looking at better gun control measures. The Bloc Québécois is asking for this. It is high time that action was taken.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech, in which she mentioned the low risk of recidivism.

Bill C‑5 introduces the concept of diversion for simple possession of drugs, which we support. Does my colleague feel that this measure will be effective only if health care investments are made to help health care institutions and community organizations? They really do need resources to help those who are struggling with these addictions and mental health issues.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is wrong, and it is really sad that the Conservatives would actually say “hear, hear” to the fact that politicians know more about it than judges do.

The Conservatives implemented these reforms to be “tough on crime”, but what they really did was mean-spirited, further marginalizing indigenous peoples and Black and racialized Canadians. Their tough-on-crime measures have led to the explosion of the indigenous and Black prison population with no evidence that these measures actually reduce crime. It is past time to end these discriminatory sentencing provisions. Despite what the opposition says, we are not getting rid of these sentences but rather giving back to judges the discretion in sentencing. Where warranted, judges may even impose greater sentences than the mandatory minimum would have prescribed.

In 1999, indigenous peoples represented approximately 2% of the Canadian population but accounted for approximately 17% of admissions to provincial, territorial and federal custody. As of 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 5% of the Canadian population but represent 30% of federally incarcerated individuals, with indigenous women accounting for over 42% of all federally incarcerated women, with these numbers approaching 70% to 80% in some western provinces. Indigenous women are the fastest-growing prison population in Canada. They are now being transferred to Ontario because we are running out of room in women's prisons out west. I recently visited Grand Valley Institution for Women, where I met indigenous women who were separated from their families and communities. The solution is not to build more prisons but rather to prevent these women from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.

Black individuals represent 7.2% of the federally incarcerated population but only 3% of the Canadian population. We also know that Black people are also more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence than other Canadians. In fact, 43% of all federally incarcerated offenders convicted of a drug offence punishable by mandatory minimum penalties were Black adults.

Thirty-nine per cent of Black people and 20% of indigenous peoples were federally incarcerated for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Repealing these penalties is expected to reduce the overall rates of incarceration of indigenous peoples and of Black Canadians.

Bill C-5's proposed reforms are informed by extensive consultations with a broad range of justice system stakeholders from across Canada. Prior to the introduction of the former Bill C-22, I held a round table with the Minister of Justice regarding mandatory minimum penalties and the impact on Black Canadians and indigenous peoples.

Organizations in my community, like the Canadian Caribbean Association of Halton and Advancement of Women Halton, made it clear that mandatory minimum sentences do not act as a deterrent for crime and cause many Black and indigenous peoples to be incarcerated. These consultations made a difference in the creation of the legislation. The president of the Canadian Caribbean Association of Halton, Andrew Tyrrell, let me know how important passing this bill would be for Black Canadians and was proud of his contribution.

The bill also responds to the calls for reform from various commissions and inquiries, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System.

In the 42nd Parliament, when I was vice-chair of the status of women committee, we tabled a report on indigenous women in the criminal justice system and called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences. Many indigenous women enter the criminal justice system because of minor drug offences that come with mandatory minimum sentences. I visited the Edmonton Institution for Women and met two indigenous women who were in prison for drug offences that were subject to mandatory minimums. They had been living in poverty, and each had a partner who exerted coercive control that led them to crime. This bill would prevent indigenous women from being criminalized for poverty and abuse.

Now more than ever we need to implement the TRC's calls to action. We need to focus on restorative justice, affordable housing and social supports for indigenous women instead of criminalizing them. Bill C-5 is a step in that direction. The all-party Parliamentary Black Caucus, in its June 2020 statement, called for the review and repeal of mandatory minimums and the removal of limitations on conditional sentence orders.

The common theme in all these calls for reform is the recognition that the broad and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimums, and the Criminal Code's current restrictions on the use of conditional sentence orders, have had numerous negative impacts that have been disproportionately felt by indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. They have also made our criminal justice system less effective and less efficient, which ultimately makes Canadians less safe.

I believe this bill would help to restore the public's confidence in the criminal justice system by providing much needed discretion to sentencing judges to impose sentences that respond to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the individual before the court. I want to highlight the story of my friend, Emily O'Brien. Emily was sent to federal prison after her partner coerced her to smuggle narcotics across the Canadian border. She was sentenced to Grand Valley Institution for Women on a mandatory minimum sentence. During her sentence, she noticed that prison did not prepare women for integrating back into society. Once she was released, she created her own business: a deluxe popcorn company called Comeback Snacks that not only makes delicious popcorn but has a mission to hire women who have been sentenced to prison so they will not re-enter the criminal justice system.

Emily's story is the exception to the rule. Most women who come out of the criminal justice system because of mandatory minimums come out worse. It should not be the sole responsibility of people such as Emily to tear down the stigma and provide women with opportunities after prison.

I have talked a lot about mandatory minimum penalties, but the bill would also lift many of the restrictions on the availability of conditional sentence orders in cases in which offenders do not pose a risk to the public safety. This would allow them to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest or curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family, community and health-related support systems. I think most Canadians would agree that conditional sentences are appropriate sentencing tools and should be available to judges for appropriate cases. I would expect that they would be used in less serious cases, and I am confident that judges could make appropriate assessments as to their use.

Lastly, the bill would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to criminal charges for simple possession of drugs, such as a warning or diversion to an addiction treatment program. These measures are consistent with the government's approach to treating substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada as health issues rather than criminal justice issues. I believe the government is on the right track with this bill, and I urge Parliament to support its swift passage.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on assuming the chair. I think you are quite enjoying yourself there.

Bill C-5 is important legislation to provide greater flexibility to the criminal justice system and support appropriate and proportionate responses to crime. In doing so, the proposed changes would help to reduce the overall representation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in the criminal justice system, including by repealing mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have shown to disproportionately impact these groups. The proposed reforms represent an important step in the government's continuing efforts to make our criminal justice system more equitable, accessible and effective.

Of course, law reform is only one way that we can do this but it is an important way and I applaud the Minister of Justice for his leadership. Systemic racism and discrimination are real problems in the criminal justice system and the consequences of leaving these problems unaddressed are significant.

The Conservative Party's sentencing reforms have posed the unconstitutional use of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment and additional restrictions on the availability of conditional sentence orders. These changes have limited judges' ability to impose proportionate sentences and to meaningfully consider the background or systemic factors. Everyone in this place believes Canada has one of the best judicial systems in the world.

We trust that our judges are best placed to interpret and administer the law. However, what the previous Conservative government did, by passing the number of mandatory minimum sentencing laws that it did, was take away a judge's discretion. The Conservatives' opposition to this bill today only further illustrates the belief that politicians know better than judges when it comes to administering the law.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington. It is a great opportunity to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that the Conservatives would have us believe is making the sky fall.

In reality, Bill C-5 would remove mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for only 14 of the 67 offences that currently have them. Of course, we have not heard that figure from the other side yet today. Those 14 that would be adjusted are based on data, facts and science, and an understanding that we trust our judges to make sentencing decisions and use their discretion in certain circumstances. I say there are only 14 because Conservatives would have us believe we are completely eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing, when in fact this would have an effect on 14 of those related to firearms and six with respect to drug offences.

I have said this before in questions and comments, and I will say it again now. This really comes down to a fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives. I understand and know this from the experiences I have had in the riding that I come from. In the immediate area of Kingston, we used to have seven penitentiaries before the Conservatives closed Kingston Penitentiary Now we have six. We have a great understanding of and community support for the role prisons can play in the rehabilitative process.

The basic premises, the ideas and the philosophies could not be any more starkly different between Conservatives and Liberals than they are on this particular issue. When it comes to Conservatives, the answer to people who break the law is very simple. They lock them up and throw away the key. That is the end of it. On this side of the House, we believe that there is a role for government to play in making sure individuals can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, so they can be productive members of that society.

I brought this up after the speech by the member for Portage—Lisgar. She took great exception, saying that Conservatives believe wholeheartedly in the idea of making sure that criminals, or potential criminals in this case, do not get to the place of breaking the law before we have to start dealing with them.

I would ask her to explain to me why Conservatives spent more money on building megaprisons during their time in power than they did on housing. That should say something. Conservatives built megaprisons at various locations, all the while claiming that they really wanted to ensure people had the opportunity to become rehabilitated. Then why were they focusing so much on building more capacity to house individuals than they were on such a fundamental need as housing? That is what this really comes down to.

It is a philosophical difference of opinion on the role corrections plays in our society. We know exactly where the Conservatives stand on this. I know it is frustrating and hard to hear this, which is why some of them have been heckling me, but it is the truth. Sometimes the truth does hurt. It is the reality of the situation. There is nothing wrong with having that philosophical ideal, but they need to stand by it and say that it is what they believe in. All of their actions have only ever been to support that.

Again, I know this from my time in municipal politics in Kingston. There was a great program that helped rehabilitate individuals in prisons, and these programs were the prison farms. We had those throughout the country. However, the Conservatives came along and decided to get rid of them.

This one is even better. The main rationale of the Conservatives for getting rid of the prison farms was that inmates were not becoming farmers once they were out of prison. The Conservatives were completely unable to realize the value of what inmates were receiving through these programs, which were able to rehabilitate people. There were stories of inmates who had been in and out of prison their whole lives and then got into the prison farming program, and it completely changed who they were. They would then get out of prison and, yes, they may not have decided to become farmers, but they were completely changed individuals in how they approached life.

The fact that Conservatives chose to get rid of the prison farm program was so offensive, not only to those who had been through the program, or the guards who had seen how effective it was, but also to the general community. We had people protesting in Kingston for five years in a row. Every Monday, there would be protests on Bath Road right in front of Collins Bay Institution, protesting what the previous Conservative government had done when it closed prison farms.

The protesters knew that those programs offered meaningful opportunity for people to become rehabilitated, which brings me back to my point about the philosophical differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals. It comes down to whether we believe we have an opportunity and, more importantly, an obligation to help rehabilitate people so they can become productive members of society or whether we just lock them up and throw away the key, which is exactly what the Conservatives would like to do.

I want to talk very briefly about one last point, and that is the issue around the percentages of people who are being incarcerated, which has been brought up a number of times today.

We have to agree that when Black people represent only 3% of people in our country but 7% of people in our prisons or, even more staggering, when indigenous people represent only 5% of people in our country but 30% of people in prisons, we have a really big problem with systemic racism, and we need to address that. We need to look for opportunities.

We need to empower people who have the ability to impact lives, such as judges, to have the ability to set people off on a different course, one that could be beneficial to their life experiences and influence who they ultimately become. That is what this bill is, in my opinion. This bill is about empowering individuals, specifically the judges, to whom we have given the authority to cast judgment on those who break the law. We need to give them the ability to make sure that, if there is an opportunity to change a life, they can actually do that.

This is something that has been brought up by previous speakers today. It was also a call to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. As was indicated so eloquently by one of my NDP colleagues, this is something that has not had the impact Conservatives, and possibly Liberals back in the day, had intended when they brought mandatory minimum sentencing legislation in at the time. We have an opportunity now to correct that, fix it and to put ourselves on the right path in terms of genuinely looking for ways to rehabilitate people so that they can be reintroduced into society and become productive members of that society.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-5 is implemented as currently written and applied evenly regardless of race, how would this help marginalized felons? Who do the lower penalties for illicit drug possession and crimes involving firearms really benefit?

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In the six years that I have been a member of Parliament, I have never seen a greater disconnect between how a bill has been advertised and what is in the substance of the bill. The Liberals today have been doing a good job of patting themselves on the back, touting Bill C-5 as landmark progressive legislation. The bill has been advertised as legislation that addresses systemic racism. The Liberals claim that it would help address Black, indigenous and marginalized groups that are caught up in Canada's criminal justice system. They claim that the bill would help persons who are suffering from drug addictions to stay out of jail and get the help they need. If, in fact, the substance of the bill did what the Liberals have advertised the bill to be, it would be a supportable bill and it would be a laudable bill. The problem is that the bill would do none of those things. Simply put, Bill C-5 is not as advertised.

Let us unpack that for a moment and in that regard, let us look at the issue and the claim that the bill supposedly would help persons suffering from addictions.

I could not agree more that it is important to help persons suffering from addictions to get treatment, to rehabilitate so they can become happy and contributing members of society again. I certainly agree that when it comes to minor possession, it is not appropriate in most circumstances to prosecute. Indeed, it historically has been rare for persons found with minor possession of drugs to be prosecuted solely on that minor possession.

Today, those prosecutions do not happen because of a directive issued by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which provides that in cases of minor possession, prosecutions shall not proceed except where there are public safety concerns. This bill would not change that. It is true that the bill would codify that in law, and that is fine. It is probably the only reasonable aspect of the bill. However, it would not change the status quo, namely that today in Canada persons are not charged and are not prosecuted for minor possession. The question then becomes this. What exactly would the bill do for persons who are suffering from issues of addictions?

When one actually reads the text of the bill, one would be surprised that the Liberal solution to helping persons suffering with addictions is to help criminals who prey on persons suffering from addictions. The bill would roll back sentences for some very serious drug offences. It would roll back mandatory sentencing for drug trafficking and it would roll back sentencing for the serious crime of importing and exporting drugs.

Any reasonable person can distinguish, very clearly, between drug trafficking and importing and exporting drugs compared to that of a vulnerable person who might be suffering from mental health issues or other issues who happens to be caught with a small amount of drugs. There is a world of difference, and yet for such marginalized people, the bill would do nothing to help them, but it would help drug dealers and drug pushers. Remarkably, one of the offences that is rolled back in the bill is with respect to producers, manufacturers of schedule 1 drugs, including hard drugs, such as cocaine and heroin as well as fentanyl and crystal meth.

We have an opioid crisis in Canada today. Every day, approximately 20 Canadians lose their lives to an opioid overdose. It has increased by 88% since the onset of COVID, 7,000 Canadians a year. The Liberal government's solution is to roll back mandatory sentencing for the very people who are putting this poison on our streets, endangering lives and killing 20 Canadians a day.

If I were someone who was suffering with a drug addiction issue and that was a solution the Liberal government had to help me, I would tell it that I did not need its help, that I did not want its help because it would be completely counterproductive. It is completely the opposite of what the government claims the bill is about. When it comes to supporting persons who are suffering from drug addictions, simply put, Bill C-5 is not as advertised.

