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.

Public Safety

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, no government has done more than the Liberals to make life easier for violent criminals and harder for their victims.

They are letting mass murderers apply for parole and they refuse to stop illegal guns from coming across the border. Now they are trying to repeal laws that Conservatives brought in that required violent criminals to serve their time in jail and not from the comfort of their own home.

We strengthened these laws to protect innocent Canadians and the Supreme Court of Canada has just reaffirmed that these laws are, in fact, constitutional. With violent crime up by 32% under the government’s watch, violent offenders need more accountability, not less.

Despite the facts, the Prime Minister wants to reverse these laws with his soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5. If this bill were to pass, not only would violent offenders become eligible to serve time from the comfort of their homes, but also those charged with violent gun crimes, like drive-by shootings or a robbery with a firearm, will not be required to serve mandatory jail time at all.

The Prime Minister must finally do the right thing and withdraw his soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Roebuck. Thank you so much for your appearance today to help us in this important study.

I'm going to try to balance my questions with respect to both witnesses. It really depends on the timing. I know I have only six minutes.

I'll go first to you, Mr. Roebuck. I want to personally congratulate you on your appointment to this particular role. It is a role that is so vastly important to victims in this country of ours from coast to coast to coast. I would be remiss if I did not highlight the fact that this particular position was left vacant for close to 13 months, notwithstanding the cries from the official opposition and other members of the House of Commons to fill it, because there was a need for victims to be heard.

As you have indicated in previous testimony—I've done a little bit of research—there is a real disconnect in terms of equality in the criminal justice system between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims. You have opined specifically with respect to section 15 and section 28 of the charter, how there is that particular imbalance. It's so important to have you here filling this particular role. It would have been so helpful to have your knowledge and your background when we studied Bill C-5, and also when we studied, most recently, victims' rights with respect to participating in the criminal justice system.

That being said, I want to give you an opportunity to perhaps expand on some of the recommendations that you spoke about. As a former Crown attorney, I am so acutely aware of the abysmal statistics we have in terms of successful prosecutions in this country. It stems from a lack of reporting. It stems from a lack of knowledge of rights. It stems from a lack of trust that the victims have with police authorities, with participants in the criminal justice system. You yourself have opined that there was a great deal of misinformation that was largely alarmist the moment the Supreme Court of Canada released the decision.

I'd like to hear from you, sir, as to the particular steps your office is taking to perhaps assuage some of these fears and some of the concerns that victims have, particularly as they relate to the Supreme Court of Canada decision and the government's response with the passing of Bill C-28.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is very important that we have strong mechanisms to hold those in law enforcement roles accountable. I think that everyone would agree on that. These are the individuals who we empower to enforce law and order, so we need to have an equally powerful oversight body to ensure that there are no abuses of that power.

Before I go into the rest of this, I do want to very sincerely thank all of the men and women in the country who wear a uniform to keep Canadians safe.

It is very important that, as parliamentarians, when we talk about oversight, we also talk about the incredible sacrifices that RCMP and CBSA officers make. RCMP officers, with their families, are carted around the country to various small towns, often in rural and northern Canada. We need those officers to keep those communities safe, and they make a lot of sacrifices for their families. We know that CBSA officers, as well, are often in border towns or border communities that are far away from where a CBSA officer would normally live. There is a lot of movement around and a lot of weeks away from home.

As we know, CBSA officers and our RCMP officers are consistently putting themselves in danger, again, to keep us safe, so I thank all of the officers out there who don a uniform and do that for our country.

Certainly, as I was saying, the oversight body is very important. Particularly, we have been talking a lot about CBSA in recent years and their role in preventing things such as gun violence, for example.

It has been discussed with many policing bodies the great threat of having, frankly, the largest undefended border in the world with a country that owns more firearms than they have people, which is just part of their culture and their history, and that is not up for debate in the House, but what is up for debate is how it impacts Canada and the important role that CBSA has in ensuring that none of those firearms make their way into Canada illegally.

Unfortunately, in cities such as Toronto and Montreal, we are seeing significant issues, and deaths and murders, from evil criminal elements and gangs that take advantage of our porous border and smuggle into the country firearms that are not just restricted, but prohibited. They are using them illegally, possessing them illegally and really damaging, particularly, our vulnerable communities in Montreal, Toronto and other cities across the country.

It is not just those neighbourhoods that are particularly vulnerable. We are seeing gun violence across the country in rural Canada. We are seeing it leak into suburbs, which normally feel very secure and safe from these types of elements. That is what is happening with the criminal elements in our cities, and they are being fuelled by what seems to be the ability to quite easily smuggle or drone in guns, either at our border and at our ports of entry.

