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.

Criminal Code

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, at third and final reading.

I will be splitting my time with the amazing member for Lakeland, who served our caucus very well in a previous Parliament as the shadow minister for public safety.

This is yet another bill brought back from the previous Parliament that died when the Prime Minister called his snap election. To say that I am extremely disappointed with the introduction of this ill-conceived bill, as opposed to something that is wanted and needed by Canadians, would be an understatement. There are so many other issues facing Canadians that are more important than this misguided legislation.

First and foremost for Canadians would be relief from the rising inflation tax brought on by the government's out-of-control spending. The price of everything is increasing, and the government has decided that now is the time to decrease sentences for criminals. Another top-of-mind issue for Canadians has been ending all federal mandates. It seems the pressure by Canadians has finally had the desired effect. However, in the case of this bill, the Liberal government is doubling down on its soft-on-crime agenda and making life easier for criminals.

While the government claims that its focus is on protecting Canadians from harms, such as COVID-19, it is making society less safe with this proposed legislation by eliminating mandatory minimum prison time for criminals. With the bill, the Liberals would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences and more.

As Canadians learn more about this proposed legislation, they are alarmed and are finding it difficult to believe. Imagine a convenience store worker, maybe making minimum wage. It is one in the morning when suddenly someone walks into the store, pulls out a gun, fires one shot into the ceiling and then points the gun at the worker, demanding cash. The trauma that this scenario would create for someone is difficult to comprehend. What the Liberals are saying, however, is that the criminal in this realistic but made-up scenario should not receive a mandatory minimum sentence for what they have done.

Why are the Liberals doing this? They believe that mandatory minimum prison sentences are unfair. Really? Unfair to whom? Obviously, the Liberals are taking the side of the criminal.

By eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, the government is standing up for criminals and completely ignoring the victims. What about fairness for the victim of the crime? What about fairness for the family members of the victim who will need to support the loved who has gone through such a traumatic experience? What about fairness for the community, as a whole, in which the crime was perpetrated?

Remember, we are talking about convicted criminals, not innocent people. When someone is sentenced, they have already been found guilty of the crime for which they were charged. Why are the Liberals more concerned with the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on criminals than on the benefit and reassurance they provide to the victims and the community at large?

I cannot leave the subject of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences without commenting on the cognitive dissonance held by the Liberals as it relates to firearms policy. On one hand, they want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for offences such as weapons trafficking and importing or exporting a firearm knowing it is unauthorized, but on the other hand, they are increasing rules and regulations for law-abiding firearms owners. Talk about a lack of fairness.

According to the Prime Minister and his government, if a person follows the rules and does not commit a crime, they will punish that person. However, if a person commits a crime, they will make that person's sentence lighter.

If this was not bad enough, not only would Bill C-5 eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearm offences, but it would also eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers for crimes such as trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of substances such as fentanyl, crystal meth and others. To be clear, we are not discussing simple possession. We are talking about eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for those who traffic or produce these harmful drugs.

I would like to read a few lines from a Global News story from last September in relation to a drug bust carried out by the Saskatoon Police Service. It states:

Police said they seized a total of 6158.3 grams of methamphetamine, 339.8 grams of powdered cocaine, 5.2 grams of psilocybin and 0.3 grams of fentanyl.

Cellphones, scales, packaging materials and over $67,000 in cash were also seized, police added.

“The message must be clear, organizations responsible for the importation, manufacture and distribution of illicit drugs in Saskatoon are responsible for an overwhelming proportion of harm within our community. The drug trade is intrinsically linked to guns, violence and victimization,” Supt. Patrick Nogier said in a release.

“The Saskatoon Police Service will continue to focus on organizations benefiting from illegal activities as they pertain to the drug trade in Saskatoon.”

These are the types of crimes that the legislation proposes to eliminate mandatory minimums for.