What about the claim that the bill would tackle systemic racism, that it would really help Black, indigenous and marginalized groups of Canadians? I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spent some time on that topic this morning. There is absolutely nothing concrete in the bill to tackle systemic racism. There is absolutely nothing in the bill for Black, indigenous and other marginalized groups of Canadians.

What there is in this bill is the rolling back of some very serious firearms offences. What kinds of offences? We are talking about robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, using a firearm in the commission of a crime and many other serious offences that the bill would roll back. How does that help address systemic racism? How does that help Black, indigenous and other marginalized Canadians? The answer is that it would do nothing.

It is outrageous, beyond shameful, that the government has used vulnerable Canadians, marginalized Canadians, as cover for the real objective of the bill, which is to pursue a Liberal ideological agenda of going soft on criminals. It is also ironic because we heard, during the very recent federal election campaign, a lot of rhetoric from the Liberals about how firearms posed a significant threat to public safety and the security of our communities. Then, within three and a half weeks of the House reconvening following the election, what does the government do? It introduces legislation not to get tough on firearms offences, but to help people who use firearms and put the lives of people at risk to stay out of jail and in the community.

It is hardly a surprise given the record of the government. In the last Parliament, my former Conservative colleague, Bob Saroya, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-238. That bill would have increased penalties for persons who were convicted of knowingly being in possession of a smuggled firearm. Why was that an important bill? If the government were serious about tackling firearms crime, it would recognize that 80% of firearms offences in Canada are committed with a smuggled firearm. It would logically follow that a bill like Bill C-238 would be welcome, but instead, one by one, the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, voted to defeat that bill.

It shows that when it comes to actually coming up with solutions to tackle firearms crime, the government is just simply AWOL. However, when it comes to firearms, I have to give it some credit, perhaps backhanded credit, for being consistent. The Liberals have been consistently tough on firearms, tough on law-abiding firearms owners. That is when they really get tough. However, when it comes to people who commit crimes with firearms, it is a whole different story. The Liberals in that case are more interested in giving criminals a free pass. It really highlights what a misplaced set of priorities the government has.

We hear a lot of rhetoric over there about evidence-based decision-making. Going after law-abiding firearms owners while at the same time rolling back sentences for people who commit crimes with firearms is ideological decision-making, not evidence-based decision-making.

Again, when it comes to helping marginalized and disadvantaged Canadians, Bill C-5 is simply not as advertised.

The Minister of Justice, in the press release he issued announcing the introduction of Bill C-5, was noted as saying that serious criminals should face serious punishment and be separated from our communities. I could not agree more with the Minister of Justice with respect to his comment. However, consistent with a bill that is not as advertised, when one opens up Bill C-5, one learns that it does exactly the opposite of what the minister claims to be concerned about. He says that we should keep serious criminals out of our communities, but the bill drastically opens up conditional sentencing orders for serious crimes, including kidnapping, kidnapping a minor, human trafficking, arson for a fraudulent purpose and aggravated assault with a weapon. What this bill means is that those convicted of these serious offences may not have to spend a single day in jail. Instead, they will have an opportunity to serve their sentence in the community and maybe even next door to their victim.

The minister talks about the fact that serious criminals should face serious punishment, but does he not consider arsonists, kidnappers and persons convicted of sexual assault to be serious criminals? I challenge him to say that, because I think any reasonable person would say that such criminals are serious criminals. They pose a threat to public safety and they should be doing time behind bars, not out on the streets.

Despite all the ways the government has tried to sell this bill, what is completely lacking is any support for marginalized Canadians. This bill does nothing to provide training, counselling or other supports. We on this side of the House strongly believe in reducing recidivism. It was, in fact, a Conservative member of Parliament, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, who introduced Bill C-228 in the last Parliament, a framework to reduce recidivism. Bill C-5 offers nothing in that regard.

In closing, Bill C-5 puts the rights of criminals first and the rights of victims last. It endangers public safety while doing nothing to help marginalized and vulnerable Canadians. If the Liberals were honest and advertised this bill truthfully, they would advertise it as the soft-on-crime, do-no-time bill. This bill needs to be defeated.

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

Madam Speaker, before I provide my comments on Bill C-5, I want to take a moment to congratulate the Bombers on their performance yesterday in the Grey Cup. I, along with hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, take in the annual festivities of the Grey Cup, which is a great Canadian tradition, and we are very proud in Winnipeg of how the Bombers performed. The coaching staff, players and administration all did an outstanding job, winning the Grey Cup for the second consecutive year, although there was a one-year pause in the CFL. I am very proud of the team, and I know I speak on behalf of all residents of Manitoba and Bomber fans in all regions of our country.

Having said that, I am often reminded there is a great divide between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party when it comes to justice-related issues. I approach it with a bit of a different bias, having had an opportunity in different capacities to get a sense of young people's interactions with the law.

I was the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years in my local community and was also a justice critic. I had the good fortune of being an MLA for a number of years and had the opportunity to be a justice critic in the province of Manitoba.

I look at Bill C-5 as positive legislation that would make a difference. Back when I was the chair of the justice committee a gentleman by the name of Gary Kowalski, who was a colleague of mine and represented The Maples, opened my eyes to what justice committees were all about.

There are youth in all our communities who at times do things maybe they should not. They will fall on the other side of the law. In many of these cases, especially in the early nineties, often 16-year-olds or 14-year-olds would go to local stores, pick up something and decide not to pay for it. They were often first-time offenders. As opposed to having local police enforcement, in particular the Winnipeg police department, lay charges against those youths, they were provided the alternative of going before a youth justice committee. If the youths agreed to participate and fulfill the disposition of whatever the youth justice committee came up with, they would not be registered as having committed that criminal offence.

I was amazed when I found out about the group and wanted to know how we could get more people engaged and what sort of level of interest there would be. When I advertised it in the community of Inkster, which was the provincial area I represented at the time, no shortage of people were interested in being these quasi-judicial probation officers, because that is in fact what we were. We were honorary quasi-judicial probation officers.

At the first meeting, we probably had 40-plus residents. The average justice committee was under 20 people, so we had to decide who would be the most interested in moving forward. Some of the personalities on the committee were fairly hard: There were harsh individuals there. When we started to see young people come before the committee, even the harshest of them all had a much better appreciation and understanding. We would see youths who stole something from a store, and as a direct result they would have to do X, Y and Z and go through the courts.

One can talk about individual youths. One could also talk about the costs to society, such as court costs and so forth. I would argue that the cases we were receiving, at least in the first number of years, were best dealt with by our justice committee.

The committee was dealing with youth who were committing offences in the community. I believe that really had an impact. I remember a librarian at one of our local schools who got to know some of the youth. The dispositions that were typically given were for community service. Whenever we met with a 14-year-old or someone under the age of 18, and that was all of the time, we also had a parent come forward. It was amazing when we saw that 14-year-old without peer pressure, without his or her friends around, sitting in a chair with a guardian who was usually a mom or a dad. That young person would kind of shrink into the chair, head down, often breaking into tears. We got that sense of remorse. There was an appreciation of the terms of the crime committed and the circumstances around it.

We all knew what impact peer pressure can have on a young mind when going into a store with a friend. It does not make it right, but hopefully we could be a little more sympathetic as a community. I would argue that because we took that community approach, we said to our young people coming before us that we genuinely cared for them, and that they had fallen on the wrong side but we wanted to help them get on the right side. I know first-hand that some of the youth who went through our program ultimately ended up working in jobs and made reference to the positive impact of the dispositions given to them. There is an alternative.

When the Minister of Justice was talking, he said that the bill was all about low-risk offenders. However, listening to some of the rhetoric coming from the Conservative benches one would think that a cold-blooded murderer was going to be let go. The Conservatives seem to have this tough-on-crime mentality, whether it is better or healthier for our communities or not. I saw that in opposition and I am seeing it again today. The Conservative Party needs to better understand that people who become incarcerated, generally speaking, are going to be released someday. It is important that our justice system is there to protect the public. The issues of public safety and rehabilitation need to be factored in. The closer we get to doing everything right, the safer our communities will be.

For political purposes, for the three-inch headlines, Conservatives have a mentality that gives the impression that as a caucus they are tough on crime, that there is a consequence for crime, and that criminals are going to go to jail for a long time. That is the impression the Conservatives want to give. What is worse, they then try to give false impressions. Their first speaker, the critic, talked about how the Liberals were saying that if people committed certain crimes they would not have to go to jail: there would be no problem with it. The legislation would pass and people would not have to go to jail.

One of the fundamental differences between Liberals and the Conservative Party is that we have more faith in our judicial system and the independence of our judges. When judges have been appointed at the federal and provincial levels, especially in the last six years, we have been very diligent in ensuring that judicial appointments were done in a way that Canadians could be very proud of. We are saying that when a judge is appointed, that judge is in a far better position than any one of us to give a disposition in the best interests of the communities we represent and of the individual who committed a crime. That is what this legislation is really about, from my perspective.

Judges are well equipped to deal with low-risk offenders and the circumstances surrounding the offences, but if we listen to the Conservative rhetoric on the other side, one gets the impression that Liberals want these people to be set free: that we want to let them go. We are saying we have confidence in our judges. We are saying that we need to recognize that systemic racism is real, it is there and we need to do something.

The Conservative Party talks about truth and reconciliation and how important it is to the party. As a government over the last number of years, we have passed laws whether on language, children, the statutory holiday or more, all dealing with the calls to action. I keep my little book with me in the chamber that talks about the importance of truth and reconciliation. In fact, it has the 94 calls to action in it.

The member from the Green Party referred to call to action 32. I will read it. It states:

We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.

The government has enacted a number of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We are acting upon somewhere around 75% to 80% of the ones we are responsible for or have shared responsibility for. It is in progress. It is not like we can click our heels and they are all done. We recognize that. That is the reason we feel it is important to get this bill passed.

Many government members would love to see the bill passed sooner as opposed to later, and we understand the Conservatives will have some concerns with regard to the legislation. I would challenge members of the Conservative Party in particular, as an opposition party, to talk to me about truth and reconciliation and call to action 32, and to tell us how and why they believe this legislation goes against it. I suggest the bill supports call to action 32. That is one of the reasons it is getting the support it is receiving, at least from the government and members of the Liberal caucus. When we talk about truth and reconciliation and establishing that relationship, which I know is so important to the Prime Minister of Canada, this is the type of legislation that will make a difference.

If members were listening to the Minister of Justice, he gave us some percentages, and so did the parliamentary secretary. I made a quick note. The parliamentary secretary said that the Black community makes up 3% of Canada's population, yet when we look at federal institutions, it makes up 7%. When we look at indigenous communities across Canada, which make up around 5% of the overall population of our country, they make up close to 30% of federal inmates. That is 30%, based on 5% of the population.

How can we not look at this call for action and react to it? Some of my colleagues across the way said that some of these minimum sentences were put in during other administrations, the odd one even referencing Liberal administrations. It is important to recognize that we have been in government for just over six years. How time goes by.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to the member for Portage—Lisgar for her re-election.

I wanted to note that in Bill C-5, of the 73 mandatory minimum penalties, only 13 are repealed in full, 20 in full or in part and only 10 of the 28 that have been ruled unconstitutional are part of the bill. At a time when we know that sentencing judges would still be required to impose a sentence that is proportional to the degree of responsibility and seriousness of the offence and at a time when we know that the TRC call to action 32 has called for departing from mandatory minimums and that mandatory minimums contribute to systemic racism, could the member comment on her opposition to this particular bill?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, to follow up on what my colleague was saying about violence and the police, does she think that passing Bill C‑5 could jeopardize public safety in any way?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House and speak to this bill. It is my first time rising to give a full speech since the last election. I was able to give a short statement a week and a half ago, but this is my first opportunity to give a full speech. I do want to say a big thanks to the people of Portage—Lisgar who voted for me, and those who did not vote for me, because I am here to represent all my constituents in Portage—Lisgar. This is the fifth time they have sent me to the House.

As I said in my previous statement, it was a difficult election, so I really appreciate the people who stood with me, those who worked and who volunteered. They volunteered in offices and with door knocking, and they donated. They were there for me.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my campaign team. I specifically want to mention Deb, Colleen and Neal. Then there was Hank, Glenn and Brian, who were always there, and countless others who supported me. As I have a little time today, I also want to say a big thanks to my husband, Michael. This was his second election with me. When we met, he did not know that he would be entering the world of politics, but he is actually pretty good at door knocking. He is very efficient and he knows how to keep me moving through the doors. I appreciate his love and support as well.

Portage—Lisgar sent me to Ottawa to be their voice. It is so important that we, as MPs, stay connected to our riding and put our riding's needs, priorities, and ways of looking at our country and, indeed, of addressing problems that face our country first and foremost in all that we do. That has really been my endeavour since I was first elected back in 2008.

Madam Speaker, you would probably recall that as a new MP, and I think you were a fairly new MP at that time, too, I was able to bring forward a private member's bill to end what we believed was the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. I have a funny story. Madam Speaker very much supported the long gun registry. We were on different sides of that issue.

In sending thank you letters to everyone in the chamber who supported my private member's bill, I accidentally sent one to Madam Speaker, who was understandably unhappy with me because she did not support it and did not want her constituents to think that she had. I am not sure if she recalls that. I see that she does, and I do as well. Hopefully she has forgiven me for that faux pas back then.

I did appreciate the support I got from people in the chamber. The interesting thing I learned during that entire endeavour was that members of Parliament sometimes say one thing in their riding and then something very different in the House of Commons. Madam Speaker was not one of those. She was consistent in her riding and in Ottawa. She supported the long gun registry.

However, there were MPs from the NDP side, and even a few from the Liberal side, who told their constituents they supported law-abiding Canadians and the ability of farmers, duck hunters, rural Canadians, indigenous Canadians and others to legally have firearms and not have to register them, but then they came to Ottawa and voted completely differently. They were what some would call two-faced in how they presented themselves in their riding and how they voted.

That was an interesting first lesson for me. The other thing I learned working on ending the long gun registry was how valuable stakeholders are in developing legislation. When I am talking about issues around crime, guns and how to combat crime, gun crime specifically, frontline police officers were some of the best resources for me. Certainly I talked the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters a lot. I talked to the Shooting Federation of Canada. I talked to countless men and women who were involved in hunting and who used firearms on their farms.

I have to say, when I talked to frontline officers and asked them, again as a new MP, if we were to end the long gun registry, would we hurt the work they were trying to do as police officers. They overwhelmingly told me, “No, the long gun registry does not help us”.

