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.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-29 at third reading.

This is quite critical legislation and I will start with some preparatory comments. Our government is committed wholeheartedly to pursuing all avenues possible in the advancement of reconciliation in this country. It goes without saying that when we speak about reconciliation, a cornerstone of this concept is the idea about accountability, that the government, the country, needs to be held accountable for historical wrongs that have been perpetrated against indigenous peoples for literally centuries on this land.

Residents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto have spoken to me regularly over the past seven years about the importance of reconciliation, the need to advance it and to address the TRC calls to actions. I am very pleased to note that the TRC calls to action, five of them in particular, are really at the heart of this legislation.

What my constituents and people around the country have told me is that we need to ensure we are doing everything in our power as a government and as a Parliament to remedy the wrongs that were inflicted upon generations of indigenous people, particularly indigenous children who, through the residential schools program, were robbed of their families, their culture, oftentimes their language and, indeed, their history.

Going back seven years to 2015 before we came into power as government, we campaigned on a platform that called for a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, one that would be based on the recognition of rights based on respect, co-operation and partnership. An important cornerstone of any nation-to-nation relationship as it is being advanced is basic respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the various indigenous peoples that we engage with, being first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This is important on the international stage, but it is also important right here in Canada.

The reconciliation process that I am speaking of has to be guided by the active participation and leadership of indigenous peoples. I will digress for a moment. We had an example of that in the legislation I was privileged to work on, which, if memory serves, was either Bill C-91 or Bill C-92 two Parliaments ago. However, the important piece is not the number of the bill that we advanced at the time, but the indigenous languages legislation that we advanced and passed in this Parliament, which is now firmly part of Canadian law.

In that context, we co-developed the legislation in that spirit of reconciliation, in terms of giving full participation and leadership in the development role to indigenous communities, first nations, Inuit and Métis. That is an important aspect of reconciliation and how it manifests, but so too is this bill. With this bill, we would put in place institutional mechanisms that are called for in the TRC calls to action for indigenous peoples, so they can hold Canada and the Canadian government to account for meeting goals on the path toward reconciliation.

What is Bill C-29 about? It is called “an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation” and, like the indigenous languages bill that I was privileged to work on two Parliaments ago, it has been driven by the active participation of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, organizations and individuals right across the country. What it would do is establish a permanent, indigenous-led, independent council with a mandate to monitor and support the progress of reconciliation in this country, including progress toward the full implementation of the TRC calls to action.

Let us talk about those calls to action. I mentioned them at the outset of my comments. The calls to action call on the government to create a non-partisan body that would hold the Government of Canada to account on the journey toward reconciliation. Specifically, calls to action 53 and 54 call for the establishment of this national council for reconciliation and for permanence of funding, which is very critical. We need to not only create the body, but adequately resource it.

Call to action 55 calls on the government to provide relevant information to the council in support of its mandate, providing it with the tools so it can execute its functions. Call to action 56 calls on the government to publish an annual report in response to the national council's annual report covering what the government is doing in terms of advancing reconciliation, another key component.

I will digress for a moment. I know there were some very useful amendments proposed at the committee stage, which I believe were universally adopted and it was unanimous coming out of committee. One of the components was for the government's response to be led by the Prime Minister himself, which is really critical in terms of emphasizing the prioritization and importance of this issue about advancing reconciliation. It is critical to not underestimate the impact that this kind of council will have on fostering the type of relationship with indigenous peoples I mentioned at the outset of my comments.

Through the annual response report, Canada would be consistently required to account for progress being made and also progress that has not yet been made, including identifying challenges, hurdles and obstacles.

It would be the people most impacted by such policies, the first nations, Inuit and Métis people on this land, who would have the power and wield that power to hold the government of the day to account.

That is really important. This is not about partisanship. This is not about what the Liberal government will be held to account for. This is what any government in the country would be held to account to do, going forward, with respect to advancing reconciliation, which is very critical in terms of such a pressing matter.

It is clearly only the beginning of some of the work we need to be doing. We know that, in Ontario, in my province, the median income of an indigenous household is 80% of that of a non-indigenous household. We know that the life expectancy of an indigenous person is over nine years shorter than a non-indigenous person on this land.

