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.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing today on this important study.

People may wonder why we're having this study today. It was because of a Supreme Court decision, the Brown ruling, that frankly put Canadians, particularly women, at risk. I know that MP Vecchio and MP Brock—who serves on this committee—along with MP Caputo and I wrote a letter to you urging that you act quickly and offering any assistance we could give to close what was, I feel, a very serious condition in our Criminal Code and a serious gap created by the decision.

There will be a lot of questions today about the bill. I want to ask a broader question, though. Your government does respond to things when they see fit. For example, when there was a vacancy for the ombudsman for prisoners, it was filled the next day. When there was a vacancy for the ombudsman of victims of crime, it took a full year to fill that important position. I would like to have had the benefit of hearing from the ombudsman of victims of crime in the process around Bill C-5, around this and around other criminal justice legislation.

We've just completed a study in which we heard witness testimony on victims of crime. One of the most high-profile cases in Canada in recent memory was that of Sharlene Bosma, whose husband, Tim, was killed. It captured the attention of all Canadians. The individual who took his life was also convicted of killing his own father and his ex-girlfriend. Thanks to legislation that was put in place to allow for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, he received a parole ineligibility period of 75 years.

However, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Bissonnette, this individual will be eligible for parole after 25 years. The clock started ticking on that, I think, almost a decade ago. When Sharlene Bosma was here, she said the one bit of light that she hung on to in the whole situation was knowing that thanks to what she and the Crown prosecutor and other witnesses did, her daughter would never have to go to parole hearings. We heard over and over how parole hearings revictimize victims and their families.

Minister, you responded, and we co-operated with you to get swift passage of Bill C-28. This hearing is part of that, to see if there are ways it can be improved.

My question is this: Will you and will your government respond to the Supreme Court decision in Bissonnette?

Firearms

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, at the public safety committee, Edmonton police chief Dale McFee said that the Liberals' handgun freeze is not only a bad idea but will undermine public safety by increasing smuggling and black market activity. He said that, instead, the focus ought to be on targeting the criminals who pull the trigger.

Chief McFee's approach is in stark contrast to the Liberals' approach with their soft-on-crime, do-no-time Bill C-5, which eliminates mandatory jail time for serious gun crime. This all the while the Liberals target law-abiding firearms' owners with not only a useless but potentially harmful handgun freeze.

The Liberals should heed the advice of Chief McFee, go after the criminals and leave law-abiding firearms' owners alone.

Judges Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I was sharing, we all have EDAs and campaign teams. Although it is our names on the ballots, there is a huge group of people, and I count almost 200 volunteers over the course of my last three or so years in politics, who have helped fight for the cause. I am so thankful and blessed because of my EDA and campaign team and all those people who have worked so hard to fight for the principles that I am so proud to stand in this place to represent.

When it comes to the reason we are all here, I often joke when I speak with classes in my constituency that there are only three job qualifications to be a member of Parliament in Canada. Just three; that's it. Number one, we have to be Canadian. Number two, we have to be over the age of 18. Number three, we simply have to get more votes than the other guy or gal. That process, that participation in our democratic system that each parliamentarian has, with, at least in the current standing, 338 different paths, different types of individuals, different parties represented, different backgrounds, different experiences and different professions, brings a unique cross-section of Canadians to this place.

I cannot thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot enough for the last three years. I have spoken over 400 times in this place, being up in question period, giving speeches, speaking over 500 times in committee, being part of interparliamentary groups, meeting with delegations and being a part of international trips, representing the people of Battle River—Crowfoot here in Canada and around the world, voting almost 400 times, jointly seconding private members' bills, and all the various ways of communication.

Last night we talked about mental health and being able to break some of the stigma surrounding things like mental illness. There are things like constituency communication, social media outreach, more than a dozen mail-outs and visiting 63 communities. I represent a constituency that is about the same size as the province of Nova Scotia and has about 60 or so self-governing municipalities. I have visited each one of those communities over the last three years, some more than once, and attended hundreds of events, doing dozens of town halls and helping when it comes to the base of what being an elected official is about: helping people and taking thousands of calls, helping with practical issues regarding case work or the Phoenix pay system, helping veterans and members of the military, and helping people with passport issues or immigration or whatever the case may be.