What they were having problems with, they told me, were criminals, gangsters and drug dealers on the street victimizing people, luring people into gang activity and using guns in the commission of a crime. They said they needed us, as the Conservative government, to get tough on those individuals. Needless to say, my private member's bill did not pass. It was defeated, but it really brought the issue to the forefront.

In 2011, we had an election and a number of the Liberal MPs who had been inconsistent in terms of where they stood on the long-gun registry lost their ridings and the Conservative Party won a majority government. We were then able, through a government bill, to end the long-gun registry and enact what we believed as a government was the best way to combat gun crime.

All of us in the House know that gun crime in Canada is a problem. Thankfully, we do not have the same degree of gun violence that the U.S. has, but the gun violence we are seeing in Canada is alarming, and it is only growing. It was something that we, as a Conservative government, recognized was a problem that had to be addressed.

The Conservative approach to gun crime was to, first of all, not spend time, energy, resources and police time targeting law-abiding Canadians. These are Canadians who legally own firearms, have licences to own their firearms and have gone through safety courses. We have very strong laws, and so we should, around the transport of firearms, background checks, storing firearms and using firearms.

Conservatives believe in that kind of regime. We believe that we should have strong legislation around who owns firearms and how those firearms are used. Conservatives supported that, but we did not believe we should be using all of our resources, political resources and the finances of the country to target law-abiding Canadians. Why would we? They are following the law. They are not using their firearms to commit crimes.

I remember when I was doing the work on this, an interesting statistic was, and I have said this before in the chamber, if someone has a licence to own a firearm, that person is 50% less likely to ever commit a crime with a gun. That statistic was valid back in 2009-10, and I would say it probably still is today. Those of us here who do not have a licence to own a firearm are actually 50% more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It is only logical that law-abiding Canadians trying to follow the rules and want to own firearms for the right reasons are going to keep following the law. Conservatives said not to focus on those people, not make life more difficult for those people, but make sure they follow the law and keep the rules strong.

If we look at criminals and criminal activity going on primarily in our major cities back in 2011, gun crime was on the rise in places such Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, and even in places like Edmonton, Winnipeg and some of the smaller cities. The Conservative focus was to ensure that people who commit crimes with guns were put in jail.

Over the years, I see more and more that there is hope for many people who find themselves involved in criminal activity. Not all of them are horrible people for whom there is no hope. There is hope for people to change.

Once someone walks into a store with a gun, puts it against the head of somebody and says, “Give me all your money, or I'm going to shoot”, public safety then becomes a priority. The minister referred to somebody who had been drinking too much and did something they regretted. We need to help those people before they get to the point of committing these kinds of crimes. Once they have committed the crime, they need help, and many times the most help they are going to get is in a federal penitentiary. They will actually get more help if they get two years plus than they would in a provincial facility.

Let us help them before they get involved in a life of crime. At least, that is what the Conservatives believe. We proposed some great measures in this last election. Our leader and our party presented some really good, solid and practical solutions to helping people with addictions and mental health issues.

Helping people before they get involved in crime is really the way to do it. However, once they have committed a crime, and I will say it once again, protecting the public should become the government's top priority. That was the Conservatives' top priority. Let us not focus on law-abiding gun owners; let us focus on criminals.

I would now like to focus on the different approach taken by the Liberals since 2015 to combat gun violence. As the Conservatives, we had our approach, and when the Liberals were elected, they had their approach. Their approach is to get out the big hammer, come down hard on farmers and duck hunters, and throw the book at them because they are easy to go after.

I know not every Liberal in the House should be painted with the same brush, but it would appear the Liberal government wants to do the easy thing, which is a lot of great virtue signalling, but does not accomplish anything. Therefore, they go after what some would say is the low-hanging fruit, the law-abiding Canadians. That is who the Liberals go after.

Then they have no problem being hard and very severe. Once the hammer comes down, somehow they do not care about how people feel or the stress law-abiding Canadians are being put under when they are made out to be criminals. Somehow compassion, common sense, justice and fairness are not words found in the vocabulary of the Liberal government when it talks about what it is going to do to law-abiding Canadians who own firearms.

The minute the government had the chance, it called an election. Then, when it got to this Parliament, the first thing it wanted to do was pass a bill to make life easier for the people who commit armed robbery with a gun and say it will help those people who are marginalized. However, people who are minorities are probably victimized even more by gun crime, so saying that it will help marginalized Canadians and reduce gun crime is insanity.

I want to go to my graph to talk about the evidence. This covers the reporting period from 2004 to 2020. It is entitled, “Shootings & Firearm Discharges in the City of Toronto”. I will not go through all of the years, because I do not have enough time, but I will say this. In 2014, we had a Conservative majority government with Conservative legislation and a Conservative approach to combatting gun crimes, and shootings and firearm discharges by year were at an all-time low of 177, although that sounds like a lot. At the start of 2016, all the way to 2020, it was as follows: in 2016, 407; in 2017, 392; in 2018, 427; in 2019, 492; and, in 2020, a whopping 462. The numbers have skyrocketed.

I will now turn to the number of persons killed and injured, the instances where peoples' lives have been impacted. Innocent people and children have been killed and injured, not while they were off hunting with grandpa or killing some rodents on the farm. In cities in our country, children and teenagers have been and are being killed by people who are committing crimes with illegal guns, which have, often times, been smuggled in and sold illegally, so I want to talk about the number of people who were killed and injured per year.

In 2012, there were 114 deaths and injuries. That is sad. In 2013, there were 119. In 2014, there were 76. We start to see the trend go down. By 2015, there were 125. It starts going up and then my graph is cut off. In 2017, there were 148. We have seen the numbers go up consistently under the Liberal government. The point of this is that the Liberal approach to combatting gun crime is not working. It is very disappointing to see that the Liberals are continuing the same pattern they started.

The bill that we are debating today is Bill C-5. It is basically a reintroduction of the previous bill, but it really does the same harm and damage. I think there could be some agreement and work we could do to help people struggling with addictions and mental health, but this approach is so backward. It just feels like what the Liberals do is always backward. When the minister said that if someone commits a crime with a long gun then there will not be mandatory minimum sentences; he was somehow trying to comfort Canadians. I think that is what I heard him say.

No, if a person commits a crime with a long gun, small gun, short gun, handgun or any gun, public safety and justice should be paramount in the government's policy and that person should go to jail. That is a bottom-line principle that the Conservatives believe. The Liberals somehow think that they can kind of twist it around, virtue signal here and soften it there. It is very hard to understand their logic.

Bill C-5 reduces mandatory minimum sentences for a number of drug offences. I am sure we will have a chance to talk about that, but the ones that I am concerned about are to do with gun violence in Canada and its massive increase.

A lot of what the Liberals are reducing in taking away of mandatory minimum sentences have to do with people literally committing crimes with guns, such as robbery. These crimes are just so serious. I do not think any of us can imagine getting held up. Imagine if a person is working in a store or at a local gas station and someone comes in with a gun and asks for all the money or they will shoot, and then the firearm is discharged.

People who commit these kinds of crimes are a danger to society for whatever reason. They may have a mental health issue. They may have an addiction. They need treatment for that, but the protection of the public should come before the treatment of the criminal. That is what Conservatives believe.

I want to tell colleagues what frontline officers are saying. I am going right to an individual who is a frontline officer dealing every day with very serious crimes. She said this:

“Criminals using illicit firearms in the commission of an offence is now a common occurrence. The violence I see is unprecedented. I see it first-hand. I often feel like I am working in a war zone with no end in sight. Recently I was mandated to be certified in tactical trauma care to help save the lives of gunshot victims in the critical minutes following a shooting until we can make the scene safe for paramedics. As a police officer, it is incredibly frustrating to see the revolving door of criminals in and out of jail. Violent offenders out on bail or receiving conditional sentences for the violent crimes they committed. Not to mention continuously breaching their conditions and being arrested again and again. How do I protect victims? Repealing mandatory minimum such as Firearms offences, Discharging a Firearm with Intent, Robbery with a firearm and Extortion with a firearm are incredibly serious offences that put the public at serious risk. Offenders need to stay in custody where they should receive meaningful rehabilitation. I am sickened to hear and sincerely hope that Bill C-5 will not proceed any further in the best interest, safety and well-being of Canadians.”

I respect the work that our police officers do. Let us listen to our frontline officers. Let us definitely help the people who need help, but when they cross the line and commit violent crimes, we have to protect Canadians first and foremost.

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

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I left off on Bill C-5.

This bill would accomplish important objectives by advancing a series of coordinating sentencing measures and policies in three broad areas. First, it would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences; second, it would increase the availability of conditional sentences without compromising public safety; and third, it would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to require police and prosecutors to consider diverting cases of simple drug possession away from courts at the earliest point of contact. I will address each of these important amendments in turn.

With Bill C-5, we are proposing to repeal the mandatory minimum sentences for 14 Criminal Code offences, 13 related to firearms and one related to tobacco. We are also repealing the mandatory minimum sentences for all offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These offences are associated with the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of other marginalized communities in our prison system.

These reforms will also repeal the three- and five-year mandatory minimum penalties for illegal possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm and the one-year mandatory minimum penalty for drug trafficking struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our reasoning is simple. Sentences must be appropriate to the unique circumstances of the crime. All too often, a rigid approach to sentencing results in a grossly disproportionate outcome, particularly when the offence is broad in scope. It has been shown that mandatory minimums have not only failed to protect our communities, but also contributed to the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in our prison system. That is especially true for drug- and firearm-related offences.

I want to pause here for a moment and let the numbers speak for themselves. Data from the Correctional Service of Canada from 2007-2017 reveals that 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people incarcerated in a federal institution between those years were there for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Further, during the same years, the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty almost doubled, from 14% to 26%. During this time frame, indigenous people also represented 40% of all federally incarcerated offenders admitted for a firearm-related offence.

Regrettably, the data does not get better when we look at the experience of Black Canadians and their interaction with the criminal justice system. From 2007-2017, nearly half, more specifically 43% of all federally incarcerated offenders convicted of importing or exporting a controlled substance or possessing controlled substances for exporting under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were Black adults.

These statistics are a sad testament to policies that focus on incarceration and the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences. Some would have us believe that mandatory minimums are the only way to fight crime. That is simply not true.

Mandatory minimum sentences have been around for decades because the previous Conservative government brought in a whole host of new ones without taking into account what kind of impact they were actually having. We know that a more nuanced approach is needed, and that is exactly what our government is doing.

The data show who is in prison and why. If the mandatory minimum sentences are repealed, as provided for in Bill C-5, people can still be given tough sentences. However, the courts will be able to take into account the unique circumstances of each offence and determine the most appropriate sentence, rather than being limited by the mandatory minimums.

I know that many people are concerned about the rise in gun violence we are seeing now. As a Montrealer, I want to say that I understand them, but I also want to be very clear: When it comes to firearms, serious crimes will continue to receive serious penalties.

The repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for some does not mean that public safety will be compromised. Bill C-5 gives the courts the flexibility to consider alternatives for low-risk offenders. By repealing mandatory minimum sentences, we are reducing these individuals' risk of reoffending and building a safer society.

For example, let us look at the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Nur, which struck down mandatory minimum sentences but upheld a sentence above the prescribed minimum.

That is why the repeal of mandatory minimums in the bill is expected to reduce the overall incarceration rate for indigenous and Black Canadians.

Repealing mandatory minimum sentences ensures that an individual convicted of an offence receives a sentence that is proportionate to their degree of responsibility and the seriousness of the offence, taking individual factors into account. These factors could include an indigenous offender's experience with intergenerational trauma or residential schools, or a Black offender's experience with systemic racism.

To this end, the government recognizes that restoring a sentencing court's ability to consider important sentencing principles is only one part of the equation. The other part is getting this important information before the sentencing court, so that it can account for all relative sentencing factors in imposing a fit sentence.

That is where program funding comes in. The government is providing $49.3 million over five years to support the application of Gladue principles and the integration of Gladue reporting writing in the justice system. This is critical to help address systemic barriers for indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system by ensuring that the background and systemic factors that bring them into contact with the justice system are taken into account at sentencing. It is also critical to help inform reasonable alternatives to sentencing for indigenous accused.

What is more, the government is making investments of $6.6 million per year over five years and $1.6 million in ongoing funding in support of the implementation of impact of race and cultural assessments, or IRCAs, which will ensure that a sentencing court can consider the disadvantage and systemic factors that contribute to racialized Canadians' interactions with the criminal justice system.

The government is also investing $21.5 million over five years to support access to legal information and advice for racialized Canadians. This would support organizations that provide free public legal education and information, as well as those that provide legal services and advice to racialized communities.

I want to be very clear about who we are targeting and not targeting with this bill. This bill is about low-risk offenders.

Bill C‑5 does not repeal mandatory minimum sentences for the most serious firearms offences, which of course include offences that result in people being injured, offences committed with a restricted or prohibited weapon and offences involving gangs or organized crime.

We are determined to crack down on the major crimes that make our cities and communities less safe. Let me reiterate: Serious crimes will continue to have serious consequences.

In its platform, our government committed to continuing to combat gender-based violence and fight gun crime with measures we had previously introduced, such as lifetime background checks to prevent those with a history of abuse against their spouse or partner from obtaining a firearms licence; red flag laws that would allow immediate removal of firearms if a person is a threat to themselves or others, particularly to their spouse or partner; increased maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment; and enhancing the capacity of the RCMP and the CBSA to combat the illegal importation of firearms.

Bill C-5 would make our justice system more fair and more just for young, first-time or non-violent offenders by giving judges back the ability to impose a sentence that fits the crime and the offender. However, nothing in this bill would prevent a judge from imposing a serious sentence where it is warranted.

I would like to turn to the proposed changes in Bill C‑5 regarding the elimination of restrictions on conditional sentences. Bill C‑5 would allow for greater use of conditional sentences so that courts can impose community-based sentences of less than two years when the offender does not pose a threat to public safety. Here too the evidence is clear. Incarceration, especially for low-risk offenders, is associated with higher rates of recidivism. That is not my opinion; that is a fact.

It has also been proven that alternatives to incarceration, such as sentences served in the community, can have a significant positive impact and improve the likelihood of successful reintegration into the community, which also helps reduce the risk of recidivism. Once again, that is a fact, not an opinion.

It has also been proven that recidivism rates among offenders who receive conditional sentences are relatively low. This is according to a large body of research showing that tackling the root causes of delinquency can produce long-term benefits for the individual, improve the efficiency of the justice system and protect society as a whole. It is not hard to see why. Community-based sentencing is an option that eliminates the negative effects of incarceration, thereby promoting offender rehabilitation.