We know that while fewer than 5% of Canadians are indigenous, indigenous women represent over half of the inmate population in federal penitentiaries. We know that when we account for male participants, while indigenous men represent 5% of the population, they represent 30% of the prison population. Those are really chilling statistics.

I can say, parenthetically, that TRC call to action 55 has several subcategories. Two of the subcategories, and I will just cite from them, talk about the council ensuring that it reports on the progress on “reducing the rate of criminal victimization of Aboriginal people” as well as, in call to action 55, subsection vii, “Progress on reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice and correctional systems.”

I think one important facet of what the council will be doing, and also how the government will be responding, is highlighting some of the initiatives we have already started to take.

I am very pleased to say that, about two weeks ago, we secured passage and royal assent of Bill C-5. The bill addresses mandatory minimum penalties in the country, which have been in place for far too long, and how those mandatory minimum penalties served to take low-risk, first-time offenders and overly incarcerate them, disproportionately impacting indigenous men and Black men in Canada.

That is an important facet, in terms of how we advance this fight for reconciliation and how we advance some of these terms that are specifically itemized in the calls to action. That is exactly the type of thing I would like to see reported on by the council and included in the responses by the Canadian government, as to what further steps we can take to cure such instances, such as overrepresentation.

There are lasting effects. All of these statistics I have been citing demonstrate the lasting effects of the intergenerational trauma in Canada that has been inflicted upon first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. They are the result of enduring systemic discrimination and systemic racism in this country. That is critical to underline. It should be an issue that is really incontrovertible in the chamber.

We cannot begin to address such serious issues until we put into law a mechanism for holding the government of the day accountable, consistently accountable, for the actions, both past and present, and for what we are doing to remedy these historical injustices.

I was quite pleased to see this bill get the support of all parties at second reading. I am very confident that, hopefully, it will get support, once again, of all of the parties in the chamber.

I note, again, some of the important amendments that were made. I mentioned one of them right at the start of my comments. Other useful amendments presented by a multi-party group at committee included having elders and residential school survivors and their descendants populate the board of directors for this council. That would be a really critical feature.

I will say, somewhat subjectively, that I was quite pleased to see the fact that the importance of revitalizing, restoring and ensuring the non-extinction of indigenous languages also forms part of the amendments that were suggested by the committee, something we have wholeheartedly adopted already in Parliament.

As I mentioned earlier, the response to the annual report will be led by the Prime Minister himself.

That being said, this bill would do more than place obligations on the government. It would compel the government to continuously hold a mirror to itself, to urge us to never stop striving to do the best job we can vis-à-vis reconciliation. It would urge us to take ownership of the wrongdoings of the past and of the challenges of the present, and to work toward a commitment to do better going forward.

I think this type of honesty and accountability has been long sought after, and Bill C-29 is a step in the right direction.

I commend the bill and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and ensure its passage.

Public Safety

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our Bill C‑5, which the Conservatives voted against, gave judges the ability to increase maximum sentences for hardened criminals. This provides the flexibility to ensure that criminals are punished and put in prison while respecting the legal principles that apply to everyone.

We will continue to introduce measures that will keep our communities safe while the Conservatives will continue to want to bring assault weapons back to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, serious crimes will always have serious consequences.

Bill C-5 is about moving past the failed policies of the Conservatives that clogged our system and filled our prisons with low-risk first-time offenders, time and resources that should have been devoted to fighting serious crimes.

In fact, former Supreme Court Justice Moldaver, whom no one could accuse of being soft on crime, recently stressed the need for a different approach to less serious offences. In the past decade we saw the impact of harsh, ineffective policies on indigenous and racialized people, and on those who suffer from addiction.

These are smart criminal justice policies.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion]

Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member is entitled to his opinions, but he is not entitled to the facts.

The fact is that the Conservatives cut $390 million from CBSA, further weakening our borders. In addition, the Conservatives are comfortable with attacking Bill C-5, which comes from the first government to tackle the issue of the massive overrepresentation of indigenous and Black Canadian people in our prison system. That is a scandal and the Conservatives should not fight that.

We are trying to fix the systemic discriminatory effects of mandatory minimum sentences that have not improved community safety but have led to a massive increase in overrepresentation of disadvantaged groups.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's misguided approach continues with Bill C-5.