We also know that this is deeply tied to drug smuggling and drug trafficking across our border as well. CBSA has a huge role to prevent that as well. We are depending on our CBSA officers to prevent significant criminal activity that can contribute to death and mayhem in our cities. We are empowering them to do that. We need to make sure that they have the resources, equipment and training to fulfill those important duties for Canadians.

Unfortunately, we do not hear nearly enough about it from the government. It is far too focused on going after law-abiding, trained, tested and vetted Canadian firearms owners than it is on the issue of our border. Perhaps that is a debate for another time. Given that we are talking about oversight of the CBSA today, I think it is worthwhile to bring in the important work that it does and how much we need to prioritize resources to the border to ensure that we are keeping Canadians safe from the impacts of gun smuggling and drug smuggling.

We have also been talking a lot in recent weeks and, frankly, months about the RCMP. We know that the RCMP is facing a significant recruitment and retention issue. I have a lot of RCMP and Winnipeg police officers in my riding. They are incredible men and women, but they are saying morale is quite low. Where is the oversight and the responsibility from the government, and other levels of government, to ensure that RCMP and civic police officers are feeling valued in their role?

That is something that deeply concerns me. We are facing a deficit of police officers when, frankly, there has been a 32% rise in violent crimes since the Liberals formed government seven years ago, since the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister of Canada. Another stat I would like to share is that there were 124,000 more violent crimes last year than there were in 2015 when the Liberals came into power. The need for police to keep our communities safe is greater than ever, yet we are facing serious retention issues.

We are talking about oversight of our RCMP, but we also need to be talking about policies that ensure our RCMP members are adequately supported. What happens when we have overworked police officers and when there are not enough of them, so they are being spread thinner and thinner and their workload is going up higher and higher? We get fatigue. We get depression. We get accelerated impacts of PTSD from the things they see. If we do not have officers who can rest and take care of their mental health, then we have serious impacts on their ability to adequately do their jobs and keep themselves safe, keep their fellow officers safe and ensure they are doing their duty to keep communities safe.

Any time we are talking about RCMP, CBSA or armed forces members, there needs to be an equal conversation about ensuring we are adequately supporting those officers and those members so that they are feeling valued and being supported enough so that they can adequately do their jobs to the best of their mental and physical abilities. Mistakes get made when they are tired. Mistakes get made when they are demoralized, frustrated, irritated and overworked. That is when the biggest mistakes happen. I think if we are going to talk about oversight, we have to talk about better support for our police officers and our officers at the border.

Certainly, when we are talking about the RCMP as well, there have been a lot of discussions of how we can better serve the vulnerable communities that are seeing the most impacts from violent crime. We could talk about the revolving door that also exhausts police officers. About five years ago, the Liberal government brought forward a bill, Bill C-75, that instituted bail reform. This is something I have been looking into in recent weeks and months, and I have been discussing with police officers the impacts they have seen with these bail reform changes.

It would seem that, quite significantly, Bill C-75 has contributed to the revolving door of crime. Those who are looking to break the law and perhaps harm others are in and out of jail over and over again. Police are encountering the same people, week after week, committing the same types of crimes. It is often just petty theft and petty crime, but often it could also be more significant crimes, like stabbings, shootings, rapes or other types of assault.

Can members imagine being police officers and risking their lives to arrest the same person over and over? What does that do to those police officers? What does it do to their morale and their ability to consistently keep their spirits up and do their jobs, when it is the same people over and over again? If we want to talk about oversight, we have to talk about adequately equipping our police officers with the resources they need, and that goes back to our criminal justice system and how it ensures the people they arrest in the first place stay in jail if they are a threat to society.

Then we have things like Bill C-5, which our party has really talked about a lot in terms of our belief in the threat it is going to pose, particularly to vulnerable communities. To refresh the memories of those watching, Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison time for serious firearm offences, like assaulting a police officer with a weapon or drive-by shootings, so firing a gun with the intent to injure someone with a bullet would no longer mean mandatory prison time under the current Liberal government.

It would also allow that, for serious offences, rather than having a mandatory minimum sentence, there would be the option to serve house arrest. Therefore, in a vulnerable community, for example, if there are people who are criminals or part of a gang doing very bad things to those in that community, rather than going to prison, they could be serving house arrest in the community they have terrorized. I do not think that is fair to those communities. I do not think they want those criminal elements in their communities. It also would not provide any opportunity for rehabilitation, which is provided in our penitentiary system. In my opinion we should have far more rehabilitation opportunities in our penitentiaries, but that is a conversation for another time.