Restrictions enacted by the previous Conservative government in 2007 in former Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, and in 2012 by former Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act, made it much harder for a sentencing court to impose these sentences. These reforms made conditional sentences unavailable for all offences punishable by maximum terms of imprisonment of 14 years or more, as well as for some offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. These laws tied the courts' hands. These amendments to the conditional sentencing regime, coupled with the increased use of mandatory minimum penalties, have produced negative impacts on the criminal justice system as a whole.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentence orders when offenders do not pose a risk to public safety and are facing terms of imprisonment that are under two years or less, and where imposing such a sentence would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing. CSOs would be available for all offences that do not carry a minimum mandatory penalty, including those repealed by this bill, with certain exceptions. Conditional sentences of imprisonment would not be available for the serious offences of advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder and any terrorism or criminal organization offences that are prosecuted by way of indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

I will turn to the other important amendments being advanced in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act shortly. Before I do, let me speak to the positive impacts that can be expected by repealing MMPs and making conditional sentences of imprisonment more widely available.

First of all, as I have already mentioned, we can expect an overall reduction in incarceration rates, particularly as they relate to the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in federal correctional institutions.

Reducing the number of mandatory minimum sentences should also help our courts. In cases involving mandatory minimum sentences, the evidence demonstrates that trials take longer to complete, accused persons are less likely to plead guilty and there is a stark increase in successful charter challenges before Canadian courts.

This all causes delays in the criminal justice system, and we have to deal with them. The bill would improve that situation.

This brings me to the last set of important reforms proposed in Bill C-5. For the first time, we would enact a declaration of principles in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is intended to guide police and prosecutors in the exercise of their discretion to divert simple possession of drugs away from the criminal justice system at an early stage.

At the outset, I would like to thank the member for Beaches—East York for his private member's bill in the last Parliament and his leadership in this area. We agree that these changes to treat addiction as a health issue would improve the state of criminal justice in Canada and may well help save lives during the opioid crisis. These principles are consistent with and informed by the large body of research indicating that criminal sanctions imposed for simple possession of drugs can increase the stigma associated with drug use and are not consistent with established public health evidence.

These reforms reinforce the government's ongoing commitment to addressing the opioid crisis and recognize that substance use is a health issue, not a crime. Accordingly, it requires evidence-based interventions to address its causes rather than its effects, with measures such as education, treatment, detox, rehabilitation and social reintegration.

Police forces and Crown prosecutors will be required to consider alternatives to laying or pursuing criminal charges for individuals who are found in simple possession of controlled substances. Possible actions will include doing nothing, issuing a warning, or referring individuals to alternative measures, including treatment programs.

The reforms in this bill align with the August 2020 guideline of the director of public prosecutions. It tells prosecutors to pursue diversion for simple drug possession cases and instead focus on prosecutions for the most serious drug cases that raise public safety concerns. The proposed amendments also align with the advice given by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They also reflect calls to action made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and recent calls by the Parliamentary Black Caucus to address anti-Black racism and systemic bias and to make the criminal justice system more reflective of our diverse society.

Taken together, this package of reforms is an important reset of our approach to criminal justice. It would allow actors in the system, including police, the Crown and courts, to determine the right course of action for each individual before them. That could mean diversion to a treatment program for an offender who committed a crime in order to feed an addiction, or it could mean a long jail sentence for the drug trafficker who is profiting from selling those drugs to our most vulnerable citizens.

It is high time that Canada adopted an approach that works. Our justice system must be fair and equitable for indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized people, and it must be effective in punishing serious criminal offences and protecting our communities.

We have enough evidence now to know that reflexive and punitive justice policies do not work. They do not make our communities safer, they hurt people and the people they hurt most are indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians.

Our government is set to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. Bill C-5 is an important step in that direction, and I urge all hon. members of the House to support its swift passage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, my thanks for the opportunity to begin my speech at second reading debate on C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today, our government is taking an important step toward making our criminal justice system a more effective and fair justice system where decisions are based on facts. Most importantly, we are delivering on our promise to reintroduce former Bill C-22 within the first 100 days of our government.

Indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities are overrepresented, both as victims and as offenders in the criminal justice system. They face systemic racism and discrimination and are the collateral damage of law reforms that have not made us safer or the justice system more just.

Bill C-5 is an important part of our government's plan to address this unfortunate reality in our criminal justice system. It is also an important step in reorienting our criminal justice system so that it is both fairer and more effective, while ensuring public safety. This bill accomplishes these important objectives by advancing a series of coordinated sentencing measures and policies in three broad areas, which I will take up afterward.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been curious throughout today's debate on Bill C-5. Is it the position of the Conservative Party that its members do not have faith in the men and women of this country who serve as judges? The Conservatives do not seem to believe at all in judicial discretion. The problem with the Conservative approach is that they think that by supporting this bill, or supporting the idea that mandatory minimum sentences should be done away with, means that we somehow also believe that people should just walk away scot-free, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to draw the attention of the member to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which gives judges the ability to either increase or reduce a sentence based on aggravating factors. Would the member not agree that we cannot have a black-and-white approach to every single case? I would rather put my trust in the person who is sitting on the bench who can look at an individual's circumstances and look at the particular severe aspects of the crime and then make the appropriate judgment in each individual case.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin today, I would like to first thank the fine people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for putting their trust in me for the third time. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve them in this capacity.

I thank my core campaign team, including our chair, Ryan Thorburn; volunteer coordinators, office managers, get-out-to-vote leaders, full-time encouragers, and basically the real bosses of the campaign, Sharlyn Wagner and Margo Dick; our IT go-to guy, Dean Grey; my financial wizard and agent, Dave Camphor; planning and printing logistics, Tim Seitz; volunteer care and event planning, Val Seitz; and all things signs, Alex Dumanowski and Gary Proctor. I thank them all so much for their dedication and hard work. They are a testament of what can be accomplished when people get together as a team. I will always be indebted to them.

I thank the many volunteers who door knocked, put up signs, helped in the office and volunteered with scrutineering on election day. None of this is possible without them, and I thank them very much.

I will turn my attention now to Bill C-5, which is the exact same bill, ironically, that was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament before the Prime Minister called his snap vanity election.

The Liberals would want Canadians to believe that Bill C-5 is simply about reducing minimum sentencing for simple drug possession, but that is not so. Most Canadians would be alarmed to learn that the Liberal bill, Bill C-5, is aimed at eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who prey on our communities and victimize the vulnerable.

Bill C-5 proposes to eliminate mandatory prison time not for petty crimes but for things like drug trafficking and acts of violence. It would even allow violent criminals to serve their sentences on house arrest and not in prison, putting our communities at continued risk.

Over the last six years, Liberal legislation on crime and the criminal justice system has been largely out of touch with the realities of most Canadians, especially those impacted by crime. Canada's crime stats confirm that we are seeing rising crime rates all across this country, increased gang violence and shootings, increased organized crime activities, and increased drug trafficking, drug use and drug overdoses.

Let me focus for the next few minutes on examining several of the main areas of Bill C-5, those being the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences, the elimination of mandatory prison time for drug dealers, the expansion of conditional sentences and the diversion for simple drug possession.

I try to look at this legislation through the lenses of having been in law enforcement for 35 years and of being a parliamentarian representing the constituents of my riding and their voices. Let us first of all look at the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences.

In contrast to the Liberal spin on their being so-called tough on gun violence, which is what they have been feeding Canadians, there is the complete hypocrisy of Bill C-5, which proposed to eliminate several mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including serious gun crimes such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with intent, which is Criminal Code language for shooting at someone, illegal possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm, discharging a firearm recklessly and other firearm offences such weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing the firearm is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence in Canada and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking.

What does this really all amount to? Because the Liberals believe the current laws are unfair, they would be eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit such crimes as robbery with a firearm, drive-by shootings and unlawful possession of firearms. It is clearer than ever that the Liberals are more interested in protecting criminals than they are protecting our communities. If we think things are bad now, just wait for this legislation to take effect, should it pass in its current form. I am afraid the worst is yet to come.

Let us look at the second area of the bill, which is the elimination of mandatory prison time for drug dealers. At a time when we are experiencing the heartbreak of addiction and overdose deaths in our country, the Liberals' solution is to eliminate mandatory prison time for several offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which specifically targets drug dealers and offences such as trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing or exporting, or possession for the purpose of importing or exporting; and production of a schedule 1 or schedule 2 substance, which are drugs such as fentanyl, crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, the very drugs that are wreaking havoc on our communities. How does that even make sense?

The Liberals are trying to spin it and say that Bill C-5 will help those who struggle with addictions. Come on, Canadians are not that naive or stupid. They know the Liberals are purposely failing to point out that the mandatory minimums they are eliminating are for drug dealers who specifically prey on those with addictions. This is not the solution. It would only make the current problems a lot worse.

The next area I want to look at in Bill C-5 is the expansion of conditional sentencing. The bill allows for greater use of conditional sentencing orders, such as house arrest, for a significant number of serious offences for which the offender faces a prison term of less than two years. Those offences now include sexual assault; kidnapping; criminal harassment; human trafficking; abduction of a person under the age of 14; assault causing bodily harm or assault with a weapon; assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm, or assaulting a peace officer with a weapon; trafficking or importing schedule 3 drugs, which are hallucinogenic like LSD and psilocybin; and many other offences, such as prison breach, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being in a dwelling house unlawfully, arson for a fraudulent purpose, causing bodily harm and criminal negligence.

What this all means is that criminals who prey on victims in their communities can now serve their sentence at home, many times in the same neighbourhood as their victim. Again, this clearly puts communities at risk. For years now we have heard whispers that the Liberal government was trying to empty out our prisons, expedite parole and reduce sentences. It now appears that those whispers are coming true. I wonder how conditional sentences will deter criminals who prey on our communities.

I also want to touch briefly on another aspect of Bill C-5, which is the diversion measures for simple drug possession. Again, the Liberals are trying to tell us, and are asking Canadians to believe, that the diversion section in Bill C-5 all of a sudden gives police and prosecutors the ability to use their discretion when determining for simple drug possession whether to lay charges, warn, or refer to support programs. It might come as a complete surprise to the Liberals, but that has been the case all along.

Police have been doing that. For decades they have been using their discretion whether to lay charges on someone for drug possession. In fact, Canada's Public Prosecution Service has previously issued a directive to prosecutors to avoid prosecuting simple drug possession unless there are major public safety concerns. Yes, I admit, Bill C-5 now does codify this approach, but it is unlikely to have any impact because this is already the practice when dealing with simple drug possession.

This legislation is out of touch with rising crime on our streets. It is out of touch with the needs of victims and communities battling gang violence. It is out of touch with law enforcement from across the country, who continue to report rising crime, increased violent crime and more gang shootings. This legislation is out of touch with our country's opioid epidemic. Crime has been increasing every year the Liberals have been in power, reversing a two-decade trend. This is the worst government on keeping Canadians safe in the last 20 years.

According to Stats Canada, the crime severity index has risen since 2015 from a 66.9 rating to a 79.5 rating in 2019, a 25% increase in serious crime. The violent crime index has increased from 70.7 in 2014 to 89.7 in 2019, which is also a 25% increase in the last five years.

Stats Canada also reports that rural crime and the rates of rural crime are increasing 23% faster than urban crime rates.

The Toronto Police Service has some of the best publicly available stats when it comes to the realities in its community. There has been an increase in shootings, gun homicides and injuries in each year of the last six years the Liberals have been in government. In comparison, let us first look at 2014, before the Liberals formed government, as the baseline for the Toronto numbers. In 2014, there were 177 shootings in Toronto alone, which resulted in 103 people killed or injured. Those are unacceptable numbers, but pale in comparison to the years that followed. In 2016, there were 393 shootings in Toronto, with 183 people killed or injured. In 2017, there were 367 shootings, with 180 people killed or injured. In 2018, Toronto again had 393 shootings, with 208 people killed or injured. In 2019, those numbers jumped to 492 shootings, with 284 people killed or injured. In 2020, there were 462 shootings, with 217 lives lost or injured. So far, in 2021, those numbers are continuing, at similarly unacceptable rates, with over 380 shootings and 198 people killed or injured.

I am sure Canadians are wondering how this bill will reduce shootings and people dying even by just one. What will removing mandatory minimum sentences on firearms offences such as the ones I have mentioned do for our communities? Safer communities should be the focus of the current government, but sadly they are not.

Since 2016, nearly 30,000 Canadians have died from opioid-related addiction and overdose. Why is the first action of the Liberal government to reduce sentences on drug trafficking? How does this help the tens of thousands battling addictions whose habits are being fed by the very drug dealers preying on the vulnerable this bill is meant to protect? Going after these drug dealers should be the priority of this place.

Canadians do not feel safe and nothing in this bill will help them be any safer in their homes and communities. In 2020, an Angus Reid survey found that 48% of Canadians felt crime was getting worse. Canadians are rightly tired of being afraid in their own neighbourhoods and homes. The top priority of any government should be the protection of its people. This bill does nothing to address those threats against Canadians; it only protects criminals from being held responsible for their crimes.

The bill really shows how far out of step the Liberal government is with the needs and concerns of everyday Canadians. A legal scholar recently suggested that when looking at legislation we should be asking what the problems are that we are trying solve and whether the proposed legislation would solve those problems. It is the kind of question that should be asked in this place every time the Criminal Code or any similar act is used to try and solve policy problems. I can say that after reviewing Bill C-5, I would assert that the legislation may actually contribute to the problems we are facing in this country, rather than trying to solve them. It does nothing to improve public safety.

Let us be clear. The problem the government should be trying to solve is gun violence committed by criminals and gangs using illegal firearms, mostly smuggled into this country and used to kill in communities across Canada. It should be trying to solve the addiction and drug problems we have and the overdose deaths plaguing our communities across this country, not catering to those who are contributing to the epidemic. It should hold criminals responsible for their violent crimes and drug dealing and focus on rehabilitation, not a revolving door of justice. However, the Liberal solution to these problems is a lazy, misguided approach that caters to criminals, ignores victims and does not protect Canadians.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to join this important debate on Bill C-5. I am speaking today from the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people in Canada's House of Commons.

This bill that is being debated today, and the changes it proposes to make to the Criminal Code of Canada, are critical to addressing systemic racism and systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system. Anyone who has been listening to this morning's debate knows quite clearly at this point that we are facing a very serious issue. That issue is the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous persons in our criminal justice system, primarily Black and indigenous men.