Bill C-5 reduces the mandatory minimum sentences for numerous violent crimes, including crimes with firearms. Bill C-75 made it easier for criminals to get out on bail. Now, rather than going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberals are targeting law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters with Bill C-21.

When will the government stop its soft-on-crime approach and get serious about public safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canada's history, we have repealed mandatory minimum penalties, giving judges the flexibility to impose sentences that fit the crimes.

We have repealed the MMP that contribute most to the overincarceration of indigenous, Black and racialized people. The adoption of Bill C-5 means prosecutors and police can dedicate more resources and time to fighting serious crimes.

I want to thank all those who supported us, including members of the opposition, as well as senators, in getting Bill C-5 through royal assent.

Motions in Amendment

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was in the House when you ruled that it was inappropriate to discuss Bill C‑5 in the context of this debate. With all due respect to my colleague and his political party, I note that he is referring to a different piece of legislation.

I, for one, would need more than 10 seconds to comment on the Indian Act. I am very aware of the importance of the issue raised by my colleague and I would be pleased to continue the discussion with him.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate. I have already indicated that we are on Bill C-29.

The hon. parliamentary secretary spoke about Bill C-5. I understand that there is flexibility, but the relevancy also has to be to Bill C-29.

The hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

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

Madam Speaker, with great respect, Bill C-5 is very relevant to this conversation. Calls to action 32—

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in many of the things the member said. However, the question I have for him is in regard to Bill C-5.

When we think of the calls to action, a lot of things deal with the issue of systemic racism and the percentage of indigenous people in our prison system. Bill C-5 would attempt to deal with that by looking, at least in part, at what the calls to action are talking about, which is minimum sentences and repealing them.

Could the member provide the Conservative Party's position on addressing that aspect of a number of calls to action that are looking at ways in which we can decrease the high percentage of indigenous people in jail? What are the member's thoughts in regard to, in particular, Bill C-5?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the ministers and all the senior officials for being here in committee. It has been a long time since we met in person.

Minister Bennett, I also have several questions for you.

To start, I think there's been some recent confusion regarding politicization of the approaches to addressing the toxic drug crisis, which we know requires an array of responses along a spectrum of prevention, health promotion, harm reduction, access to clinical treatment services, including opioid agonist therapy, other clinical supports, adequate social supports, access to treatment and recovery for those who are ready.

Also, may I mention legislative actions such as those we've accomplished with Bill C-5, which addresses unfair mandatory minimum policies and modernizing drug policy, including, ultimately, decriminalization of personal possession of illicit drugs?

As an MP, I represent the Yukon, which is still struggling in the opioid drug crisis but nevertheless has made some substantial gains in a number of these areas.

My first maybe very quick question is, how much should we rely on values alone versus evidence in determining drug policy or, for that matter, any health policy?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about our very smart criminal justice policy.

Serious crimes will always have serious consequences. Bill C-5 is moving past failed policies of the Conservative era, which clogged our justice system and filled our prisons with low-risk first-time offenders, time and resources that should be devoted to fighting serious crimes. In fact, former Supreme Court Justice Moldaver, who no one can accuse of being soft on crime, recently stressed the need for a different approach to less serious offences. Our communities are not safer for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. What we are doing with our various policies is ensuring that serious crime always gets treated seriously, that we have a fight against gangs and that we strengthen our border measures in order to take serious crime seriously.

Former Supreme Court Justice Michael Moldaver implored us to spend fewer resources on parts of the criminal justice system where there was no threat to public safety, and not to incarcerate people at that end of the spectrum. That is what Bill C-5 does. Nobody can accuse Michael Moldaver of ever being soft on crime.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, wow is right. It is an alarming number. We also know that there has been a 32% increase in violent crimes as well.

Those are startling numbers on their own. What is even more horrifying is to imagine the faces of the victims, the women, children and seniors living in our communities, who are impacted by the notion that this increase in gang violence and violent crime is out there. That is an awful feeling to contend with, knowing that it is all too close.

The communities I represent are part of the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, so we feel that increase in gang activity in the GTA. We see the headlines, the stories and the bloody images on the news. We know that our communities are not immune, as we have seen that increase in home invasions, shootings and more.