We also have a lot of concerns with leadership in the RCMP. I asked the minister today if this bill would provide any oversight to the RCMP commissioner, given the recent scandal and accusations, with corroborating evidence, that the RCMP commissioner politically interfered with the worst mass killing in Canadian history, notably the Nova Scotia 2020 mass killing. This is a very serious matter the Conservatives, together with the Bloc and the NDP, have been investigating for five months. Although the bill would improve the oversight of the RCMP, I do not think that would translate to the top leadership of the RCMP, unfortunately, though it is desperately needed.

In committee just the other day we were talking to the commissioner of the RCMP, and this was the second time she came to committee about the same interference scandal. She also went to the Mass Casualty Commission to discuss this as well, and it was quite a challenging experience. I was hoping for some sentiment that she was remorseful she had handled the situation the way she had or any sort of legitimate explanation that we could understand that would provide us some relief that she did not do this. Unfortunately, we did not get any of that.

Our only ability to hold her accountable is through the public safety committee, at least as the opposition. The government could fire the commissioner, but it has not taken those steps. We believe it should. Bill C-20 is talking about oversight; however, there is no oversight mechanism in it, that I am aware, for the RCMP commissioner in this circumstance.

Just to recap, a few years ago during the heat of the fallout, about 10 days into the tragedy that took 22 lives, including the life of a pregnant woman, we found out through the evidence we built through the MCC, that the RCMP commissioner, first and foremost, warned the government that sharing the weapons information about the evil killer in that situation, who, again, killed 22 people plus a pregnant women, would jeopardize the criminal investigation. She made it very clear that it should not be shared beyond the minister and the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, a few days later she turned around. We now had an audio recording where she was reprimanding her Nova Scotia deputies on the ground for not sharing the information that she warned her bosses not to share. We asked her and the MCC asked her what changed her mind. She has not provided a single coherent answer about what changed her mind. We have theories, but she has not provided a single coherent response.

What we found out from the audio recording, and what was certainly corroborated before we got that audio recording by the Nova Scotia deputies and their meticulous notes, was that the commissioner was connecting the Liberals' forthcoming gun control policies. She did this because she wanted to help usher along the Liberal government's gun control policies.

When we have the commissioner of the RCMP, with 22 murdered Canadians and the largest criminal investigation in Canadian history in that regard, looking at this as an opportunity to further her political boss's gun control policy, we obviously have a lot of questions and concerns about that. We believe that is political interference. What really tied it back to the Liberal government were her own words saying that they requested that she do this.

The Liberal government has repeatedly denied this. We have her words in an audio recording. We have that corroborated with the Nova Scotia deputies who were in that meeting where she stated those things. They have written notes. They have testified at committee without a doubt in their minds, and given the audio we can see where they are coming from, that the commissioner of the RCMP sought to take advantage of the deaths of 22 people to further the Liberal political agenda. She also said that it was requested by the then-minister of public safety's office.

We have gone through this for five months. The evidence has trickled out and built the case. To us, it seems irrefutable that this happened, yet she still has her position. We find that disgusting and appalling. We do not understand how someone, the head of our law enforcement, could come to committee and worm her way around the facts on the ground, the audio recording that we have, that she directly connects these things. However, she said things like that was just a conversation, that was taken out of context, this is all a misunderstanding or it was just a miscommunication. That is what we were hearing. However, we have the audio recording and we have the testimony from the people who were in the room.

It is quite frustrating that we were not able to fully hold the most powerful RCMP officer in the country accountable. Perhaps that is a shortcoming of my own. Perhaps I could have done a better job. However, if we are going to talk about Bill C-20, the government also needs to talk about holding the RCMP commissioner accountable, which it has so far failed to do.

It would be one thing if it was just in this scenario that she was using that kind of slippery language to make excuses for her behaviour, which was, as we believe, on the order of the Liberal government and its ministers. She also mentioned the PMO in the audio, so perhaps it goes as far as the Prime Minister's Office. However, we were unable to get any further evidence to convince media and others that it is the case. Should any more evidence come up, rest assured, we will be revisiting that issue.

What I would say is that I think the reporters are finally experiencing a bit of what we experienced with the commissioner over the past five months.