How did we get to this situation? We have prepared legislation, tabled it in the last Parliament and retabled it in this Parliament because we have fundamentally listened to experts I had the privilege to consult with in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice in the last Parliament. We have also listened to Canadians, among whom are my constituents in Parkdale—High Park. We have been seized with certain issues that relate to challenges not just with individual acts of discrimination, vis-à-vis one particular person or group of people, but rather norms and rules that embody our systems and our institutions. There is no more robust place to do the hard work and the heavy lifting that goes into addressing systemic racism than the criminal justice system of Canada.

We know that Canadians in every riding in this country were seized by the videos we saw of George Floyd. Things were also occurring here in Canada with respect to indigenous populations. We could talk about the response of law enforcement to the Mi'kmaq fishers on the east coast. We could talk about RCMP officers and the overuse of violent force with Inuit individuals in Canada's far north. These images, stories and issues really captivated our nation. That is why we are here today acting and mobilizing on that sentiment. We are here to listen to those voices and act upon them.

We have also consulted the statistics, and they are startling. In 2020, despite representing 5% of the Canadian adult population, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. That is a sixfold increase. That is reprehensible. I think I heard that from across the way. Although Black individuals represent 3% of the Canadian population, in 2018-19 they represented 7.2% of the federal offender population. This was more than a twofold increase.

What I have heard from my constituents in Parkdale—High Park and from people right around this country is that we need to act. That is why we are taking action now, specifically as it relates to Black and indigenous persons and other persons of colour. There is a unanimous sense I have heard that there is a need to take action.

Today, we are talking about a bill that would do so in three areas. Before I touch on those, I want to outline two broad themes that underlie the points I am making today. The first point is that we need to tackle systemic racism. The second point is that on this side of the chamber, we are a government that believes in judicial discretion. That is fundamental because it will underpin what I am going to speak about.

First, Bill C-5 would repeal mandatory minimum penalties or imprisonment for certain, but not all, offences to address the disproportionate impact on indigenous and Black offenders as well as those struggling with substance abuse and addiction, as appropriately raised by the member for Vancouver East. Second, it would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs in the legal parlance, when an offender faces a term of less than two years' imprisonment and does not pose a threat to public safety. Third, it would address issues dealing with drugs, opioids and addiction in this country by requiring police and prosecutors to consider measures other than laying charges or prosecution for simple possession of drugs, such as diverting individuals to addiction treatment programs.

In terms of the first category, we heard about mandatory minimum penalties ad nauseam during this morning's debate: why they exist and whether they are useful, etc. I rest on the side of the evidence. The evidence has shown us clearly that regardless of how they are imposed, who imposed them or how long they had been in place, mandatory minimums have only served to disproportionately impact men of colour in particular, but also indigenous women, by having them be overrepresented in our criminal justice system.

These are for crimes such as simple possession of narcotics, simple possession of a firearm, or a first-time offender using a firearm. More likely than not, people of colour are entrapped in the criminal justice system based on these charges, and more likely than not, because of the mandatory minimums they face jail time.

This is problematic because it eschews judicial discretion. We heard about this from the member for Whitby. He spoke about his family's experience, including his father's, and about what we need to do to ensure people are not sent down a certain path for the rest of their lives. The way we do that is by not putting people into a revolving-door situation of incarceration after incarceration where people are habituated to a life of criminality behind bars.

The way we do that is by ensuring there are other options available. One of those options is to give judges the tools they need to craft sentences that are appropriate for particular individuals. As a minor digression, that is what informs our motivation behind the impact of race and culture assessments, which we are also funding. We want to be able to look hard at accused individuals and understand their life circumstances, what got them to this place and how we can ensure they do not reappear in front of a court six months or six years from now on a repeat offence.

We want to get them out of a cycle of potential criminality and toward a cycle of productive life, contributing to our communities. By binding the hands of judges, we have seen exactly the opposite. The exact law and order methodology that is professed by members of the official opposition is turned on its head by this kind of blanket prohibition. All it does is produce more criminality, not less. That is why we are standing up against it.

Secondly, judges have spoken out against these types of penalties. Decision after decision rendered by courts as high as the Supreme Court of Canada has found these types of penalties unconstitutional. They violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why we are taking action: We believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and adhering to it particularly when guided by the judiciary.

The impacts of these penalties have been legion. In terms of worsening over time, we know that in 1999 indigenous peoples represented approximately 2% of the adult population, but accounted for 17% of admissions to federal penitentiaries. By 2020, after a series of mandatory minimums were added to the Criminal Code by the previous Conservative government, 30% of the federal inmate population was indigenous. That is a trend in the wrong direction, and it is a trend we need to correct.

I do not want this bill to be mischaracterized. Canadians are watching, and I know it is not just our mothers and fathers who watch in the middle of the day. Other people watch the House of Commons in the middle of the day. They need to know that we are not purporting to get rid of mandatory minimum penalties for serious offenders. Mandatory minimums involving cases of firearms, and those who traffic, smuggle, commit repeated violent assault or murder using firearms, are not being targeted. We are targeting single, first-time offenders in low-level offences. That is who we do not want destined for lives of criminality.

The other serious issue that needs to be addressed concerns conditional sentencing orders. I want to emphasize that this is the old-fashioned notion of house arrest. It goes back to the point I made at the outset of my remarks today. If we want to ensure that individuals are not subjected or destined to lives of criminality, or lives interacting with the criminal justice system, one good way to ensure that is to ensure that they do not spend time behind bars for their first offence.

Instead, when they are not a significant threat to public safety and when they are not likely to reoffend, at that point in time we would subject them to a conditional sentence order. This would allow them to serve their sentence outside of incarceration, subject to certain restrictions. This is critical, because we need to ensure there is a penalty applied. However, by not having them placed behind bars, we do not subject people to lives of criminality.

We have seen that conditional sentence orders entrenched by Allan Rock, who was the Minister of Justice 26 years ago, were eroded over time by the previous Conservative government. We are trying to return to the status quo.

My last point is on drug diversion. This is critical. The reason we are doing this is simple: We are listening to the evidence in the city of Toronto and the city of Vancouver. We are listening to the Canadian chiefs of police who have advocated for this type of drug diversion, and we are listening to the director of public prosecutions. They have said that not having diversion clogs our system and renders it less effective in addressing the true cause of criminal behaviour.

These are important initiatives. They are threefold within this legislation. I hope all members will stand behind this important bill.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, the overrepresentation of indigenous people in our prison system is a direct result of having mandatory minimum penalties entrenched in our Criminal Code. This is exactly what Bill C-5 would help to address, as it would repeal those mandatory minimum penalties. I think that there is much more we can do, but a lot of it has to do with the work our government is doing on reconciliation, with the largest amount of money in any federal budget dedicated to indigenous people.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I stand before the House as the member of Parliament for Whitby, but I grew up in Peel region. My father who was a homicide detective there for much of my upbringing and then moved to the National Parole Board. In terms of my life history, he spent most of his career catching individuals who were committing crimes in our community and making sure they were convicted of those crimes. He then spent the latter half of his career working toward reintegrating offenders successfully within society. Also, I spent seven years working with a local halfway house in Brampton, which definitely gives me a unique perspective on the bill we are debating today.

It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Today, I will be speaking to the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs for short, in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The importance of equitable sentencing laws in the criminal justice system cannot be overstated. Indeed, imprisonment represents one of the most grave intrusions by the state into the lives of individuals. As such, sentencing laws must be carefully reviewed in order to ensure they reflect the values that Canadians hold dear.

Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies within the current sentencing regime provided by the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that have disproportionately impacted indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities right across Canada. This bill proposes to repeal the particular MMPs that have been shown to have the most significant impact on those communities, while ensuring that courts can continue to impose sentences for violent and serious crimes that respond to their seriousness and the harms caused.

When considering the appropriate sanctions for an offender in a criminal case, a judge must effectively balance the principles of proportionality, parity and restraint. The principle of proportionality requires a sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, also taking into consideration some of the background circumstances within which the offender offended. The principle of parity requires sentences to be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. Perhaps most important is the principle of restraint, which dictates that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. Balancing these principles is highly individualized and is a process that demands an assessment of all relevant factors, including the personal characteristics and life experiences of the individual standing before the court.

However, when an offence carries a mandatory minimum penalty, the minimum punishment is prescribed by law. This removes a certain amount of discretion from judges, and it means they cannot impose sentences below the legislated minimum, even in cases where they find that a shorter period of imprisonment or no imprisonment at all would be an appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the offence. I will also add here that the Canadian Sentencing Commission recommended the abolition of all MMPs except for murder, and 90% of Canadians when surveyed agreed that judges should be given sentencing discretion.

While proponents of MMPs often argue they ensure consistency and fairness in sentences for the same crime, the reality is that for some crimes they can and do yield unfair results that can have negative impacts on the justice system writ large, as well as on victims. MMPs can be inconsistent with the direction in the Criminal Code requiring judges to use imprisonment with restraint and to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

Data shows that between 2007 and 2017, indigenous and Black individuals were more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP than were other Canadians. In fact, the proportion of indigenous adults admitted with an offence punishable by an MMP almost doubled between those years, from 14% to 26%. Similarly, in 2018-19, Black people represented 7.2% of the federal inmate population but only 3% of the Canadian population.

Indigenous people and Black Canadians are particularly overrepresented for firearm and drug offences carrying mandatory minimum penalties. Specifically, Black Canadians comprised 43% of individuals convicted of importing and exporting drugs in 2016-17, while indigenous people comprised 40% of those admitted for a firearm-related offence that same year. To quote from the study, “Over the ten-year study period, Black and other visible minority offenders were much more likely to be admitted with a conviction for an offence punishable by an MMP.”

In response to this data, Bill C-5 proposes to repeal mandatory minimum penalties for all drug offences in the CDSA, as well as for one tobacco-related offence and 13 firearm-related offences in the Criminal Code. MMPs should remain for offences such as murder, sexual assault and all child sexual offences, and for certain offences involving restricted or prohibited firearms or where the offence involves a firearm and is linked to organized crime.

While MMPs have been in place since the Criminal Code was first enacted, they were largely the exception until relatively recently. Over the last two decades, there was an increased reliance on MMPs to further denounce crimes, deter offenders and separate them from society. What is interesting here is that the evidence shows the contrary. In fact, there is really no deterrent effect provided by MMPs. No criminal stands in contemplation before committing an offence and considers the length of the sentence they will get, so MMPs do not deter future crime. One of the intentions behind support for MMPs in the first place was that they are supposed to deter crime, but that is actually false based on the evidence I have seen and based on my personal experience from working with ex-offenders.

MMPs are also incredibly expensive and ineffective in general, and they increase the rate and volume of incarceration. Prosecutors can use the threat of mandatory minimum sentences as a bargaining chip. Harsher penalties increase defendants' incentive to go to trial because of higher stakes, which means they are less likely to plead guilty and instead go to trial. They clog up the justice system. They lead to charter challenges and, in essence, increased court costs. Also, longer, harsher sentences lead to the overcrowding of our prisons and increased prison costs.

Overcrowding in prisons also contributes to congestion within the criminal justice system, which soaks up vast quantities of limited resources. This takes away resources that could otherwise be dedicated to release planning and reintegration efforts that actually reduce recidivism. Remember, recidivism is the rate at which offenders who are released reoffend, and in many cases it is a measure of success regarding the measures that are implemented. In addition, lengthier sentences actually increase the likelihood of reoffending. The evidence shows that recidivism actually goes up the longer people stay in prison. There are many reasons for that. There is more institutionalization, offenders are subject to greater stigmatization when released and they have a harder time finding work and reconciling with family members.

I will end with a story. I worked with federal offenders to help reintegrate them into society. I did this for about seven years with St. Leonard's Place Peel. These offenders were out on statutory release under conditions, and many of them, with the right reintegration supports and programming in the community, were not reoffending. We had about a 92% to 96% effectiveness rate. We can see that in essence, the whole tough-on-crime agenda and approach seems to be an ideological narrative that is not based in facts and reality.

I hope that all members of the House will support Bill C-5.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member re-emphasized a point I was trying to make in my speech. We have known for a long time that the main impact of mandatory minimums falls very heavily on indigenous women. When we look at the figures, with more than 40% of the women incarcerated in this country being indigenous, we see there is something seriously wrong with our system, and not just with our justice system, but with our social system as a whole.

The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called our attention to this and called for action. We have the chance to take actions now by strengthening Bill C-5. I very much hope that we can have those discussions at committee, but that would require the minister to refer this bill to committee before a second reading vote.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, early this year in the previous Parliament, the Standing Committee on Public Safety released a report on systemic racism in policing in Canada. When I look at the new additions to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that Bill C-5 would make, such as the declaration of principles, the warnings and referrals section, it gives me a bit of a pause. We can look at the experiences of indigenous and racialized Canadians with police forces. Through this bill, we would be now making it entirely dependent on the judgment of police officers as to whether they would issue a warning or referral or whether that declaration of principles would guide them in the interaction.

Could my colleague comment further on that approach and the problems that might be inherent in it?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking the voters of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for sending me back to the House once again, this time for a fourth mandate. In particular, I would like to thank my partner for more than 20 years, Teddy Pardede, for his constant and enduring personal and political support. My role as an MP is now taking up more than half our relationship and I will never be able to repay him.

As I said during the campaign, I very much wanted to come back to the House to be able to deal with unfinished business from the last Parliament. Indeed, there were lots of things we made progress on that were cut short by the early and unnecessary election. That is why I was pleased to see the quick passage of the ban on conversion therapy, Bill C-4, unanimously no less, both here and in the other place.

There are other examples of bills on which this House had held hearings, had achieved a broad consensus on moving forward and is now able to do so. Those include my Bill C-202, to make coercive and controlling behaviour and intimate partner relationships a criminal offence and Bill C-206, which would remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence and instead make sure that self-harm is treated as the mental health challenge that it truly is. I hope we can find a way to move forward on both of those bills that were left undone in the last Parliament.

Today, here we are debating Bill C-5. I am frankly surprised to be up on Bill C-5 so soon because its predecessor was not one of those bills which had been to hearings and it was not of those bills where we had lots of discussions about how to come to a consensus on what needed to be done. Normally, I would be glad to see the House moving quickly to get stuff done that sat on the back burner for far too long. That would be especially true of the issue of systemic racism in the justice system and it would be even more true of the opioid crisis on our streets today.