There is so much that goes into what we do in this place. The headlines always grab the big news items of the day, but as I reflect on the last three or so years that I have had the honour of taking my seat in this place, looking back at my experiences, those who helped me get here, my family and the impact this has on them, and those who mentored me, I truly am very blessed and thankful for the opportunity to serve in this place.

I appreciate the latitude given me for a moment to share some thoughts on three years of being able to serve in this place.

To the substance of Bill C-9 before us, I would note that this is the sort of bill that should have been passed a while ago. I know there have been a few questions asked about why Conservatives are speaking to this bill. I am speaking for myself, and I think for many of my colleagues, when I say we like to do our jobs to make sure that we comprehensively look at, evaluate and examine everything that comes forward in this place.

When the government talks about this bill in particular, I believe it was Bill S-5 in the last Parliament, and there is a constitutional intricacy that the government, especially, likes to dismiss or not elaborate on when it blames Conservatives for somehow obstructing the democratic process by doing our jobs. Bill S-5 was something that died on the Order Paper when an unnecessary election was called in the summer of last year.

I could certainly get into the many aspects of that, with our returning to this place with almost an identical makeup, the frustrations that were felt by so many Canadians and the erosion of trust in our institutions. I will expand on that a bit more. I would share with the member for Durham how many of those frustrations manifested themselves over the course of that last campaign, with the selfishness of a Prime Minister who tried to use what seemed to be a few polls bending in his direction, even when he promised to do the exact opposite of what he did.

The reason I bring that up today is not only to highlight the hypocrisy of government members. They seem to want to blame everybody but themselves for some of these things. I suggest they would be best positioned to look in the mirror to truly self-evaluate some of the reasons we find ourselves in those places.

This is a bill that addresses a very practical issue, which is that over the course of the evolution of our legal system we have the need for changes to be made. Specifically, Bill C-9 addresses that there would have to be a review process, even though a judge is and should be a lifetime appointment. Certainly we see the consequences of when politics are injected into the selection of judges and some of the challenges associated with that, but there could be the need for a review. We saw that need in the case that brought this whole conversation forward a number of years ago, when a judge made some very disparaging comments that certainly called into question the integrity of his ability to oversee that specific court case. There has to be a process. There has to be the ability to discipline individuals on the bench.

Of course, we all need to have accountability and integrity checks within each of our professions, whether it be in this place as members of Parliament, in Canada's Senate or in our judicial branch of government. We have created many instances of this with the Ethics Commissioner, the Lobbying Commissioner, reporting requirements and all of those associated things. Bill C-9 is just a practical response to ensure that we address one of the key aspects of where we have seen what I alluded to earlier, which is that erosion of trust in our institutions.

There are many reasons for that erosion of trust, certainly some of which are very political and some of which are very practical. Many of which, I would suggest, need to be unpacked so that we can truly get to the bottom of them. Because this is a justice bill and specifically relates to the Judges Act, I am going to focus on some of my constituents' experiences when it comes to how they perceive the justice system.

I have been asked a number of times by the Minister of Justice and other Liberal members why I do not trust judges. This bill actually speaks to why there has to be firm parliamentary oversight. In the Westminster system. Parliament is supreme, and I am thankful for that. That is one of the things that makes our system of government the best in the world: that Parliament and the voices of the people ultimately have that final say.

One of the comments that is often made to me is that we do not have a justice system anymore, but we have a legal system and that legal system is failing. That is not my perception. That is the perception of many constituents who share with me those feelings and their experiences associated with it.

I mentioned before that there are 338 different paths to get here, but I have no doubt that each and every person in this place will have heard from constituents who have had their own experiences when it comes to the way that the legal system, Canada's justice system, is not serving them well. I am going to highlight a few of those instances from the perspective of being a rural Canadian.