Again talking about the oversight of the RCMP, recently a Globe and Mail story came out, which I think was yesterday or the day before, and now it seems that the commissioner is pulling the same sort of behaviour with the Emergencies Act. She apparently was texting with her counterpart at the OPP, the OPP commissioner, back in the height of the convoy when the government invoked the Emergencies Act. As a refresher, the Emergencies Act allows the government to supersede charter rights, which is a very big deal. That is why there is a built-in inquiry to hold the government accountable for doing it, to ensure the very high threshold of the Emergencies Act was met. We are going through that process right now and it is quite riveting.

The commissioner is sort of pulling the same stuff with the media. There are text messages between her and the OPP. The title of the article is, “Top Mountie can’t explain text messages in which she suggested federal government wanted retroactive support for Emergencies Act”. Where is the oversight on this?

She said the following to the OPP commissioner, which is unbelievable, “Has Minister Blair hit you up for a letter to support the EA?” My understanding from the article is that this is after the Emergencies Act was invoked by the Liberals. We have the commissioner of the RCMP asking for a retroactive support letter for the invocation of the Emergencies Act from the OPP commissioner. Two very powerful people are talking about backdating a letter retroactively to show that they are supporting this. That is pretty peculiar. Their integrity is pretty suspect and perhaps shows how desperate, which is speculation, the political bosses in that scenario were to build their case. We know that the Minister of Public Safety said mistruths in this House when he said that the police asked for the emergency powers, when in fact they did not. This is just building on that narrative a little more.

Further, she told reporters she never requested such a letter, yet we have texts that say that she did. How can there be texts that say she requested this letter, when she tells reporters that she did not? This is what we have been going through for five months with the commissioner. We say she said something and she says that is not what that meant, over and over again. We are talking about RCMP oversight. Where is the oversight for the RCMP commissioner?

I will conclude with this, because this is the part that shocked me the most. The head of the RCMP, the commissioner, texted the head of the OPP. Commissioner Lucki's texts show that she twice asked Commissioner Carrique about using a different messaging app that does not store deleted messages. In the context of talking about the emergency powers, is it not peculiar to anyone that the head of the RCMP is texting the head of the OPP saying they need use to an app where their messages can be permanently deleted? Is no one concerned about that?

The heads of law and order are talking about using an app to permanently delete records. That is insane to me and it is unbelievable that the commissioner is still the head of law and order in this country. It is appalling. She should absolutely resign or, better yet, be fired by the public safety minister.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I was in Montreal recently to meet with victims' groups, racialized community groups and police associations to talk about crime in the streets of Montreal. They are unanimous. Bill C-5 is a mistake. Doing away with mandatory sentences for gun crimes is a mistake. I am not the one saying it. It is all the groups that I met with. This does not make any sense.

The bill is currently in the Senate. Will the Prime Minister call his friends in the Senate and ask them to vote against Bill C‑5 and strike it down?

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the traditional strong representation from Malpeque continues.

Earlier this month, we announced a significant investment of $1.68 million to address several issues related to the overrepresentation of Red River Métis people in the justice system. The Manitoba Métis Federation will use this money for programs that will help prevent and reduce crime through diversion of offenders out of the criminal justice system, with appropriate supports. These investments will also help families through the establishment of Métis mediation services.

I think everyone in this chamber agrees that we need to fight the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. This is part of it. Bill C-5 is another.

Judges Act

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, victims have to be at the core of what we consider when we are looking at legislation. A good example of that is Bill C-5 and how the government is removing minimum sentences from very serious crimes. That puts these individuals who have committed these crimes right back into their communities and right back into where the victims are.

That was one of the main reasons why we did not support that piece of legislation. We were looking out for the victims and caring for the victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk raised some very good points and spoke about why it is very important to address the judicial system and build integrity in the system, and my colleague from Niagara Falls raised the issue of public confidence in our justice system, so I want to pick up on those points and talk about the fact that violent crime is up on our streets, yet the government and its coalition partners have certainly been shown to be soft on crime.

I want to refer, as we talk about debate on this issue, to three articles that were in The Hamilton Spectator, the daily paper in my community, just this week alone. Let me read the headlines, because I think they speak to the fact that we really have a crime wave that is going on in our streets, and if we are going to talk about the judicial system, what is not in the bill and what we are not talking about is the increase in violent crime and the increase in weapons and those things that were watered down in Bill C-5 with the watered-down mandatory minimums. We need to really address that, because that is certainly what people in my community are asking about.

This was just on Wednesday: “Two teens charged and one suspect at large after weekend shooting near Hess Village”, which is a popular area for bars in the Hamilton area. This article refers to the fact that there were “32 shootings reported in Hamilton this year”, and three people killed. This is just one example.