However, Bill C-5 is a virtual carbon copy, to date myself with an archaic phrase, of Bill C-22, which the government introduced at the eleventh hour in the last Parliament. At that time, we New Democrats clearly told the government we found Bill C-22 to be weak sauce. After its introduction, there were only very limited discussions before Bill C-22 was reintroduced in this session as Bill C-5. In those brief talks I made it clear that New Democrats wanted to see a bill with a few more teeth. We have a crisis of over-incarceration, we have a crisis of opioids on our streets, and the bill is not strong enough.

I am not sure how happy I am to be rushing forward on a bill that remains a half measure, especially when it is not even very clear what it is a half measure of. Here is the first and most important question I have for the government about Bill C-5: Is this a bill to address systemic racism in the Canadian justice system? If so, why is its focus so limited? We know mandatory minimum sentences are one of the causes of the over-incarceration of racialized Canadians and indigenous people. Then why does the bill restrict itself to only removing mandatory minimums for some offences, namely personal possession of drugs and some firearms offences?

We have years of experience now with mandatory minimums. We know they do nothing to reduce crime. We know that they only result in the incarceration of people who have no place in the prison system.

As the over-involvement in the justice system is a real problem for indigenous and racialized Canadians every day, I still have my doubts of some of the provisions in Bill C-5, like introducing those diversion programs instead of more fundamental reforms. In the absence of tackling the thorny question of reform of the RCMP, again I still have some doubts about increasing police discretion in drug cases as Bill C-5 proposes.

If Bill C-5 is actually about racism in our justice system, then there is surely much more it could do. I will return to this question later in my remarks. If Bill C-5 is not about tackling the broad issues of systemic racism in the criminal justice system, then is it really about something else? In fact, the heavy focus on removing mandatory minimums for drug crimes might lead us to believe that Bill C-5 is actually about the opioid crisis. If that is the case, then once again, it makes it hard for me to be excited about quick action on the half measures to confront the opioid crisis that we have in the bill, especially when we have known for so long what is needed.

As an elected official, I first spoke in favour of decriminalization of personal possession of all drugs more than a decade ago as a city councillor in Esquimalt. At the time, I argued that decriminalization provided the most effective path, along with safe injection sites, to tackle the emerging problem of deaths from drug overdoses in my community.

Even then, I was able to point to early signs of success in Portugal where decriminalization was adopted in 2001. Since then, Portugal has seen an 80% reduction in overdose deaths. It has seen the proportion of people who use drugs fall from 52% to 6% when it comes to new HIV and AIDS diagnoses. It has seen a decrease of incarcerations for drug offences by over 40%. Instead, in Canada over the last decade, we have seen so many preventable deaths and now this problem has accelerated into a full-blown crisis across the country.

Last month the Province of British Columbia announced a record number of people had died so far this year from overdoses. There were 201 deaths in the month of October alone, the highest ever in a single month. Think of all the families we are talking about, all 201 families affected by the loss of loved ones in a single month in a single province. This is a crisis.

Numbers released by the B.C. Coroners Service show a death toll in the first 10 months of 2021 in British Columbia being 1,782, surpassing the 1,765 deaths recorded in all of 2020. B.C.'s chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, was direct in her assessment of the situation in B.C., a situation no different than any other jurisdiction. “Simply put, we are failing,” she said. With six people dying every single day in British Columbia, the status quo cannot be accepted.

That is why recognizing the stark reality of the opioid crisis, the City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia and now the City of Toronto have all three applied to the Minister of Health for an emergency exemption from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that criminalizes personal possession of small quantities of illegal drugs. They are asking that we recognize that criminalization only adds more harm to the toll addiction takes on its victims.

Where are the Liberals on decriminalization of so-called “hard” drugs, either as a temporary exemption or permanent strategy to shift our response to addiction from punishment to health care? One might be surprised to learn that decriminalization is the official policy of the Liberal Party, endorsed more than three years ago at its 2018 convention in Halifax. Perhaps some will be even more surprised to learn that the government was advised to move on decriminalization of personal possession of drugs before the last election.

The previous Minister of Health appointed a commission of experts to advise on drug policies well before that election. Don MacPherson, executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition at Simon Fraser, was part of the task force that simply said that charging people with simple possession and seizing their drugs makes no sense.

In a CBC Radio interview, MacPherson said, “There's mountains of evidence that show it's a bad thing. It's harmful, it hurts people and there is not really an upside to it.” He continued saying, “So the task force...came fairly quickly to the conclusion that the federal government should immediately start work on putting forward a plan to decriminalize simple possession of drugs across the board.”

The task force submitted that report before the election and has since followed up with the new Minister of Health and the new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, but MacPherson reports they have yet to hear anything back.

Since we returned to Parliament last month, MPs have been increasingly vocal in raising their concerns about the opioid crisis. Certainly, my leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Burnaby South, has repeatedly called on the government to commit to moving quickly on decriminalization. This call has come from all parties and all parts of the country, urban and rural.

Last August, during the election campaign, even the Conservative leader added his voice to those calling for shifting our approach from punishment to treatment as the way to respond to the opioid crisis, though he did not go quite as far as decriminalization.

Last week, the new member for Yukon, who was previously the territory's medical health officer before running for the Liberal Party, rose in this Commons to acknowledge that the Yukon has the highest rate of opioid deaths in the country. The new Green MP, the member for Kitchener Centre, made a moving statement in this House on the scourge of opioid deaths in his community.

Indeed, when the new cabinet was appointed, we saw the appointment of the first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions at the federal level, which many of us took as encouragement and acknowledgement of the urgency and seriousness of the opioid crisis.

Therefore, when we know the severity of the problem and we know the solutions, it surely becomes incumbent upon all of us in the House to ensure that we act. Therefore, where is that action? It is not in Bill C-5.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the three emergency decriminalization applications from Vancouver, B.C., and Toronto, we have no indication that things are moving quickly. Under the leadership of Mayor Kennedy Stewart, a former member of the House, Vancouver submitted its preliminary application for an exemption on March 3, and its final application June 1. British Columbia's application was submitted November 1 and Toronto's December 1. It is not like the government has been taken by surprise by these requests, yet all the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is reported to have said is, “We are looking at these proposals very, very seriously.”

At the same time, the minister refused to set a timeline for a decision on these applications. Instead, the minister veered off into an argument that decriminalization alone would not solve the opioid crisis, as if anyone ever thought decriminalization by itself was a solution to addiction rather than an important measure of harm reduction.

The minister said that other options were being considered, including establishing a safe supply of opioids to give injection drug users an alternative to the increasingly toxic fentanyl now on the streets. She indicated the federal government was also looking at setting up more safe injection sites and making more counselling available. Yes, that it is all good, but there is no need to wait on decriminalization while putting together a more complete package.

What was especially disappointing to hear was the minister in one interview referring to these ideas as “innovative”. She should know that these are not new ideas, but rather tried and true harm reduction strategies with a track record of nothing but success.

When it comes to the temporary decriminalization applications, the B.C. minister of mental health and addictions, Sheila Malcolmson, also a former member of this House, told reporters last week that Health Canada staff had identified no barriers to speedy processing and approval of B.C.'s decriminalization application.

Where are we? On the one hand, we see no real sense of urgency on the short-term exemption applications and, on the other hand, that leaves us with Bill C-5, which reflects none of that necessary urgency to move toward permanent and complete decriminalization of personal possession of drugs. The narrow scope of Bill C-5, as drafted, certainly means that, for technical reasons, we cannot likely add decriminalization through amendments at the committee stage.

That brings me back to the question of what Bill C-5 is really about. It seems that in the government's mind, this must be a bill primarily about tackling systemic racism in our justice system. If that is the goal of the bill, is there enough there to support?

Clearly removing mandatory minimums for drug offences would be a step forward. Even better would be removing mandatory minimums for all but the most serious violent offences. That is not there, not in Bill C-5. The frustration with the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimums has gone so far as to see a provincial court judge in Campbell River last week substituting probation for a mandatory jail sentence for a woman convicted of dealing fentanyl to support her own addiction. The judge said that she could see no positive impact of a jail sentence in that case.

Not only does Bill C-5 fail to address cases like the Campbell River case, but as well Bill C-5 is missing other elements that would help right the wrongs caused by systemic racism in the justice system. Let us make no mistake about how serious this problem is.

Correctional investigator Ivan Zinger reported in 2020 that while indigenous people made up 4.9% of the total population of Canada, they made up just over 30% of the people in Canadian prisons. Approximately 3.5% of Canadians identified as Black in the last census, yet Black Canadians make up more than 7% of those in prison.

When we look at indigenous and racialized women, the figures are even more stark. Zinger reported that Black women made up just over 9% of women incarcerated and indigenous women made up a shocking 42% of the population in women's prisons. This is the result of mandatory minimums.

The injustice does not end with incarceration as then there is the legacy of a criminal record. Not only have indigenous and racialized Canadians been disproportionately targeted for investigation, prosecution, diversion, fining and imprisonment, the most marginalized among us then end up stuck with criminal records, criminal records that make getting a job almost impossible, criminal records that often restrict access to affordable housing. Bill C-5 lacks any provision for automatic expungement of criminal records for drug possession, something for which the NDP has been calling for more than two years.

Automatic expungement is clearly what is needed after seeing the failure of the government's program for expedited pardons for marijuana convictions, a program that has granted pardons for less than 500 people of the estimated 10,000 eligible in the two years it has been operating. We need something better; we need automatic expungement of these records.

Again, the narrow drafting of Bill C-5 means, for technical reasons, we likely cannot add those elements we really need to tackle racial injustice to the bill. Certainly we cannot add expungement. It is likely we cannot even add additional offences where mandatory minimums now apply to the removal list.

Therefore, I have a question for the government, one I had already been exploring with it before we rushed into this debate. Is there not a way we can make this bill do more to address both racial injustice and the opioid crisis?

The New Democrats are ready to talk, but we probably need to do so before we reach the conclusion of this second reading debate. There is one possibility I will put forward right now to get the ball rolling, and I have to credit the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which put forth the following recommendation in call to action 32 more than six years ago. This call to action states:

We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.

This proposal would allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums where there are good reasons to do so, including the good reason that mandatory minimum sentences are, in and of themselves, most often unjust. This call to action to restore discretion to judges over sentencing for offences where mandatory minimums have been imposed is clearly doable, it is just not in Bill C-5.

A way to put this call to action into legislation has been provided in what is now Bill S-213. Again, it is probably not possible to add restoring discretion for judges when it comes to mandatory minimums to Bill C-5 in committee, because this idea is far beyond the scope of the existing bill.

What I am asking of the government is whether we can think about using the relatively rare process of sending Bill C-5 to committee before the vote at second reading. This would allow the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to alter the scope of the bill and to add missing provisions like the TRC call to action 32 to Bill C-5, and to add expungement to it. That would put some teeth in this bill.

Sending Bill C-5 to committee before a second reading vote would require a motion from the minister, and he has that opportunity later today when he speaks.

Let me conclude with this offer to work with the government on Bill C-5. This is renewing the offer New Democrats made when the bill was originally introduced in the last Parliament. I make this offer pointing to the progress we were able to make on bills like Bill C-4 and Bill C-3, when we were able to work together on common goals and purposes.

If sending Bill C-5 to committee before a second reading vote is not the way forward in the government's view, then let us work together to find other ways to strengthen the bill.

Am I optimistic about the chances of Bill C-5 proceeding? With the bill as it stands, can the government actually convince the New Democrats that there is enough in Bill C-5 to justify proceeding quickly or even proceeding at all? As I have said, I have good ideas about how we can ensure that is true.

I know there are misgivings in other parties about certain provisions of the bill, but I also know that no one in the House is unaware of the systemic racism in our justice system and its impact on racialized and indigenous Canadians. As well, I know no one in the House wants to turn a blind eye to the suffering imposed on families by the opioid crisis.

I also know we will not get a lot of opportunities to address systemic racism in the justice system in this minority Parliament and will not get many, if any, other opportunities anytime soon to respond effectively to the opioid crisis. Let us not waste the opportunity we have before us now with Bill C-5 to do one, the other or both—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his very clear and very informative speech on the Bloc Québécois's position. Above all, he demonstrated that we are open to debating Bill C-5.

However, the problem is that nothing is happening right now, and we would like to know why. The situation is urgent, because people are being killed every day in Montreal and even elsewhere in Quebec. It seems that the government is just twiddling its thumbs while all this is happening, because it is not responding, even when called upon to do so by various levels of government and by our party.

As a former section president of the Quebec bar and now the Bloc Québécois's justice critic, I would like my colleague to explain the government's failure to take action.

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

Madam Speaker, I fully appreciate the concerns outlined by the member opposite.

The 18 specific incidents that the member refers to will not be impacted in any way by the repeal proposed in Bill C-5. We fully recognize the concerns respecting guns, not just in Quebec but also in Ontario and other places, and we will take decisive action in that regard as per our platform.

I do want to emphasize that we will work with the member and the Bloc Québécois to ensure we address all the important measures in the bill that would allow for off-ramps, that would allow for people who are charged with minor offences to receive the help they need, but also the discretion of the judges to ensure people are rehabilitated.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑5 is important. It was introduced during the previous Parliament when it was known as Bill C‑22. The two bills are substantially the same, with some minor differences. What really makes Bill C‑5 different from Bill C‑22 is context. Society is in a completely different place now.

In my mind, Bill C‑5 might be better off being split up. The debate over diversion and the debate over minimum penalties are two completely different debates. People could be very much in favour of one and against the other. If we want to be able to work effectively on this bill, all members of the House need an opportunity to speak to each of the aspects of the bill. We should be able to agree with one aspect and disagree with the other.

That said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of decriminalization. We believe that rehabilitation is an essential step to eliminating crime in a society. We can never completely eliminate crime, of course, but rehabilitation would at least help make our society better and more in line with our values.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. This can be seen particularly in Quebec's young offenders legislation, which facilitates diversion. For example, young people who have broken the law are asked to do community work, to engage in activities with various organizations.

I know of a case where a young man who shoplifted and vandalized the wall of a convenience store had to meet with the store owner, clean up the wall and do some work for the store. They ended up fully reconciled. While the young man and the convenience store owner may not have become great friends, they developed a relationship that was probably conducive, if not essential, to the young man's rehabilitation. There are other positive experiences and cases like that one. That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that diversion has a role to play and it has historically agreed with this principle.