These criminals prey upon people with addictions. Furthermore, as the quote by Superintendent Nogier indicates, these criminals use violence in carrying out their activity, which negatively impacts the broader community in which they exist. Police forces across Canada do their utmost to protect the communities they serve. They are not helped by this type of legislation.

I would like to read a section from another Global News story from last fall. It states:

Superintendent Patrick Nogier with the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) said drug and general seizures have increased by almost eight per cent over the last year and SPS is continuing with efforts to reduce drug trafficking.

“These are significant seizures that are taking a product off the street that has the potential of doing a lot of harm to your community,” said Nogier.

The Street Crimes Unit alone has seized over 15 kilograms of crystal meth over the last year.

How can any member of the House say he or she supports the police and the work they do while at the same time supporting this legislation? Criminals belong in jail and addicts need help to break free of their addiction. With this bill, criminals would spend less time in jail and addicts would not get the help they need.

Lastly, I want to highlight my opposition to one more misguided aspect of this bill, and that is the expansion of conditional sentencing options for many violent crimes.

If passed, this legislation will allow criminals convicted of serious crimes, such as prison breach, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for material benefit, assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon and many others, to serve their sentence in some way other than in jail, such as through house arrest. Once again, what about the victims? How does allowing a criminal convicted of sexual assault or trafficking, for example, to serve their sentence in the community, and potentially the same neighbourhood as the victim, make any sense?

The Liberal government is eroding our justice system by passing laws that support convicted criminals while ignoring the victims of crime. I will vote against this bill, and I encourage all members to join me.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Lac-Saint-Louis sharing how mandatory minimum penalties contribute to systemic racism. He made many important points in his speech. However, Bill C-5 only repeals mandatory minimums from 14 of the 67 offences in the Criminal Code that currently carry them.

The Black Legal Action Centre is the only legal clinic in Ontario that focuses specifically on anti-Black racism. I wonder if the member is aware that the Black Legal Action Centre, among many other organizations, has been calling for the removal of all mandatory minimum penalties to more fully realize the government's stated commitments to racial justice and indigenous reconciliation.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-5 is a remarkable missed opportunity to make some really good progress in Canadian justice. We have an opioid crisis. People are dying by the hundreds and the thousands through a poisoned drug supply, and they are being held back from the services they need and the medical attention they need by the fact that they are considered criminals.

We should be decriminalizing simple possession of drugs, and yet the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against Bill C-216, which asked for that. They could have put it in Bill C-5, but they did not.

Why are the Liberals refusing to make real progress and save the lives of Canadians?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to this bill.

As I was preparing my speech, I was thinking back to the 1990s, when I came to Ottawa as a legislative assistant. It was after the 1993 election. The winds of change had swept through this place. The Bloc Québécois was the official opposition and the Reform Party had a big presence, with around 50 members. I remember following question period, which was part of my job. I do not mean to be partisan, and this is not a partisan tone, but I remember that in question period member after member of the Reform Party would get up and ask questions about criminal justice. They would talk about specific cases and describe these cases in great detail. The message in every question was that one could not trust the courts. The questions were intended to impugn the courts and to make people believe that judges were not approaching issues with an objective framework but just injecting their own personal biases into the decisions they made. I think that is very dangerous.

I think we are heading in this direction more and more in our political culture. That is very unhealthy for our democracy. I am looking more toward the United States right now, where I think people are starting to view the courts as an extension of the political system. When people start doing that, they just lose faith in the constitutional democracy.

I read something in the paper the other day and I was just flabbergasted. The state legislature of Ohio passed a motion. It came down to party lines. It is a Republican-dominated state legislature. The Republicans voted for it and the Democrats voted against it. The motion was that Canada should be put on the watch-list of states that suppress religious freedom, ignoring the fact that we have a constitutional democracy and that we have courts that defend charter rights and so on. I think this is a very dangerous thing. It is a kind of new populist relativism and it is not healthy for democracy.

Let me get more specifically down to the bill.