Two days prior, on Monday of this week, there was a “Loaded firearm seized...at Hamilton Mountain restaurant”. This is concerning to people in my community. Police arrested some suspects in this crime, but the fact that there were loaded firearms at restaurants in suburban communities and the fact that people are afraid to go out as a result of these things are a concern. That is something that is not really being addressed in changes to the judicial system under the current government.

There is another one, from Sunday, again this same week, so there are three articles this week: “Police are investigating gunshots following a ‘disturbance’ on Hamilton’s west Mountain...Officers say [this was] in a parking lot of [a] housing complex”. Here we have people who are living in these communities, and they are experiencing all these increases in gun crime and violent crime. That is something that is not being addressed in this bill and is not being addressed by the government.

I know of another example, though I do not have the article or the headline on it, in my own riding in the town of Binbrook, which is really a small community of about 5,000 people. Recently in Binbrook there have been a number of car thefts and a number of home invasions. Members can imagine someone in a bedroom community who is fearful of home invasions in their community. This is a little further from the city, so police response is slow. These are things that are of real concern to real people in our communities, but they are not being addressed in changes to the justice system under the current government.

The revolving door of crime we are seeing is something that really needs to be more strongly addressed. I could throw out a number of different stats from the articles I talked about. There are still 348 people who are wanted on outstanding charges, including drugs and weapons charges. Many are repeat offenders, and that is not being addressed in the legislation.

As well, our system is not perfect, and that is the point that has been made by my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk, but we do expect a higher standard of judges, and we expect a response to these activities that are going on in our communities that make people fearful to walk the streets. We know that is going on. We know there is this increase in violent crime. How are we addressing the root causes of that and focusing in on that?

Let me just conclude by echoing the comments made by my colleague. It is not perfect. There are things in the bill that we support. There are some criticisms she has suggested, and obviously they will be studied at committee, but my larger question is this: How are we helping people in our communities who are concerned about the increase of crime and not hearing any answers?

[André Gélinas]

Bill C‑5 undermines our judicial system and boosts the arrogance of criminal groups. Criminals study their surroundings and get advice from their lawyers. So, when they're told that there are no more mandatory minimum penalties, there are no longer any deterrents.

The other element in this regard is that criminals look at what is going on around them. When I tell you that they study their surroundings, I mean that they look at Bill C‑21 and realize that the government is targeting people with licences who, in the vast majority of cases, are not a problem. The message this sends to criminals is that the government is not focusing on the real problem. It's abolishing minimum mandatory penalties and continues to intervene in areas where there appear to be no problems at all.

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

Bill C‑5, introduced by the Liberals, eliminates mandatory prison sentences for violent gun crimes and allows these criminals to be put under house arrest in our communities.

What impact do policies like the ones in Bill C‑5 have on the safety of Canadian communities? Do they contribute to the increase in violent crimes?

[Stéphane Wall, Retired Supervisor, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of Parliament, hello.

I am a retired supervisor at the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. I work with the media and elected officials to explain the job of police officer and the reality on the ground. I am one of the three founding members of the Communauté de citoyens en action contre les criminels violents, the CCACV, which, on January 26, 2022, recommended 16 actions at the different levels of government, including the federal level. You have just heard André Gélinas, another founding member of the CCACV. Mrs. Anie Samson, who was once deputy chair of the City of Montreal executive committee, is the third.

Victims of violent crime and their loved ones are our inspiration. We believe that, in Canada, the rights and freedoms of victims and their loved ones when it comes to life, health and safety should trump the rights and freedoms of violent criminals.

We believe that a responsible legislator must adopt laws and regulations aimed at the right targets, i.e. violent criminals, including members of street gangs and organized crime, who almost always use illegal firearms in their shootings, often from moving vehicles.

In our opinion, when we become complacent in the face of serious crimes committed by criminals who possess, discharge or point a firearm, which we appear to be doing in Bill C‑5, which we also spoke about in committee, you can be sure that there will be two major social consequences. First, there will be an increase in criminals' sense of impunity, already a subject of boasting by members of street gangs on social media and in videos disseminating gangsta-rap culture. Second, there will be a drastic increase in the number of victims in the same neighbourhoods as the violent criminals, who are already over-represented according to Statistics Canada figures for 2021. These include Blacks, who accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in 2021, and indigenous people, among whom the homicide rate was six times higher than among the non-indigenous population in 2021.