With respect to minimum penalties, the courts must be able to exercise their power freely and judiciously. The Bloc Québécois has always believed that minimum penalties are a hindrance, but that is not always the case. In some circumstances, minimum penalties can be a way of sending a clear message to offenders. We need to look at this aspect of the question. However, generally speaking, we do not think that minimum penalties contribute to a healthier society. On the contrary, we believe that they may have given rise to some highly regrettable situations.

I remember one case in the Lower St. Lawrence region of Quebec. An 18-year-old man had a 16- or 17-year-old girlfriend. Both families were aware of the relationship and approved of it. Everything was fine. However, for one reason or another, they found themselves in court, and the young man was found guilty of corrupting a minor. The judge said he hated to do it, because the situation did not warrant it, but he had no choice, because there was a minimum penalty in the Criminal Code, and he had to impose it. At the time, this caused an uproar and a certain amount of frustration in Quebec, and for good reason. I was one of the ones who felt that, in a situation like that, not only did the minimum penalty not help, but it hindered the judicious exercise of judicial power. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois has historically also been in favour of the abolishment of minimum penalties.

That being said, I am speaking from a historical point of view, but we are now in 2021. The situation is not the same as it was in 2020, 2019 or 2018. I could go back as far as 1867.

Circumstances are changing, and the law is changing. There is a reason we pass laws here in Parliament and in the legislative assemblies of Quebec and the provinces. We are continually passing laws because circumstances change, society evolves and, as a result, the laws must be adapted to fit our different realities.

What is the context surrounding Bill C-5?

I think that it is important to discuss it, because that is our job as legislators. We cannot simply pass a law that will apply to everyone without considering the consequences. We cannot pass a law until we evaluate the context in which a decision will be made concerning Bill C‑5. What is going on in Montreal in 2021?

On January 4, 2021, a 17-year-old boy was injured in a shooting in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood of Montreal. On January 31, 2021, a 25-year-old man suffered minor gunshot wounds in the Rivière-des-Prairies borough of Montreal. On February 7, 2021, 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui died from a gunshot wound to the head in Montreal.

On July 5, 2021, 43-year-old Ernst Exantus was shot dead in Montreal North. He was known to police for his ties to organized crime. On July 26, 2021, a 22-year-old woman was injured by glass shards when her vehicle was shot at. On August 1, 2021, an 18-year-old man sustained gunshot wounds to his lower body during a dispute between groups. On August 2, 2021, three people were killed and two others were wounded in a shootout in the Rivière‑des‑Prairies borough of Montreal.

On September 1, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, a man was shot during an attempted murder. On September 10, 2021, 35-year-old Patricia Sirois was in her vehicle with her two young children when she was shot dead by her neighbour, a 49-year-old man from Saint-Raymond. On the night of September 24 to 25, 2021, a 19-year-old woman was shot dead in her vehicle.

On September 26, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, 33-year-old Yevgen Semenenko was found dead near a vehicle with bullet holes in it. On September 28, 2021, a man was shot as he was walking down the street in Mount Royal. On October 25, 2021, a 25-year-old man was shot and wounded in Montreal.

On November 14, 2021, in the Saint‑Michel neighbourhood of Montreal, 16-year-old Thomas Trudel was shot dead as he walked home. On December 2, 2021, in the Anjou borough, 20-year-old Hani Ouahdi was shot dead in a vehicle; a 17-year-old boy in the vehicle was also wounded. On the same day, in Coaticook, Quebec, 80-year-old Jeannine Perron-Ruel was shot dead by her 38-year-old neighbour. On December 3, 2021, in Montreal, a woman in her fifties was injured at home by a bullet that came through her window. On December 6, 2021, an 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a Laval library.

I have just listed 18 incidents that took place in Quebec in 2021. Were there more? Probably. I found 18 after a quick search.

Were there others outside Quebec? Probably. I would be surprised if crimes of this sort and gunshot victims were found only in Quebec. There are undoubtedly others. In any case, in the past 11 months, there have been at least 18 incidents involving as many, if not more, gunshot victims.

On September 21, the mayor of Montreal asked the federal government to institute gun control measures.

On November 22, the City of Montreal reiterated its request, and the Quebec government said that it wanted to increase pressure on the federal government regarding gun control at the border and banning handguns.

Many debates have taken place in the House in recent weeks, and I have taken part in them. We demand that the government take responsibility, because Quebec and certain parts of Canada are turning into the wild west.

We want the government to set up a special task force. Illegal firearms are flooding into Canada via the St. Lawrence River through the Akwesasne reserve, which borders the U.S. and the St. Lawrence. Quebec and Cornwall, Ontario, are just across the river.

We need a special task force. Currently, we can do little to prevent arms trafficking because there are too many jurisdictions involved. We need a special joint task force made up of U.S. agents, peacekeepers, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP to fight these crimes effectively. It could be funded by an investment from the federal government. For example, we could have five boats patrolling this part of the St. Lawrence 24-7. I can guarantee that the problem would be solved within a year. There would be no more firearms crossing the border there. They might cross elsewhere, but we will fight them where they are.

We need to take concrete action. We demand investments in the fight against arms trafficking and the creation of a joint task force. A bill against organized crime could be tabled, like the one I introduced in the House in 2016 during the 42nd Parliament. Unfortunately, the bill was rejected for reasons that, in my opinion, were not justified, but I will not reopen a debate from the past. Maybe the bill could be reintroduced, because organized crime, arms trafficking and the government's complacency on gun control are causing immense harm and putting Quebeckers in an unsafe and vulnerable position. We cannot let that happen, not in 2021.

I read out a list of 18 incidents. I explained that cities in Quebec and the provinces are demanding that the government take action. What did the government do? The latest incident I mentioned happened on December 6, when the 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a library. A library seems like the ideal place to find peace and harmony, yet this young man was shot and wounded in a library on December 6. While we have been debating the topic for weeks, on December 7, the day after that particular shooting, the Liberal government chose to table Bill C-5, the bill we are considering today, for first reading. This bill aims to divert certain offences away from the justice system and to abolish certain minimum penalties, including for offences involving the possession and use of firearms and the commission of certain other crimes.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum penalties. However, I am starting to seriously wonder about the Liberal government's timing. If the Liberals were tabling Bill C-5 and creating a joint task force; if they were proposing to deploy river patrols starting Monday to put an end to the arms trafficking; if they were investing in the creation of a special unit to patrol the entire border of Quebec and the other Canadian provinces to fight arms trafficking; if they were adopting a bill like the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois in 2015 to create a list of criminal organizations and treat members of these organizations in the same manner as members of listed terrorist organizations, so that if someone in organized crime is caught with a firearm, he gets his comeuppance; if that were what they were proposing, I would feel less uneasy voting in favour of Bill C‑5.

Right now, I am feeling very uneasy about the government's timing and its complacency in the face of an almost unheard-of situation that is threatening not only people's quality of life and ability to thrive, but the very survival of our youth on the streets of Montreal.

Once again, we are not in the wild west. This is not the 1600s or 1700s, when cowboys rode around with guns, shot at each other for no reason and were summarily hanged because a trial was too much trouble. It is 2021. I think that we should be able to agree on the importance of keeping our teenagers and the entire population safe, and we should not have to discuss it. We need to do something about it.

Once the government has done something about that, then we can talk about diversion programs. In fact, we could talk about it at the same time; we could talk about it now. With respect to minimum penalties, we need to abolish many of them. The Supreme Court itself has said so, and far be it from me to go against it. I think that it is entirely justified: some need to be abolished, and others need to remain in place.

Bill C‑5 warrants a good, solid discussion in committee. We need to review the details of this bill, but the government needs to step up, for goodness' sake. We cannot tell citizens that we are going to do away with minimum sentences when there are people going around with guns, yet nothing is being done to stop gun trafficking and people keep getting shot at week after week on the streets of Montreal. That would be absurd. If the government is serious and really wants to get tough on crime, then we would be talking about diversion programs because we want to rehabilitate young people, and we would be talking about doing away with minimum sentences because we want judges to be able to do their job effectively and judiciously. Most importantly, the government needs to get tough on crime by taking responsibility and putting an end to firearms trafficking and the gun violence we have been seeing over this past year.

We will take responsibility and work effectively in the public interest. I am here for one thing. I want to represent my constituents and Quebeckers, and I will not keep silent on this issue.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has already issued a directive with respect to these types of diversion measures. The effect of codifying them and having Bill C-5 enacted is that there will not be much of a difference between what is currently happening and what would happen as a result of this bill being put in place for those measures.

What we would see is the repeal of these mandatory minimum penalties and conditional discharges, weakening the accountability for folks who are committing drug trafficking and drug manufacturing offences. This, of course, is going to gravely impact our communities and have a negative impact on folks who are suffering from addiction. With respect to diversion measures, the ones that are currently in place and the directive issued are appropriate.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about Bill C-22, which is really interesting. We are dealing with Bill C-5. Why are we dealing with Bill C-5 and not Bill C-22? It is because the Liberal Prime Minister, against the agreement of all parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, called an election during a pandemic. He killed his own legislation. He did not want to enact anything he had put forward at the time, because Liberals like to try to confuse motion for action. They get very little done. In this case, it is dangerous that one of the first pieces of legislation they are looking to enact is a soft-on-crime bill that punishes victims and rewards criminals.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me just be clear: Bill C-22 was introduced earlier this year. It was in our platform. On September 20, Canadians gave us a mandate to reintroduce that bill, because we promised to do so within the first 100 days. That is exactly what Bill C-5 represents.

I have a very direct question for my friend opposite. He has not used the words “systemic racism” at all. He has not even acknowledged that systemic racism exists within the criminal justice system. He has not addressed that within his comments this morning.

Why has he not included that important term in his speech today?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill.

It is unfortunate, though, that the government is taking the first opportunity possible to flex its soft-on-crime approach. They have very much reinforced this approach with Bill C-5. It would do nothing more than reduce punishments, and truly reduce accountability, for perpetrators of violent gun crimes and drug dealers. It would keep those individuals in our communities, among their victims, rather than in prison, where they belong.

Bill C-5, for those who are just tuning in, would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences for very serious crimes. I am talking about a soft-on-crime approach, and I would like to contextualize that. This bill would reduce the mandatory minimum jail time for robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and discharging a firearm with intent. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo demonstrated very ably, in response to a question by the parliamentary secretary, why this approach is so problematic, and why the example given does not make sense. It would not achieve the result they are looking for.

This bill would also reduce the mandatory minimum jail time for possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence and possession for purpose of weapons trafficking. These are incredibly serious offences, but the government is taking its first opportunity to reduce the accountability mechanisms available for the commission of these serious offences. Instead, we are seeing the Liberals posturing, and they hope Canadians will confuse motion for action on gun crime. The motion and activity they will generate will be to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners instead of gun smugglers and drug traffickers.

I find one talking point the Liberals use particularly offensive, and that is that this bill would help those who are struggling with addiction get the help they need. Of course, it would not do that. Canadians, and anyone who is struggling with addiction, should be receiving treatment, but that is not what this bill would do. In fact, the problem would get worse under these Liberals because this bill would also eliminate mandatory prison time for those convicted of trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance in schedule 1 or 2.

The Liberals would literally be letting drug traffickers and manufacturers off the hook while saying it is helping addicts and people in our communities. We are in the grips of an opioid crisis in this country. People are dying every day. We should crack down on the people who are peddling that poison in our communities. However, that is not the approach the Liberals are going to take.

I also heard mention from a representative of the government that they would be getting rid of these nasty Conservative minimum penalties. Rightly, many of these laws came into force in the mid-nineties, and the government of the day was a Liberal government, so there is a bit of a disconnect between what they are saying and what they are doing, as is often the case.

The Liberals want to blame Conservatives for laws that former Liberal governments enacted. They say that they are helping addicts and communities, but they are actually reducing sentences and eliminating accountability for traffickers and manufacturers. Instead of punishing gang members, they are looking to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners.

To be clear, the process and the system we have in place in this country for law-abiding firearms owners is robust. There is no disagreement in the firearms community, with hunters and sport shooters, on the need for that system to be robust. Background checks and CPIC checks are already in place. They are effective and important. When we have a group of citizens who are following the laws in place, it might seem like low-hanging fruit for the government to say that they will just make tougher restrictions and demonstrate that they are putting more laws on the books, and Canadians will somehow believe that they have gotten serious about this.

However, it speaks to the priorities of this government when, last year, its members voted against the Conservative private member's bill that would have seen punishments for weapons trafficking strengthened, but here we are with them proposing to weaken it with this inadequate law. While Conservatives seek to empower victims of crime and to defend their rights, this Liberal government wants to empower the criminals: the drug manufacturers, the traffickers and the gang members.

I have heard from people in my community who have been victimized, or who have loved ones who have been victims of violent crime, and they have serious concerns about the rise of violent crime in Canada. However, it seems like the approach that this government is taking is one that is soft on crime and not one that stands up for victims.

I have certainly heard from police who are at their wits' end. They are doing their part to keep our neighbourhoods and communities, our country, safe, but they are dealing with a justice system and a government that would rather see criminals released back into the community instead of putting them in jail. For example, the police will pick up someone for a violent offence, for one of the offences listed here, on Friday, and by the end of the weekend, that person is back in the community, then rearrested on a different crime, released and rearrested in the same week.

I took the opportunity to go on a ride-along with local police in my community, and in the time it took us to drive five minutes away from the station, the officer observed someone who was violating their release conditions. When the officer called back to dispatch to say that the person was detained and there would be an arrest, the person was still showing as being in the system because the person had been released so recently. The release was processed, and the person was rearrested. The officer was tied up with that individual for the evening.

I then went out on the road with another officer, and before the end of the shift, that same person was back on the street again. I heard story after story from these officers and from officers across Canada who, while dealing with fewer resources, are dealing with a government that wants to see police further taxed with fewer resources available for our law enforcement, less protection for our victims, and leniency and less accountability for criminals.

It is important to note that we are not talking about someone who is accused of a criminal offence. We are talking about individuals who have been convicted. They have, in fact, committed and been convicted of committing the offence, and the government's response is to let them out. They would let them out for robbery with a firearm or for extortion with a firearm or weapons trafficking. It is unbelievable to think that these are the priorities of the government.

We heard the government talk about conditional sentencing and the expansion of conditional sentencing. That means that someone could be put on house arrest, as the parliamentary secretary said, for a number of offences, including kidnapping, sexual assault, human trafficking or trafficking in persons, abduction of a minor or a person under 14 years of age, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house.