I mentioned in my observations of being in Parliament for three years that I represent a large rural area. My constituency is 53,000 square kilometres of what I would suggest is the most beautiful countryside in the world. When somebody asks me what the area I represent is like, I say it is a lot like cowboy country. It is the beautiful rolling hills and wheat fields as far as the eye can see. The only thing dividing one piece of land and the next is a simple barbed wire fence, and even then sometimes it is hard to find those with how vast the space is. I think about the many people who live there, and although sometimes it is sparsely populated, it would work out to be about two individuals per square kilometre. That is the density of my constituency, approximately.

We have some significant challenges. Specifically when it comes to our justice system, we see how the dynamics associated with rural crime have changed significantly in the last number of years. From both when I was elected in 2019 and also my work being involved in politics in the community prior to that, I have seen the crime severity index increase dramatically.

It is astounding, some of the stories I hear from constituents, members of the community and law enforcement officers who are on the first line. There are crimes that just a few years would never have been thought possible to be committed in a small town of only a few hundred people, yet with the Internet and access to gangs, drugs and all of these associated things, some of the things that happen are astounding. Then, there is the revolving door of the justice system.

Before I get to the revolving door of the justice system, I will share that I was invited to attend a town hall in a small town. It was about 200 people in this community. There were about 100 people who came to the town hall. It was on rural crime, organized by the mayor and council. They had invited their member of Parliament and their MLA, who was not able to make it, but also their local law enforcement, the RCMP.

I got there and, as is often the case, the RCMP had planned to be there but got a call, so they were not able to be there when the town hall started. I listened for probably an hour to story after story, and we were not just talking about hypotheticals. We were talking about real lived experiences and tragic instances where people's homes were broken into and where individuals were terrorized, and after multiple instances of calling the police, somebody would be arrested and taken away, but a few days later they would be back in that same community terrorizing the streets again.

There were dozens and dozens of examples, and there was a lot of frustration there. There was a lot of frustration at lawmakers and there was a lot of frustration at local law enforcement. It was one of the things I endeavoured to highlight during that time, and I was thankful that the RCMP came for the last third of the meeting. I would suggest it was providential that, when I stood up and said, to the room of about a hundred people, to be sure not to blame those men and women in uniform for some of the challenges and that they were working as hard as they possibly could, only a moment later the Mountie who serves the area, in a detachment with only three officers, walked into the town hall.

I was happy to cede the floor to him, and it was amazing. We could see in the eyes of many that they were frustrated, because sometimes it would be a four- or five-hour response time after calling 911. With something like a serious break-in with a firearm, it could be four or five hours before a police officer even got to somebody's door. We are talking about serious stuff here, but that Mountie started to unpack what his days looked like and some of the rules and restrictions he, as a law enforcement and peace officer, was forced to abide by.

I saw after that instance many others like it. I highlight specifically that town hall in the community of Amisk, but there have been many other instances like that, where we see that erosion of trust taking place within specifically, because we are talking about the Judges Act, the legal system in our country.

Therefore, when the Minister of Justice stands up and says something like those who do serious crimes in this country will serve serious time, it is almost laughable. It is laughable I would suggest in a tragic way, because the experience of so many of my constituents speaks to the exact opposite of that.

When I look back as a political observer, although I would have been quite young when there was a change from a past Liberal government to a Conservative government, I know that crime was a big issue. One thing that was interesting is this. The Liberals like to blame Stephen Harper somehow for imposing mandatory minimums. However, some of the mandatory minimums of Bill C-5 that the justice minister blames Harper for have actually been around significantly longer. I believe some of those were put into place by former prime ministers, including Chrétien, Mulroney and even Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Often the demand for mandatory minimums is something that comes from a true frustration from the public. I would suggest that if we are not careful, we will end up seeing that erosion of trust take place to the point where people may end up taking the law into their own hands. I do not think anybody in this place, regardless of party, wants to see that happen. When we see a government focus more on demonizing law-abiding firearms owners than dealing with smuggled guns coming across our border, that is a problem and it is demoralizing for those who have been robbed by a firearm or been the victim of a crime that should involve serious time.