In fact, there was a very bloody shooting in broad daylight of a notorious mob boss on the driveway of a home in Waterdown, a community in my riding, which is adjacent to Burlington. It is a community of 15,000 people, and in broad daylight, a mob boss was gunned down. That made national and international news. We know that there has been a surge in violent crime in the Niagara region as well. The police there have spoken about that and the statistics that were recently reported bear that out.

I would submit that all of this is because of the government’s soft-on-crime approach, which we have seen with Bill C-5, the ending of mandatory minimums for a host of violent crimes. The message to gangs and violent criminals from the Liberal government has been very clear: If they do a crime, they will not do the time. They might have to do some house arrest. We are talking about very serious crimes such as rape, assault, stabbings, drive-by shootings and gun violence. It is no wonder I am hearing from more and more constituents about the crime that is happening in the community and what is happening all around us.

The homicide report that Statistics Canada put out, which I referred to, noted that 2021 was the biggest year ever for gang-related murder, the highest rate ever recorded in Canada. That is quite alarming. Homicides overall were up 3% since 2020, year over year. It is the highest national homicide rate since 2005, which means that the seven years of the Liberal soft-on-crime policies have undone all the work of the previous Conservative government, which had left our streets much safer.

In my home city of Hamilton, the homicide rate, at a rate of 2.57 per 100,000 people, is above both the national average and the Ontario average. This is a consequence of the increase in gang violence. The police in the neighbouring Niagara region recently estimated there are 32 gangs operating in the region, primarily operating between the GTA, Niagara and Hamilton, throughout the surrounding areas. The police say that, as a result of this, they are seeing increases in drug trafficking, human trafficking, robberies, home invasions and shooting incidents.

In concluding my remarks on Bill C-20, the bill itself, and the necessary oversight it would create for the RCMP and CBSA, are good in our view, although a long time coming. In the wider context of the state of public safety in Canada, the situation is getting worse. The communities in my riding and across Canada are far less safe. Gangs and violent crime are accelerating at an alarming pace. It is a very real daily worry for far too many Canadians. Seven years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies have taken their toll.

Canadians can count on a new Conservative government, after the next election, to turn this around, reverse these horrifying crimes, statistics and trends, and make our communities safe once again.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, there is a recommendation from the inquest for the federal government to explore adding the term “femicide” to the Criminal Code. What do Canadians get? Bill C-5 and Bill S-4. Bill S-4 was so important to the government that it has come before us several times, and the government just lets it lapse on the Order Paper.

Borutski, the eastern Ontario man who was sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 70 years for killing three women in 2015, can now challenge his sentence due to the Supreme Court ruling. Bill S-4 is not going to fix that. Even if he is not granted parole, his victims' families are forced to relive the crime and the loss of their loved ones at regular parole hearings after the 25-year mark. Real justice calls for changes that would prevent such a tragedy from happening again. Tinkering with the system by allowing Zoom into a courtroom is no joke to victims' families, and that is what Bill S-4 is doing.

The coroner's inquest into the deaths of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk wrapped up after hearing extensive testimony from victims' families, their counsel, domestic violence experts and advocates. The jury made 86 recommendations based on the inquest. It is important to know about them since part of accountability is our awareness, and demanding that our public institutions do the right thing to prevent intimate partner violence. However, Bill S-4 tinkers with the administration of the court system.

It is time to be more cognizant of what is causing the problems. The first set of recommendations addresses the need for oversight and accountability. These initial recommendations recognize the importance of listening to and learning from victims and survivors, and they emphasize the need to follow up on implementation.

We need to create a survivor advocate position. Understanding that domestic violence victims' experiences with police and the justice system can be difficult, the jury recommended having a survivor advocate to advocate on behalf of survivors when they interact with the justice system.

They wanted to establish an independent intimate partner violence commission. The jury wants a commission to be established, like the one in the U.K., that can be a voice for survivors and victims' families. Local activists agree that an independent commission would help ensure the inquest recommendations are followed through and engage in meaningful consultation. By speaking with intimate partner violence survivors, victims' families and experts in the field, these consultations would determine the responsibilities and direction of the IPV commission and evaluate the effectiveness of existing community supports and prevention strategies, including program funding.

I will conclude my remarks by thanking all those who were involved in the inquest process, including the witnesses who gave their time so generously, along with the women from the anti-violence community in Renfrew county and beyond.