It is incredibly concerning that this is the approach that the government wants to take. Those individuals ought not to be released into the community after having been found to have committed the offence for which they were accused. They were found guilty. This bill would only result in an increase in violent crime, fewer resources for our police and law enforcement, and more fear in our communities.

This soft-on-crime approach is full of talking points about helping folks who are struggling with an addiction, but it does not do that. We know that currently the justice system and the police are exercising their discretion in dealing with folks who are struggling with addiction for things like simple possession. If the government wants to get serious, we should be talking today about its expansion for support for people who are struggling with addiction or their mental health.

We know that the House passed a call for a national three-digit suicide prevention hotline, but government members have not done that. Instead, they are dragging their feet and dragging the pot, talking about CRTC consultations that go on and on and on. Get serious. Members from across the country called for this to take place.

That would be a concrete action, but it looks like the government does not want to do it because it was proposed by a member of the official opposition, by one of my Conservative colleagues. That is not in the spirit with which we should be approaching serious issues like addictions and mental health. How will Canadians get the help they need when the government will not even streamline the process for them? We know that that three-digit number is not currently in use. We need to get the lead out.

We saw the government take a full two months after what it deemed to be the most important election that we have had. It certainly did not do that to hand out mandate letters to their ministers, name parliamentary secretaries, or consult with Canadians on any of a number of things that it now wants to rush through this place. It is concerning. Canadians are concerned.

I hear those in the Liberal benches heckling that they have a mandate. Do you have a mandate to let people out for kidnapping someone under the age of 14? Do you have a mandate—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 is reintroduced from the previous Bill C-22.

The issues that my hon. colleague discusses are very important. They are in the hands of our Minister of Mental Health and Addiction, and our government is reviewing the requests of British Columbia and other places with respect to drugs. We will make decisions in short order.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me reframe this discussion. Bill C-5 is meant to address the systemic inequities within the criminal justice system. We see that the numbers speak for themselves.

If I may, I will just repeat those numbers. Three per cent of Canadians are Black, yet 7% of the prison population are Black offenders. We have an indigenous population of 5% across the country, yet they represent 30% of people within the criminal justice system. That number is 42% for indigenous women. We have significant public-policy issues that we need to deal with, and that is what we are going to address here within Bill C-5.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have taken very important steps today with Bill C-5, which is the reintroduction of Bill C-22. It was part of our platform commitment. We promised to introduce this within 100 days, and we had the mandate from Canadians to do that. We look forward to a very robust discussion at committee and at every stage of the bill. I look forward to working with my friend opposite on this.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by welcoming the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to his role. I did a lot of positive work with his predecessor, and I think Bill C-5 shows there is a lot of work we could do to improve legislation.

When this bill was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, lots of stakeholders in the community criticized it for its narrowness and for being a half measure. Certainly the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, more than six years ago in its call to action number 32, called for the restoration of judicial discretion to ignore mandatory minimums when there were good reasons to do so.

Why has the government chosen to pick just 14 offences instead of following the truth and reconciliation call to action to give judges back their discretion when there are mandatory minimum sentences?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, in other words, this would apply when an offender uses a firearm that may otherwise be legal. A review of the case law reveals that many indigenous offenders and marginalized groups who have experienced significant trauma, including the legacy of residential schools, commit non-violent offences using long guns.

Maintaining the four-year mandatory minimum penalties that relate to the commission of these offences with firearms that are not restricted or connected to organized crime would directly undermine our important commitment to reduce the over-incarceration of indigenous peoples. We know that Canadians are troubled by gun violence. By maintaining the MMPs for serious offences, using restricted firearms or an association with organized crime, we keep the strong tools in our tool box to combat serious and gang-related gun crime.

Our government will also work to crack down on gun crime in other ways. In our platform we committed to continuing to combat gender-based violence and fight gun smuggling with measures we previously introduced, such as increasing maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling, from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment; lifetime background checks, to prevent those with a history of abuse against their spouse or partner from obtaining a firearms licence; red flags that would allow immediate removal of firearms if that person was a threat to themselves, or otherwise to their spouse or partner; and enhancing the capacity of the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to combat the illegal importation of firearms.

Our government is taking steps to ensure that the strong hand of criminal justice is used where it is needed to keep people safe, but not where it would be discriminatory or counterproductive. Bill C-5 is an important step taken by our government to address the injustice of systemic racism in our criminal justice system and to ensure that it is fair, just and compassionate for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the House this morning to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I want to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

This bill fulfills a platform commitment to reintroduce former Bill C-22 within 100 days, and I am proud to work with the Minister of Justice on this important piece of legislation. The proposed reforms represent an important step in our government's continuing efforts to make our criminal justice system fairer for everyone by seeking to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. Bill C-5 focuses on existing laws that have exacerbated underlying social, economic, institutional and historical disadvantage and which have contributed to systemic inequities at all stages of the criminal justice system, from first contact with law enforcement all the way through to sentencing.

Issues of systemic racism and discrimination in Canada's criminal justice system are well documented, including by commissions of inquiry such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System.

More recently, the Parliamentary Black Caucus, in its June 2020 statement, called for reform of the justice and public safety systems to weed out anti-Black racism and systemic bias, and to make the administration of justice and public security more reflective of and sensitive to the diversity of our country. I was pleased to sign this statement, as were numerous cabinet colleagues, including the Minister of Justice, many members of Parliament and senators representing the different political spectrums.

The numbers speak for themselves. Black Canadians represent 3% of the Canadian population yet represent 7% of those who are incarcerated in federal penitentiaries. Indigenous people represent roughly 5% of the Canadian population yet represent 30% of those who are federally incarcerated. The number is profoundly higher for indigenous women, who represent 42% of those who are incarcerated.

Indigenous people and Black Canadians have been particularly marginalized by the current criminal justice system. The calls for action recognize that sentencing laws, and in particular the broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities in Canada.

This is precisely why Bill C-5 proposes to repeal a number of mandatory minimum penalties, including for all drug-related offences and for some firearm-related offences, although some MMPs would be retained for serious offences such as murder and serious firearm offences linked to organized crime. Data shows the MMPs that would be repealed have particularly contributed to the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest and curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family ties and community and health-related support systems.

I want to talk about who we want to help with Bill C-5. It is the grandmother who agrees to let her grandson leave a gun at her house overnight even though she knows she is not supposed to because he did not purchase the gun legally. It is for the young indigenous man who shoots a hunting rifle at what he believes to be an empty building and no one gets hurt. The incident prompts him to get his life back on track. He goes into a rehab program to get off drugs and starts counselling to address childhood and intergenerational trauma that has haunted him throughout his young life. By the time of sentencing, he has a job and a new relationship, and is ready to contribute positively to his community.

These are not the hardened criminals. These are people who deserve a second chance or an off-ramp from the criminal justice system. They are people who, with the right support, will never offend again. Sending them to jail, which hurts not only them but their families and communities, will do nothing but put them on a path toward further criminality. This is why MMPs that tie judges' hands can lead to negative outcomes in the justice system and for our society more broadly.

To appreciate the pressing need for these reforms, we must go back to the foundational principles of sentencing in Canada. The fundamental purpose and principles of our sentencing regime are rooted in trail-blazing reforms made in 1996, which created a statutory recognition that sentencing is an individualized process that relies on judicial discretion to impose just sanctions. Such sanctions are proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence.

To achieve these sanctions, the 1996 reforms directed judges to take into account a number of sentencing principles, including rehabilitation and deterrence. Some of these principles acknowledge that in sentencing less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective, unduly punitive and to be discouraged. The sentencing principles also recognize the need to address the over-incarceration of indigenous persons, who were at that time already overrepresented within the system. As such, the amendments to the Criminal Code directed judges to consider all sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances before choosing to send an offender to jail. This principle applies all offenders, but requires judges to pay particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

To give full effect to these principles, the 1996 reforms created conditional sentences of imprisonment that allowed judges to order that terms of imprisonment of less than two years be served in the community under certain conditions. An offender could be eligible for a conditional sentence if serving their sentence in the community would not pose a risk to public safety, if the offence for which they were convicted is not subject to a mandatory minimum penalty and if the community-based sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Unfortunately, the previous Conservative government's increased use of mandatory minimum penalties and imposition of additional restrictions on the availability of conditional sentencing orders have restricted judicial discretion and made it difficult for courts to effectively apply these important principles. These so-called tough-on-crime measures have actually made our criminal justice system less effective by discouraging the early resolution of cases. These measures have eroded public confidence in the administration of justice.

The biggest problem with these measures has been that they disproportionately affect indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

In fact, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently found in its 2020 decision in R. v. Sharma that certain of the limits on conditional sentence orders enacted in 2012 undermine the purpose of the Gladue principle by limiting the court's ability to impose a fit sentence that takes the offender's circumstances into account. The Court of Appeal held that those limits perpetuate a discriminatory impact against indigenous offenders in the sentencing process.

By targeting these sentencing policies, Bill C-5 seeks to restore the ability of courts to effectively apply the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, and ensures that sentences are individualized and appropriate for the circumstances of the case. Although it is important to ensure that fair and compassionate sentences are imposed, it is equally important to ensure that measures are in place to avoid contact with the criminal justice system in the first place.

This is why Bill C-5 would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with charges for the simple possession of drugs, such as issuing a warning, taking no action or diversion to addiction treatment programs. We want to focus on getting individuals the help they need, whether that be treatment programs, housing or mental health support, instead of criminalizing them. These measures are consistent with the government's public health-centred approach to substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada.

Together, these measures would encourage responses that take into account individuals' experiences with respect to systemic racism, health-related issues and the particular supports they could benefit from. These reforms would allow police, prosecutors and the courts to give full effect to the important principle of restraint in sentencing, particularly for indigenous offenders, and explore approaches that focus on restorative justice, the rehabilitation of individuals and their reintegration into the community.

It is essential that Canadians have confidence in the justice system and that they believe it is there to protect them, not harm them or their community. These reforms reflect what we have heard from Canadians.

The 2017 national justice survey revealed that Canadians overwhelmingly support diversion measures, less restrictive sentences and judicial discretion in sentencing, even in cases where there is an MMP. For instance, 91% of Canadians indicated in the survey that judges should be granted flexibility to impose a lesser sentence than an MMP. Moreover, 69% of those polled believe that diversion could make the criminal justice system more effective and 78% believe that diversion could make it more efficient by reducing the caseload for the courts and court processing times.

I would like to assure my colleagues that our government takes violent gun crimes seriously. I am from Scarborough, a community that has issues with gun violence. I understand the need to crack down on firearm traffickers and the organized criminal element that threatens our communities. In my previous life, I ran a youth organization and saw many young men buried as a result of gun violence. I saw the pain in the faces of the parents. In fact, I recall one mother, whose son was killed over 20 years ago, who is still grieving for her loss. This affects the community as a whole. That is why we are not repealing MMPs for those offences.

I had a chance to speak with Louis March of the Zero Gun Violence Movement this morning. He has advocated for taking guns off our streets. He came to Parliament about two years ago, just before the pandemic, to advocate for MMPs to be removed, because he feels it is crucial for judges to have discretion over decisions and that MMPs have disproportionately impacted members of the Black community. Many of the mothers who came here that day were broken by what they saw as a problem with guns. I bring the issue of gun violence to Parliament each and every day, and in many ways, in Toronto and other major cities, it is a significant problem that requires a significant response. Our government is working toward that.

For less serious offences, particularly when someone is a first-time offender who is young or non-violent, MMPs are not the answer. MMPs that send young Black men in my community to prison, when they could be rehabilitated and turn their lives around, only serve to continue the vicious cycle that leads to involvement in gangs and further criminality.

We are repealing the MMPs for robbery and extortion with a firearm, and for discharging a firearm with intent or recklessly when this does not involve a restricted firearm or organized crime. In other words, where the offender—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Past failed policies did not protect our communities, but targeted indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians. This week I introduced Bill C-5, which will help our justice system become fairer and more effective. It shows that our government is committed to building a more equitable and inclusive Canada for everyone.

I encourage members across the aisle to join us in turning the page on failed policies and move forward in this positive fashion.

Criminal Code

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce this private members' bill, which seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code and various other laws.

I note, as members may note, that we have recently received a similar government bill, Bill C-5, that also aims to eliminate mandatory minimum penalties. However, Bill C-5 only removes some, not even all, of those that have already been found to violate the charter by the courts in Canada.

I was the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands representing my constituents when mandatory minimums were increased. It was during the Parliament when Mr. Harper was the Prime Minister. It was then that we dove deeply into the evidence around mandatory minimum penalties. It became very clear that no criminologists anywhere in the world, nor any jurisdictions, had found that using mandatory minimum penalties actually reduced or addressed crime. They did have the effect, though, of increasing the number of people incarcerated, with additional financial burdens on the provinces.

I am very honoured to put forward the bill this morning, and I hope that it will meet with the approval of my colleagues.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Public Safety

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we introduced Bill C‑5 because we know it will help curb violence and enable the police to stop criminals. It will also tackle the systemic discrimination that the Liberal Party acknowledges is a reality. The Bloc still seems a bit noncommittal on that.

We will also continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to help tackle gun trafficking at the border and to support our police forces so they can do their job. We will also invest $1 million to help Quebec ban handguns altogether.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, everyone in Quebec has been calling on the federal government to take its responsibility for gun control seriously. People have been waiting weeks for the government to take any kind of concrete action.

The government did not start by tightening border controls to thwart illegal arms trafficking. The government did not start by taking leadership on joint efforts by police forces. The government did not start by investing in border crossings. No, the government started by introducing Bill C‑5 to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for illegal weapons.

Does the Prime Minister think the streets of Montreal will be safer once Bill C‑5 is passed?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking meaningful action to help stem gun-related violence. Many measures need to be taken, and Bill C‑5 is one of them.

We have also invested $125 million to create a cross-border task force to stop smuggling, $250 million to support community-based anti-gang programs, and $327 million to give police the resources they need to detect and prevent crime more effectively. We are also investing $1 billion to help Quebec and other provinces ban handguns.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with greater Montreal reeling from a wave of shootings and tragedies, the Prime Minister should be doing everything he can to fight illegal guns.

However, that is not what he is doing with Bill C‑5. His bill eliminates minimum penalties for importing firearms and for using them to commit crimes. The Prime Minister is even eliminating these penalties for repeat offenders convicted of illegal firearms possession.

The Prime Minister will have to explain how Bill C‑5 will help curb gun violence in Montreal.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)