Therefore, when it comes to Bill C-9, we need to do everything we can to ensure that we address some of the erosion of trust within our institutions and, in this case, make sure there is a mechanism to ensure that those on the bench are held to a high account, as Canadians expect us to do.

I believe we should expect those who are appointed as judges to be held to that higher account, and Bill C-9 is part of a practical mechanism to ensure that.

Mental Health

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Chair, I do not know whether my colleague remembers what I said about my NDP colleague's bill, but the Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of approaches designed to divert those cases. The purpose of diversion is not solely to free up space in courts and jails, though. Diversion will only work with adequate funding and the concerted action required to ensure that these people do not wind up out in the streets with their problems. Decriminalizing drug dependency is not enough to clear anyone's conscience. That is not what this is about.

That is why Bill C‑5 is a step in the right direction. I do not know if the Conservatives voted in favour of Bill C‑5, but it seems like a step in the right direction to me. With that and the necessary resources, we will make progress in dealing with this issue, but there has to be money for this. To me, the leader in best practices for drug dependency is Portugal.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to begin with an aside because I was deeply touched by what my colleague said. If anyone in the House is keenly aware of mental health and illness issues, it is me.

My colleague talked about stigmatization. Michel Foucault's monumental work, A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, made it clear that mental illness had to earn its legitimacy. In other words, mental illness had to be construed as a medical condition. Nowadays, we say “mental health” because we want to avoid the term “mental illness”, but mental illness is an illness like any other. Unfortunately, people with mental illness were locked up, excluded, exploited, put in circuses, put in cages of put on the Ship of Fools. They were dispersed all over the place, set adrift. Foucault's account of the history of madness and how those afflicted were treated paints a dismal picture of human beings.

I rise today to point out that it is not our concerns about mental health and mental illness that divide us. It seems to me that, if we really look at this properly, we would see that this is not the right legislature for taking effective action in this area.

As I said earlier in the preamble to my question, I sometimes get the impression from the minister that we have to reinvent the wheel. Of course, this matter is of particular concern right now, especially because of the postpandemic situation. Mental health has always been the poor cousin of physical health, and there are challenges to be met. Moreover, mental health is one of the weak links in our health care systems, and this became abundantly clear as the pandemic crisis played out. However, none of this justifies the federal government's interfering in something that is none of its concern.

I want the well-being of anyone struggling with illness or mental health problems to be a priority. No one wants that more than I do. Ottawa has to be careful, however, because it is not doing any good or making things better when it meddles in action plans that are already in place. I do not know if the minister is familiar with the 2022-26 interdepartmental mental health plan that was recently adopted by Quebec.

At one point, I had a glimmer of hope. She talked about bilateral child care agreements. I thought that perhaps the minister would be willing to look at what Quebec is doing. Then she would see that the problem in Quebec is not the policies, the goals or the organizational structures, but the money. It is the financial resources that are lacking. There is a lack of resources to hire competent employees and to support certain frontline workers who care for people. I am thinking about employees in community organizations, to name just one sector. I will return to this later.

That was just an aside, and I will now go back to my speech. That said, there are issues there, and I sometimes get the impression that my colleagues are in the wrong legislature. The responsibilities were divided in 1867. It is clear that the federal government currently takes in much more money for its responsibilities than it offers in services. It seems to want to give in to a temptation that has been denounced by every premier who has served the people of Quebec, who form a nation.

That is why we often refer to Quebec's strategies as national strategies. It is not to insult Canada, which is officially recognized as a country. It is just that Quebec is a nation by virtue of its National Assembly, which put strategies in place. Do members know when the first national mental health strategy was implemented? It was in 1980, and it was the first national strategy in the world.

