Bill C-5 (Historical)

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.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not go so far as to say it is a panacea. We cannot lump everything together because every case is different, as evidenced by the fact that Bill C‑5 covers 20 specific mandatory minimum sentences. I have expressed reservations about some of them, especially gun crimes, so I think we need to keep things in perspective.

Judges have all the skills to determine which response to a given offence will keep people safe. Two different people commit the same offence, but the response to each can be very different.

We cannot lump everything together and say that all mandatory minimum sentences should be abolished tomorrow morning. I think it has been shown that they can be beneficial in some cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the speech by the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia because I am trying to understand the Bloc's position on this bill. She very eloquently laid out the arguments against mandatory minimums and talked about how they in fact do not accomplish what people think they do.

Then she said the timing was awkward. I cannot imagine why there would be bad timing for anything that would take away one of the main measures that results in more indigenous people, Black people and people living poverty ending up in prison, so I am confused. Why is that an objection to the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that it is fairly simple. We support abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, there are shootings practically every week in Quebec and Canada.

We have asked the ministers and the government to take a first step to show that they are serious about this issue and that they can tighten gun control. However, the government's first step was to introduce Bill C-5, which will eliminate certain mandatory minimums for firearms offences. That sends a peculiar message.

I understand that there is never a right time to introduce any legislation, but we have to move forward with this type of bill. The proposal to split the bill would make it possible to take the time to better study each element.

We should remember that the situation in Montreal is difficult right now. We are asking the government to take action to control gun trafficking, but Bill C‑5 does not seem to be the appropriate response.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start with this. Someone who is battling an addiction does not need a jail cell: they need treatment. They should not be judged. They should be helped. I think there is universal acceptance of that statement. There is not a Canadian or a member in the House who does not know, by a degree of separation, somebody who has been impacted by battling addiction.

Here is the sad part of where we cannot agree. Violent criminals, drug dealers and traffickers should be held accountable with mandatory jail time for preying on vulnerable people. I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5 in the last Parliament, and in my opinion it is a terrible bill that protects drug dealers and people who are trying to profit from and prey on those battling addictions as opposed to protecting the victims of crimes.

Here is what Canadians are not being told by the government in this legislation. There is not mandatory jail time for simple drug possession. That does not exist. Sadly today, what also do not exist are anywhere near enough treatment beds to get people who are battling addiction the help they truly deserve.

The government called an unnecessary election a couple of months ago. It took 62 days for the House to come back, and one of the government's first bills here does not give more beds or a program to create more beds across this country to help those battling addiction. Rather, on page 10 in the Speech from the Throne, there is a simple line that says, “there is more work to be done on mental health and addiction treatment”. That is it. There is no plan or strategy, but rather eliminating mandatory jail time for very serious crimes.

The Minister of Justice said earlier in question period, and I heard my colleague from the NDP say a little while ago, that there are still serious consequences for serious crimes. I think they have a very warped definition of what a serious crime is in this country.

Let me specifically say that Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory jail time provisions relating to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, and using a firearm in commission of offences. There is also the expansion of conditional sentencing, where the bill would allow greater use of conditional sentencing orders such as house arrest.

Some of the new eligible offences in the bill would include arson for fraudulent purposes. Somebody who commits arson by burning somebody's home or property down may be eligible for house arrest in their own home. The height of irony of that knows no bounds.

The bill does not help people in this country who are battling addiction to opioids or other drugs, whatever they may be. What we know is that police officers already have the ability to use their discretion when determining whether to lay charges. One of the most profound and impactful opportunities I have had in my two-and-a-bit years as a member of Parliament has been to do ride-alongs with the Ontario Provincial Police and the Cornwall Police Service in my community of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I saw first-hand, late on a Friday night and early into the morning, the amazing work that our frontline police officers do. I also saw, thankfully and confidentially, their ability to use that discretion on the front line. I saw that discretion was being used. What was not there was the availability and ease of getting treatment for somebody who clearly had an addiction issue, so they could get past their problem. Over and over again, we talk to law enforcement about tackling this issue and getting better service for treatment. Getting people the help that they deserve needs to be top priority, not letting off drug traffickers for gun crimes or violent criminals with the opportunity for more lenient sentences after they have been convicted.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has previously issued a directive to prosecutors to avoid prosecuting simple drug possession cases unless there are major public safety concerns.

That is clear. This bill would do nothing to change all of that rightful practice that is in place. Instead it would give breaks and the opportunity to provide breaks to people who are trying to destroy the lives of people battling addictions and profiting off it.

In my riding, there have been several news stories of how the opioid and addiction battles, not just in eastern Ontario but across this country, have unfortunately only gotten worse during the pandemic. I look at a news release that came from the Cornwall police service and the Eastern Ontario Health Unit, warning about increases in drug-related overdoses in Cornwall and area from April of this year.

Inspector of field operations for the Cornwall police services, Chad Maxwell, says, “Opioids are endangering the lives of vulnerable members of our community and we are dependent on everyone to take this messaging seriously.”