There is unconscious bias in sentencing, for sure. This bias is embedded in the long-standing practices of sentencing. It is embedded in the system. For example, according to Canada's prison ombudsman, Ivan Zinger, whom I had the opportunity to meet when I was the public safety critic in opposition, indigenous women now account for half of the female population in federal penitentiaries, whereas only one out of every 20 women in Canada is indigenous. Similarly, recently the Auditor General found that Black and indigenous prisoners are more frequently placed in higher-security institutions at admission, compared to their white peers, and that they are not paroled as often as others when they first become eligible.

Personally, and this is not a partisan statement, I believe the Harper government's approach to sentencing reinforced and aggravated this bias. At the time when the Harper government was introducing tough-on-crime legislation, one after the other, to my knowledge those bills did not have to be accompanied by a charter statement the way they have to be today. That meant that the Harper government really pushed the limits on this issue. That is why so many of the bills that have been struck down by the courts were passed between 2006 and 2015. I am referring to a document from the Library of Parliament, a multiple-page document.

That said, sentencing has been used intentionally to suppress racialized groups, not to my knowledge in this country, but it can happen. Someone said before in the House that the same sentence applies to everybody regardless of creed, colour or whatever, but sentencing has been used to suppress particular groups.

I want to read a quote. As I said, I am not attributing anything to any Canadian politician I know, but it is interesting to see that it can be used deliberately. John Ehrlichman, counsel and assistant to Richard Nixon and a Watergate co-conspirator, is quoted as saying:

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people.... We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

Of course, that was a particular period of American history, one that was extremely divisive.

What about Bill C-5? It is not about being soft on crime. It is about having sentences that fit the crime and the circumstances. It is about law reform, a work in progress that draws on evolving and accumulated wisdom. It is about removing an approach to sentencing that has proven not only discriminatory but also costly and, in many cases, futile and ineffective.

It is costly because minimum sentences clog up the courts. There is no incentive to plead guilty. It is ineffective because they involve a greater use of prosecutorial discretion. For example, a research paper by Doob, Webster and Gartner, from the University of Toronto and the University of Ottawa, stated:

On 1 April 1995, a sentencing referendum (Measure 11) brought in by the voters in Oregon resulted in long mandatory minimum sentences.... [I]t was found that there was a decrease in the prosecution of Measure-11-eligible cases and an increase in the prosecution of “alternate” cases (typically lesser degrees of the same offences which did not attract the mandatory penalty). Trial rates for Measure-11-eligible offences also increased in the first two years after implementation, and then reverted to their former levels. But the nature of pleas changed: there was an increase in the number of cases in which the accused decided to plead to lesser included offences, and a decrease in pleas involving the original charge.

It is futile because a slew of Harper-era minimum sentences have been struck down by the courts, and I just referenced a document from the Library of Parliament a moment ago. There is something called “deterrence through sentencing”, and this is the policy that was adopted in the Harper years. Again, Doob, Webster and Gartner state:

At this point, we think it is fair to say that we know of no reputable criminologist who has looked carefully at the overall body of research literature on “deterrence through sentencing” who believes that crime rates will be reduced, through deterrence, by raising the severity of sentences handed down in criminal courts.

We need to realize that there is nothing objectively true about minimum sentences. They are not something handed down by Moses. Those who advocate for minimum sentences do so based on an accepted but false intuition whose appeal is a simple but misleading logic: The greater the penalty, the greater the deterrent. However, intuition is often wrong. This is why we invest in research and analysis.

Even without the benefit of science, there are some who possess uncanny insights at different times. John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, is quoted as saying, “Certainty of punishment, and more especially certainty that the sentence imposed by the judge will be carried out, is of more consequence in the prevention of crime than the severity of the sentence.”

Doob, Webster and Gartner said:

We suspect that what Macdonald meant by “the certainty that the sentence imposed by the judge will be carried out” is simply the certainty that there will be a criminal punishment. But whatever John A. Macdonald meant by that phrase, clearly he did not think that “severity” of sentences was very important. He was almost certainly correct in this.