The people of the Quebec nation, through their National Assembly, have been trying to meet mental health needs since 1980. Over time, Quebec has developed its expertise and various national strategies and action plans with the help of many stakeholders, but what it is currently missing is financial resources. When we talk about the interdepartmental plan, that includes a large number of departments. With regard to the consultation that took place in the development of the most recent plan, or the new strategy, we spoke to community groups, researchers, stakeholders, and all segments of the population, including youth, adults, seniors, minority groups and indigenous peoples. We developed that plan in conjunction with many departments and many members of Quebec's interdepartmental working group on homelessness and mental health, including the director of criminal and penal prosecutions, which is important when it comes to Bill C‑5. When we say that we are not going to penalize or incarcerate people because they have addictions, then we need to make sure that part of our informed and comprehensive strategy on mental health involves making sure those individuals do not go to prison, because we know that addictions are often related to mental health. We need to help these people.

Other contributors included the ministry of education, the ministry of advanced education, the ministry of immigration, francization and integration, the ministry of culture and communications; the ministry of families, the ministry of justice, the ministry of public safety, the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, the ministry of municipal affairs and housing, the ministry of finance, the ministry of transport, the youth secretariat, the indigenous affairs secretariat, the ministry of labour, employment and social solidarity, the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, the status of women secretariat, Quebec's treasury board secretariat and the Société d'habitation du Québec.

In Quebec, for the people of Quebec, for our nation, which speaks through its National Assembly, there are at least 10 departments involved in this action plan. We see mental health as an interdisciplinary challenge. Now along comes this government, no doubt well intentioned, with a mandate letter for a minister who wants to help the Quebec nation, the people of Quebec and all the stakeholders I talked about implement this action plan. I hope we will not have to wait long for the money to come through. We have been waiting for health transfers for too long. In my opinion, if the federal government had invested its fair share in health care over the past 30 years, then all of Quebec's existing action plans would probably have strengthened the weak link that was exposed during the pandemic. That is the issue. Our mental health initiatives have to complement one another.

That is why I am asking the minister to work in concert with Quebec rather than exploit mental health just to exert her spending power—

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals well know that gun violence is the result of criminals and gangs who smuggle guns across the American border. It is not the result of licenced, trained and vetted-by-police Canadian firearm owners. At the same time, these Liberals are letting violent offenders off the hook. This year, a woman in Winnipeg was robbed at gunpoint while holding her infant child and had her car stolen.

The Liberal Bill C-5 would remove mandatory prison time for robbery with a firearm. Therefore, this violent offender would serve house arrest because he terrorized this woman. That is the world these Liberals have created for Canadians. It is reckless, and it will continue to fail to keep Canadians safe. Does the minister not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for being reappointed to his role as critic.

Unfortunately, I disagree with him on his view of Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is about serious crimes getting serious consequences and getting the attention and resources they deserve. We are doing that by taking the focus off of instances where incarceration is not the solution, hence the focus on removing a certain number of mandatory minimum penalties. Serious situations, where public safety is at issue, will still get serious consequences.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is in. The Liberals' soft-on-crime approach is not working. Violent crime is up 32% in Canada since they took office, yet incredibly, Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory jail time for serious firearm and drug offences, even the offence of assaulting a police officer with a weapon.

For the sake of our communities, police officers and all law-abiding Canadians, I ask them to please, do the right thing. Will the minister withdraw his soft-on-crime Bill C-5?

Health

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to say thanks to my friend from Courtenay—Alberni. He is a tremendously passionate, outspoken and dogged ambassador, advocate and spokesperson for this cause. He knows that I respect him. He knows that I think he is doing incredible work here in the House, in his community and across the country regarding the overdose crisis. I am proud to be in the House with him and am proud to have an opportunity to discuss this important issue here tonight.

First, our hearts go out to all of the families and communities that have lost loved ones to the opioid crisis and through the tainted, poisoned drug supply that exists in our country. The Government of Canada remains deeply concerned about the devastating impact that the overdose crisis continues to have on people, families and communities across the country, and we recognize that substance use is first and foremost a health issue.

We are committed to a public health approach to substance use that is comprehensive, collaborative and compassionate, and are working with our key stakeholders, including people with lived and living experiences regarding substance use. It is a foundational part of our government's work. We continue to work with partners to look at ways to support programs and services and divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and toward supportive and trusted relationships and health and social services, such as, as my colleague suggested, supervised consumption sites and safe supply.