I look at the headline in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, “A hidden pandemic in the Cornwall region—opioid overdoses and deaths”; or the headline in the Morrisburg Leader, “Opioid overdose numbers rise during pandemic in EOHU region.” The Seaway News shared the same news back on April 9.

As we wrap up Parliament in the next few days for the year, having been back for a few weeks, when I go back home, I have the opportunity to liaise, as I mentioned, with the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, the Cornwall police service and the Akwesasne Mohawk Police. I also have the tough job of having to hear the stories of parents who have lost a child or sibling to addiction. I go back to them this week to tell them that there is no more money for residential treatment beds for people battling addictions, that there is no plan to address it or to fill that massive gap we all heard about in the recent election and that we know exists. However, I will have to tell them that there is a bill on the table that would lower the bar for convicted violent criminals.

Whether it be in Morrisburg, or Cornwall or Crysler, addiction impacts every community in the country. I would encourage members from the Liberal and NDP side, who are strongly promoting this bill, to ask their constituents if they want an increased number of residential treatment beds as a priority for this Parliament or if they want the list that I exhausted earlier of all the mandatory jail times where leniency can be given upon conviction for these serious crimes.

I will wrap up today by quoting something that was in our Conservative platform earlier this year, “Canada’s Conservatives will treat the opioid epidemic as the urgent health issue that it is.” The last thing those suffering from addiction should have to worry about is being arrested. Any interaction the government has with them should be focused on keeping them safe and helping them recover. We believe that law enforcement should focus on dealers and traffickers.

We need more residential treatments. We need a better plan at the federal level and in every part of our country to get people the help they need and deserve. Bill C-5 would not go after dealers and traffickers appropriately. It would lower the bar and open the door. That is wrong. Our opposition will stand every step of the way against this terrible, misguided bill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague might not be aware that for the first time in Canadian history, there is a cabinet minister whose primary objective and role is for mental health and addiction. It would be a far stretch to suggest that this government does not take mental health and addiction extremely seriously.

The problem is that the member is trying to conflate two issues as though they are exclusively together. He talked about police officers having discretion. Police officers have discretion on whether to charge or not to charge. They do not have discretion as to what the outcome, or rehabilitation or various measures might be if charged and found guilty.

Could the member please explain why he thinks the discretion is okay with a police officer, but not with a judge?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands does like to pack a lot into the question.

Appointing a minister to say that the government is going to do something is not a result. We hear this time and again. There are so many examples of the government saying that it is spending x number of dollars on this or that they have appointed so-and-so to study this. Nothing happens in terms of changes on the issues. Again, a minister has been appointed, but there is no plan before us to tackle the very issues I addressed in my comments.

When we talk about discretion, there is a difference between the discretion for simple possession and supporting and having a universal process and agreement on it. Even further, on some challenges, there should be mandatory jail times for robbery with a firearm, prison breach, sexual assault, kidnapping, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000. When it comes to that, there is a difference between simple possession and all these things that are included in Bill C-5.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for delineating between what should continue to have mandatory minimum sentencing and what should not. I would like to hear an explanation on why it is important that we tackle and address the mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offences.

In my community of Edmonton Griesbach, for example, we know how far that kind of policy would go to help marginalized people, particularly indigenous and Black community members in my riding, in getting the access to rehabilitation services that are so desperately needed. Would the member elaborate on how that kind of process would be beneficial for his community as well?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we talk about delineating things in the bill. The government is talking about help for opioids and addiction and is lumping everything into this bill that would not address that. There is a massive difference between a simple drug possession of a minor nature and somebody committing robbery, arson, kidnapping of a child and so forth. There need to be serious consequences. The government says that its definition is serious. I am not even sure what that is defined as now.

What is not in the bill and what continues to be ignored is a real, tangible plan that we get more residential treatment beds, that the focus be on recovery and on assistance to get people with addictions out of a bad cycle, on the right path and given the supports they need. There is nothing in the bill and there has been no news from the government on that key part of addressing Canada's addiction battles.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

That is all the time we have for now. The hon. member will have one minute of questions coming to him when we come back. We will have to work that in.

It being 4 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, December 6, I now invite the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement.

The House resumed from December 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize the passing of bell hooks today. She was a trail-blazing Black feminist author who brought the intersectionality of race, gender and class into the public consciousness, and really helped shape the conversations that we continue to have today. My condolences go out to her family and to countless people across the world, especially the Black women she touched through her writing. May she rest in power.

The conversation on Bill C-5 is one that I have been having a lot throughout my life, since my university days when I was studying criminology and throughout law school when I was studying the justice system. In the past six years, as a member and the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the question and purpose behind what our justice system is meant to do and what our prison system is meant to do really help guide the moral framework of communities and societies.

Access to fair justice is a vital pillar of our due process. While we have made progress over the past six years, the fact remains that our justice system is not yet properly equipped to provide access to everyone. We see that in Black and indigenous communities and among people who struggle today to find a job, make a living and build a better life for themselves. It is because of their interaction with the justice system.

There are Canadians suffering from addiction and dying from overdoses or withdrawal because the law states that drug possession means jail time. This is not fair justice. Studies show us that mandatory minimums for lesser offences like this do not solve anything and often do more harm than good. They force first-time offenders into a cycle that prevents them from building a better life for themselves.