They also said, regarding the assumption about minimum sentences, “An additional problem is that people really don’t have much of an idea about what the sentences are likely to be for ordinary crimes.... Most offenders do not meet the relevant 'thought' requirements—that is, believing they might be caught”.

There are a lot of misconceptions and a lot of policies in the last few years that have been based on a sort of intuition. We know that intuition can sometimes be correct, but sometimes it can be extremely misleading.

Bill C-5 is about reaffirming trust in our judicial system, and this is fundamental to a healthy constitutional democracy. I know that is something that everyone in this House desires. The Conservatives used to believe that our institutions needed to be respected because they evolved organically and contained the inherited wisdom of our forebears. Those values seem to be from a bygone Conservative era, long ago, before the party veered into hard-right politics.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5. I have to reference the previous speaker's speech. All of us come to the House to make life better. We have different opinions on how we achieve that goal, but after listening to the previous speaker, so much of what is on this side of the House is on all sides of the House. We all care very much about trying to make a difference in the lives of so many people. In some areas we agree, and in other areas we do not agree, but clearly we all feel that some changes need to be made, and we are moving in a direction we hope will improve public safety and make life easier for people.

As parliamentarians, we have specific causes that we all want to champion, and one of the most important for me, of course, is public safety and how we can not only better protect Canadians but also prevent young people in our society from getting themselves into a complete downward spiral, going in the wrong direction. When mandatory minimum sentences of incarceration were initially introduced, I was here, and I thought they would help us and that they would deter crime. People would know that, if they were to commit a certain crime, they would end up with a minimum of two years, four years or 10 years. They knew that we would throw the book at them.

That was very much how I thought, but seeing how mandatory minimum sentences have played out since 2007, especially in ridings like mine, I see that it did not help. They proved to be unjust at the end of the day in the eyes of many, contributing to systemic racism, the overcrowding of correctional facilities, delays in the justice process and people reoffending. It is very different from what everybody thought it would be when they were initially brought in.

Since the introduction, the Supreme Court of Canada has seen an influx of charter challenges due to these mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, as of December 3, 2021, the Department of Justice indicated that 217 charter challenges exist due to mandatory minimums and account for 34% of all constitutional challenges to the Criminal Code. Of those challenges, 69% related to drug offences were successful and 48% of firearm-related challenges were successful.

As far as I am concerned, anybody who uses a firearm in the process of any kind of unlawful activity, should have the book thrown at them. When they use firearms, it is a very different thing than some of the other issues we are talking about today, so why are these challenges successful? It comes down to an inequality of justice. They subject those facing charges to a punishment that may not fit their crimes and take nothing into account for the situations that led to the committing of those crimes.

Removing mandatory minimums would allow judges to do their job. Going before a judge is not just about facing consequences; it is about allowing judges to use their judgment in a case. Mandatory minimums do not allow for this and, therefore, hinder judges from fulfilling the role they have been assigned.

Mandatory minimums also contribute to the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black Canadians, and other groups of colour. Of federal offenders, 23% are indigenous, even though only 4.3% of our population is indigenous, and 9% are Black or another group of colour, while they only represent 2.9% and 16.2% of the population. There is something clearly wrong with those numbers.

Mandatory minimums mean mandatory time in a correctional facility. We know that, and we have seen from past practices, as much I sometimes support the theory of locking them up and throwing away the key so they can never get out, this does not deter crime. Much to my disappointment, it actually increases the likelihood of someone reoffending.

A person going through the Canadian justice system, including correctional facilities, is at particular risk of reoffending, and we have seen it time and time again. It is very disappointing, but that is the reality of what happens. Once they are incarcerated, they do not come out better for it, they come out worse for it. The prevalence of recontact with the police is even higher with youth. A 2019 Statistics Canada study found that “62%...of individuals who went through the full justice system into correctional...had re-contact with the police”, and this rate was 77% for youths.