Bill C‑21 is not aiming at the right target. It is a superficial measure that will in no way reduce the number of shootings perpetrated by violent criminals, who almost always use illegal firearms. Instead of hitting the right nail, i.e. illegal firearms trafficking over the border and through indigenous reserves, it is hitting a nail that will change nothing. It targets licensed firearm owners who legitimately use their guns to hunt or practise shooting sports.

Let's look at a few measures proposed by the legislation to counter firearms trafficking.

First, the maximum sentence for firearm offences, including trafficking, is increased from 10 to 14 years. In reality, courts almost never sentence offenders to 10 years. So why would they suddenly sentence them to 14 years? The young William Rainville, for example, who was arrested in Dundee with almost 250 Polymer80 handguns and firearm receivers, was given five years in prison, but was released barely one year later.

Second, the bill proposes prohibiting companies from promoting armed violence in their sales and marketing activities. Wouldn't it be better to prohibit street gang members from promoting armed violence on social media, where they threaten their enemies with firearms, show off their impunity from justice, their invincibility, their money and their victims of procuring?

Let's compare. By using the same logic that Bill C‑21 is based on, to solve the problem of drunk driving and prevent criminals on the road from causing numerous deaths, we could pass legislation prohibiting anyone, even those who are licensed and follow the rules, from owning a motor vehicle. You can see that the solution doesn't fit the problem.

What proportion of handguns used to commit crimes come from Canada? The figures I'm going to give you are taken from an online presentation by the RCMP in 2022 to the national firearms task force. In 2021, 10% of all handguns used to commit crimes were from Canada. They were therefore legal. The remaining 90% either came from the United States and therefore could not be traced, or were ghost guns designed to circumvent the law. So, in 2021, of all crimes involving handguns, 9 out of 10 were probably committed using illegal handguns. Since the beginning of 2022, 16% of all firearms used have been from Canada. In other words, of all crimes involving handguns, 8.4 out of 10 are committed using illegal handguns.

How can legislators target these illegal handguns? First, they need to ensure better surveillance at the border and around the Akwesasne reserve. They need to add cameras, drones, electronic surveillance equipment and high-speed boats, as well as patrols and border controls by the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police. They also need to increase the number of vehicle inspections on the roads near the border and the number of inspections of all types of motor vehicles leaving the indigenous reserve by land, sea or air. In addition, they need to implement a procedure obliging the CBSA to file criminal charges with every seizure. Prosecution is currently very rare. Also, they need to increase collaboration between the RCMP and the U.S. authorities in investigations. Lastly, they need to provide better funding for the network of informants living near the border and on indigenous reserves.

In conclusion, legislators must aim at the right target and not sport shooters or hunters who have the necessary licences. In addition to hunters, legislators should at least exempt sport shooters who train regularly, who are registered with a recognized shooting club and who take part in at least one competition a year to retain their acquired rights.

Thank you for your time.

[Pierre Brochet]

I think that increasing the maximum penalty will work in exceptional cases, like for people charged with several counts of high-level arms trafficking. It is important to get this message across.

With respect to Bill C‑5, I testified before another parliamentary committee. As we explained then, we understand the aim of the bill, which is an attempt to resolve the problem of over-representation of indigenous communities and racialized groups in prison. We understand this very well. However, the entire country is dealing with an alarming rise in the use of firearms by organized crime and street gangs. We are very concerned about this, as are many Canadians. Personally, I am the chief of the Laval police service. When there are shootings in Laval, people tell me that they are thinking of moving to another city. These shootings, committed by increasingly younger suspects, incidentally, are having a major impact.

Bill C‑5, which aims to remove mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences, is sending the wrong message in our opinion. Not only do we not agree with removing the mandatory minimum penalties, as we said before, we even proposed an opt-out clause. In other words, the principle of mandatory minimum penalties would be upheld in the case of firearms-related offences, but a judge could opt out based on certain criteria. That's how it's done in a number of countries. The judge could, based on certain criteria, opt out and not apply the mandatory minimum penalty in some cases.

It's an important element. As you know, there is a whole process. You can make arrests and seize firearms, but criminals are very likely to re-offend if they are freed after a short period of time. In fact, there is a high recidivism rate. Also, the message we are sending other criminals lacks strength. We're giving the impression that Canadians do not take these types of situations seriously.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here today.

Mr. Brochet, thank you for agreeing to testify before the committee today.

In your opening speech, you mentioned that you agreed with certain elements of Bill C‑21, particularly the increase in maximum penalties for arms trafficking. However, you had certain reservations about Bill C‑5, which removes the mandatory minimum penalties for firearm-related crimes. There is however, a link between the two.