When people talk about the supposed success of these programs, they are bringing individual lives down to a statistic of those who are being imprisoned. They are too busy trying to appear tough on crime to stop and ask whether these policies are actually accomplishing anything productive and accomplishing what our justice system is meant to accomplish. The supposed success of the mandatory minimums they point to is the over-incarceration of people in Black and indigenous communities. As far as I am concerned, that makes them a failure.

It is time for a better approach. That is why I am pleased to participate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would ask members to have conversations outside the chamber, please.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to participate today in the continuing debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A great deal of time has already been spent describing the objectives of the bill, its proposed reforms and the expected impacts of it. I support these changes and really believe they will make a significant, positive contribution to our criminal justice system and contribute to efforts to address the disproportionate impacts that existing criminal laws have had on certain communities in Canada.

We know certain communities in Canada and in other countries are involved in the justice system at higher rates than others. In Canada, the over-incarceration of indigenous persons and Black Canadians is very well documented. Many of these reasons are systemic, including our laws on sentencing. It is clear the issue of over-incarceration must be addressed by revisiting our existing sentencing laws. That is exactly what Bill C-5 proposes to do.

Canada is not alone in recognizing the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, has proven to be a costly and ineffective approach to reducing crime. Indeed, many jurisdictions around the world are moving away from this approach to the criminal justice system. While MMPs can be a forceful expression of government policy in the area of criminal law, we know they do not deter crime and can result in unjust and inequitable outcomes, which contradicts the purpose of our justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear about these issues.

Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum. Evidence-based policy is informed by relevant research, including comparative studies from other countries. By examining a particular policy's successes and failures, we can develop reforms that build on what we know works and addresses what we know does not work.

For instance, while the United States, both at the federal and the state levels, has historically made great use of MMPs, in the last decade many states have moved toward reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on non-violent and drug-related charges. These trends reveal a shift motivated by, among other things, a need to address high levels of incarceration and the corresponding social and fiscal costs. This is being done by governments of all political stripes in the United States, and I encourage all parties in the House to recognize the true impacts of MMPs and work to continue to improve our justice system.

Some in the U.S. have termed the removal of MMPs as being a “smart on crime” movement. This approach recognizes the need to address high levels of incarceration of young Black and Hispanic Americans who are disproportionately negatively impacted by the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the U.S., particularly, as I have noted, for non-violent, drug-related offences.

Some have also pointed out that mandatory minimum sentencing actually encourages cycles of crime and violence by subjecting non-violent offenders, who could otherwise be productive members of society, to the revolving door of the prison system.

Recently, the President of the United States indicated his intention to repeal MMPs at the federal level and provide states with incentives to repeal their mandatory minimums as well.

Other countries have made similar changes. For example, in 2014, France repealed certain MMPs, predominantly citing evidence showing the reconviction rate had more than doubled between 2001 and 2011, increasing from 4.9% to 12.1%.

When we examine the trends in like-minded countries, we can see a clear policy shift toward limiting the use of mandatory minimum penalties to the most serious of cases and restoring judicial discretion at sentencing.

While international comparisons cannot be the only lens through which we develop sentencing policy in Canada, particularly given our unique cultural traditions and diversity, such comparisons provide a useful backdrop to which we assess the adequacy of our own sentencing laws.

Currently, the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provide MMPs for 73 offences, including for firearms offences, sexual offences, impaired driving, kidnapping, human trafficking, sex trade offences, murder, high treason and drug-related offences such as trafficking, import/export and production of certain drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Thirty offences have been amended in the last 15 years, almost entirely by the Harper government, to increase existing MMPs or to impose new ones.

Bill C-5 would reverse that trend and in so doing it would make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all. It would repeal MMPs for 20 offences, including MMPs for all drug-related offences as well as for some firearms ones.

These reforms should not be viewed as a signal from Parliament that drug and firearms offences are not serious or are not noteworthy of important denunciatory sentences in appropriate cases. They can be very serious, and I have full confidence in our courts to impose those appropriate penalties.

I realize that I am running out of time, but I have a lot more to add to this. It is a very interesting debate and I look forward to this discussion continuing.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

My question is a narrow one. The mandatory minimum penalties sought to be repealed includes section 95 of the Criminal Code, which is one of the most serious firearms offences, because it is an unlicensed individual possessing a restricted or prohibited firearm. The Nur decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which my colleague referenced, talked about the seriousness of that offence, endorsing language from the Ontario Court of Appeal, saying:

At one end of the range, as Doherty J.A. observed, “stands the outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade.... [T]his person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public”.

The vast majority of people may fall into this.

We have heard from the government that we do not want to capture people who may not fall into that on a first-time basis. Why then is the government repealing the mandatory minimum for subsequent offences for the people for whom that first time does not apply?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to remind the member that it is up to the judges, and the removal of mandatory minimums gives them the discretion to say that these are the circumstances in which a crime has occurred and that they will ensure the penalties are fitting to the crime. That discretion to the judge helps to build that pillar of equitable justice, which we are seeking through this bill.