Since January 1, 2016, the number of supervised consumption sites operating in Canada has increased from just one to 39. We have also funded a number of safer supply pilot projects that provide people who are at high risk of overdose with prescribed pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to the toxic and illegal drug supply on the streets. This emerging practice is a key area of interest for the Government of Canada, and evaluation efforts for these services are already under way. Indeed, there has been great progress in the last six months in British Columbia due in part to advocates like my friend from Courtenay—Alberni.

I want to reiterate that we have lost too many Canadians to overdose. We have heard from stakeholders that the criminalization of possession of drugs for personal use perpetuates stigma. It increases the risk of overdose and other harms and creates barriers to care. This government has been clear in its actions that substance use must be treated as a health issue first.

Recently, the House sent Bill C-5 to committee for review. Among other measures, Bill C-5 would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying charges or prosecuting individuals for drug possession, such as diversion to treatment, a warning or taking no further action.

I have spoken to police officers in my riding specifically about Bill C-216 and how we can face this crisis head-on with compassion and find a solution, not just lock people in jail. I will say that officers at Halton police services in Milton, the ones I spoke to, have been employing these practices of their own accord. They have strong feelings about the opioid epidemic, and it is important to recognize that Oakville, Milton and Burlington are, in large part, wealthy suburban communities. The opioid epidemic affects everyone.

That is why I will continue to work with provincial, territorial and municipal partners, like those in British Columbia and Vancouver, and other key stakeholders and regions throughout this country, to reduce risk, save lives and get people the support they need. Canadians can be assured that combatting the opioid overdose crisis remains a key priority for the government, for the Minister of Health and for me.

I know this is true of my colleague as well. I was proud not to be one of the people in the House to vote against my colleague's bill. I believed in it and continue to, and I am thrilled we are working together on it.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes. That's excellent.

When we studied Bill C-5 earlier this year, we heard from witnesses who were concerned about the bill allowing perpetrators of sexual violence to serve their sentence in their communities.

On the fear of reprisal, how often do you feel that enters into the equation of whether someone would pursue criminal charges or not, or someone who, from hearing about other failures, decides not to?

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, look at what is going on here today. We have a government that cannot say the IRGC is a terrorist group. We know from Bill C-5 that the Liberals are weak on crime. Now we know they are weak on terrorism. The IRGC fired a missile at a civilian airliner, murdering 176 people, including 55 Canadians and 30 permanent residents. This is personal for this country.

I have a simple question for the government. If the members of the IRGC are not terrorists, then who are?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

In your opening remarks, you talked about the importance of restorative justice. We know that this form of justice can have a very positive impact on victims as well as on offenders.

Could you give us your thoughts on how conditional sentencing and repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties, outlined in Bill C‑5, could help victims in our communities benefit from restorative justice programs?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a Quebecker, I am a Montrealer, and I am aware of what is happening in Montreal, both in my riding as well as in other ridings in Montreal.

Our goal with Bill C-5 is to increase resources to deal with serious crimes, which will always have serious consequences. With Bill C-21, we are increasing the maximum penalties for firearms offences.

We are moving in the right direction to get tough on the crimes that deserve it.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the streets of Montreal are like a violent video game where the mission is to shoot anyone and anything.

Last week, a mother was taking a stroll with her partner in Longueuil when they were gunned down by a drive-by shooter. In response to this violence, what is the Prime Minister doing? He is proposing legislation that eliminates mandatory minimum sentences and reduces sentences for serious crimes in Canada.

Can the Prime Minister ask the families of the victims what they think of Bill C-5?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to actually look at the transcript of that Senate hearing. If he believes an indigenous woman with a problematic addiction, who is trying to keep bread on the table for her three children, sells some prescription drugs on the side and then gets tackled with a minimum mandatory penalty, is the kind of serious offender we need to lock up for that period of time, I would suggest he is absolutely wrong.

Bill C-5 would allow us to allow people like that mother to get the help they need, all the while spending more time, judicial resources and penal resources on the serious drug traffickers.