I often give the example of William Rainville, whose story you are probably familiar with. This 25‑year‑old Quebecer smuggled almost 250 firearms over the border. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but obtained day parole less than a year later. This shows that arms traffickers are not necessarily hardened criminals or even have a criminal record. It is often their first offence. In my opinion, it is very rare that they receive the maximum penalty or the longest sentence associated with their crime.

In your experience, does it happen often that people are given severe penalties for arms trafficking? Will increasing the maximum penalty really have a positive impact?

[Pierre Brochet, President, Association des directeurs de police du Québec]

Good morning, everyone.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting the Association des directeurs de police du Québec to take part in this discussion.

The Association des directeurs de police du Québec groups together 34 police services working in Quebec. They include the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal and the Sûreté du Québec, as well as all of the other municipal police services.

Before discussing Bill C‑21, I would like to say that Quebec's police chiefs are extremely aware of the fact that gun violence claims victims and affects their friends and family.

We are in favour of strengthening gun control. I think that it is the right message to send Canadians. As a society, Canada sends a strong message concerning our desire to reduce the number of firearms in circulation. In particular, we wish to reduce domestic violence and mass shootings.

We are also in favour of the buyback of assault weapons, an important measure that will certainly have a positive impact. Obviously, we need to put the logistics in place and coordinate efforts with the various provincial governments. This strategy will be costly, so the federal and provincial governments need to discuss the issue thoroughly.

We are also in favour of the handgun freeze. This is an important step forward. This being said, like you, we are aware that we will have to wait a few generations before we see any real change, because the people who currently own handguns will be able to keep them. However, we think that this is a step in the right direction.

I am sure that everyone has heard about the urban violence in the Montreal area, in particular in Montreal and Laval. To reduce urban violence, we need to continue our efforts to address arms trafficking and border controls. In Quebec, most firearms seized from criminals are smuggled in from the United States.

We would also like to request that the law be modernized to include ghost guns. As you may know, ghost guns are becoming increasingly popular. People order firearm components and assemble them to produce what we call ghost guns. We need to think about the possibility of making certain firearm components illegal.

We are also in favour of a red flag law when there is a restraining order in place. This would allow law enforcement to seize the firearms of a person who is subject to a restraining order. This would obviously have a serious impact, including in the case of domestic violence.

We are also if favour of stiffer penalties. According to the association, the fact that the maximum penalty is now 14 years is very good news. However, we would like to point out that this bill needs to be consistent with Bill C‑5 to remove mandatory prison sentences for several firearm-related crimes.

The addition of two provisions allowing Canadian police services to use electronic surveillance in cases of unauthorized possession of a firearm and possession of a prohibited firearm is also good news.

Criminal Code

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to join the second reading debate of Bill C-283 regarding addiction treatment in our prison system. Let me begin by thanking the hon. member for bringing this legislation forward and for recognizing the role that addictions play in crime.

I want to start by letting the member know that the government will not be supporting her legislation, but I will go into details of that now. Having met with the hon. member, I know that she is extremely well intentioned in bringing this legislation forward, and I do give her my personal commitment that I will work with her to ensure the ideas that she wants to bring forward are looked at.

Substance abuse must absolutely be treated as a health and social issue. Any Canadian who uses substances should be able to access the services and supports that they need. Anyone incarcerated in Canada's federal institutions should have access to quality, safe, person-centred and holistic care, regardless of institutional placement or type of offence. Indeed, these programs exist, and they are comprehensive and available to all offenders. They exist as part of the Government of Canada's broad and concrete approach to strengthen public health support for all Canadians.

Included in the 2021 Speech from the Throne was:

To build a healthy future, we must also strengthen our healthcare system and public health supports for all Canadians, especially seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, vulnerable members of our communities, and those who have faced discrimination by the very system that is meant to heal.

This is a key part of the mandate letters of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and the Minister of Public Safety.

The December 2021 mandate letter asked the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to:

Advance a comprehensive strategy to address problematic substance use in Canada, supporting efforts to improve public education to reduce stigma, and supporting provinces and territories and working with Indigenous communities to provide access to a full range of evidence-based treatment and harm reduction, as well as to create standards for substance use treatment programs.

The mandate letter asked the Minister of Justice to “Secure support for the swift passage of Bill C-5 to reduce reliance on mandatory minimum penalties and promote non-criminal approaches to drug possession”.

The mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety requires the minister to:

Develop a Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism in consultation with provinces, territories, Indigenous communities, Black communities and other stakeholders. As part of this work, [the government] consider how to ensure that federal correctional institutions are safe and humane environments, free from violence and sexual harassment, and promote rehabilitation and public safety.

As mentioned, in keeping with its public health-centred approach to addiction and the opioid epidemic that has affected families and communities across the country, the government introduced Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in December 2021. The bill proposes specific amendments that would repeal all mandatory minimum penalties in the CDSA and require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives, including diverting individuals to treatment programs instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple drug possession. It would also require that all past and future convictions for the simple possession of controlled drugs be kept separate and apart two years after the bill received royal assent.

Our efforts have also been focused on addressing the opioid crisis. Budget 2022 proposed to provide $100 million over three years, starting in 2022-23 to Health Canada for the substance use and addictions program. The program supports harm reduction, treatment and prevention at the community level, and it builds on the $116 million provided in budget 2021 and the additional $66 million in the 2020 fall economic statement for the program.

I would also like to highlight that in June 2022, the government published its federal framework to reduce recidivism. The framework outlines the strategy that Canada will take working to address the barriers identified under each of the thematic priorities of housing, education, employment, health and positive support networks.

The framework identifies harms related to substance use among offenders as an urgent issue and states that more programming inside and outside of the institution to aid offenders in managing addiction will be beneficial. It highlights that the gains made during in-prison treatment programs can only be maintained if an offender is provided with sufficient aftercare supports and community treatment upon release.

Given all of these actions, let us look at what the bill proposes.

It proposes to isolate substance use treatments from existing integrated services and to enact them on their own at designated treatment facilities. It proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide that a court, on request by a person sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary, may make a recommendation that they serve part or all of their sentence in a penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary that has been designated as an addiction treatment facility, provided that they meet certain conditions.

These conditions are, more specifically, where there is evidence of a pattern of repetitive behaviour indicating that substance use has contributed to the offender's involvement in the criminal justice system; that the offender consents to treatment; the court is satisfied that such an order would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing; that the offence was not prosecuted by indictment for which the maximum penalty is 14 years' imprisonment or life; and, finally, that the offence was not prosecuted by indictment for which the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment and the offence resulted in bodily harm or involved the use of a weapon, or involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs.

The Correctional Service of Canada would be required to fulfill such recommendations and adjust their rehabilitation model, which currently provides addiction treatment to all offenders who demonstrate substance use and addiction treatment needs.

Additionally, the bill proposes that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to provide authority for the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to designate a penitentiary or area of a penitentiary to be an addiction treatment facility.

The bill would also amend the definition of “health care” in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to include “care that is provided as part of an addiction treatment program in a designated facility”.

It would authorize the Minister of Public Safety to enter into an agreement with a province “for the provision of addiction treatment programs to offenders in a designated facility and for payment by the minister, or by a person authorized by the minister, in respect of the provision of those programs”.

Under this bill, offenders that serve part or all of their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility would still serve their required penalty of imprisonment.

I would point out that currently, these facilities do not exist.

The court-ordered penalty would still be served but with a focus on addiction treatment within a designated treatment facility.

At this point, I would like to outline our objections to the bill.

First, isolating those treatment services could create negative outcomes for offenders. People living with substance use disorders are not necessarily ready for active treatment. A spectrum of supports, which is not limited to active addiction treatment, must be explored and available to offenders living with substance use disorders.

The government also opposes the proposed bill because it would introduce amendments that could have a number of unintended negative consequences, including for overrepresented populations in the federal correctional system, such as indigenous and Black offenders. Further, the government recognizes that more needs to be done to support people experiencing harms from substance use.

That is why our government will continue to work with provincial and territorial governments, partners, indigenous communities, stakeholders, people with lived experience with substance use, and organizations in communities across the country to work toward reducing substance use harms.

My sense is that the federal framework to reduce recidivism is the place where the hon. member’s ideas can be explored. I thank her again for bringing this bill forward and for meeting with me to discuss the issues that she is concerned about. As I said earlier, I commit to working with the hon. member on this issue.

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all day long, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have been trying to dodge the issue. They say it is not the right time to talk about this and we should talk about inflation and fighting the pandemic instead.

Over the past few weeks, however, we have talked about bills C‑3, C‑5, C‑9, C‑20 and S‑4, none of which have anything to do with inflation or fighting the pandemic.

Does my colleague think we waste our time in the House every day? Should we talk about nothing but inflation and the pandemic? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?