In my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, it is the youth numbers that are particularly troubling. They made me stop and question the whole issue of mandatory minimums, which I indicated earlier that I was very supportive of at the time, but I have seen that it is just does not work, much to my dismay and the dismay of others.

Many youth in my riding are considered part of the at-risk community and subject to guns, gangs and pressures that many youth outside of condensed urban settings do not necessarily face. Mandatory minimums put them at risk of having their future completely destroyed, and this is not just at-risk youth, those who would be charged as juveniles. I mean those age 12-25, half of whom would be considered adults in being charged.

Mandatory minimums can cause a mistake to ruin the rest of their lives and statistically send them on a completely different path. We still believe in serious consequences for serious crime, which is why some mandatory minimum sentences will remain in place, such as the ones for murder, high treason, sexual offences, impaired driving and serious firearm offences, as I indicated earlier.

However, we do believe that cases with a sentence of two years or less, and certain other offences, would be better suited to move from mandatory minimums to conditional sentencing orders, except for instances of advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder, terrorism and serious criminal organization offences.

Again, we are talking about continuing with the mandatory minimums for the very serious crimes and anything involving a firearm. These orders will allow judges to look at all aspects and assign a sentence that fits the crime, the person and the circumstances. These allow for those sentenced to remain in their communities, contributing via work, and to still be around their support systems. For some groups, such as indigenous people, remaining within that community is essential.

Conditional sentencing orders allow for the consideration of other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to an addiction treatment program. This means that, instead of facing prison, those suffering with addition can receive help, not punishment. We have seen how the opioid crisis is impacting Canadians. People of all demographics are struggling with it. In what way does putting them behind bars help them or society? The only way to help them is through addressing the trauma and addictions through treatment.

Conditional sentence orders would allow courts to focus on real rehabilitation and can ensure someone struggling with an addiction does not have their future destroyed by a criminal record. This is also vital for youth, as I have stated before. As mandatory minimums were introduced, our court systems became further backlogged. We saw fewer people taking plea deals and a forced an overreliance on correctional facilities.

Prisons were designed not as the only means of punishment for a crime, but as a way to keep communities safe. This is why we need to see reforms to our entire justice system, allowing for a more holistic and restorative approach. A 2018 report by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General says, “The criminal justice system in Ontario is struggling to address the high needs of vulnerable...individuals”.

I am thankful to say a few words on an issue that I know we all care about very much in the House. We are all trying to do the best that we can do.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on Bill C-5, I often heard colleagues from all parties state that they were in favour of diversion and preventing addicts from being criminalized. However, the problem with this bill is that it combines two completely different issues.

Can my colleague tell me why he thinks the government combined these two issues into one bill?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and to speak to legislation.

I will start by making the point that I find the intent behind this bill, at least expressed by the Prime Minister, to be troubling. I will admit it is rare that I find merit in any legislation put forward by the Liberal government. However, in this case, as we get into the conversation about drugs, rather than exclusively treating simple drug possession as a criminal issue, we need to also recognize it as a health issue. There is some merit in that. That is where we are as a party, and I think that is where we are as a country, so that is the conversation we should be having. The problem is that, as usual, the Liberal government has taken a nugget of common sense and buried it so deeply into a larger piece of legislation that is so rife with contradictions and virtue signalling that, unfortunately, that semblance of a good idea gets lost.

We saw this just last week when Conservatives asked the government to break Bill C-21, which I also look forward to speaking to, into two bills. We asked that the government do this because we agreed with parts of the bill as they appeared to have merit and we thought they were a good idea. It is always a good idea to protect women and children and that is something everyone in this House can get behind. We asked, in good faith, if the government would be willing to split the bill so we could vote in favour of the good part that we agreed on and expedite the passage of that bill, while continuing to debate the ideas that we did not agree with. The government refused. It is the all-or-nothing approach that the Liberals keep taking that is behind their inability to present coherent legislation that we can all agree on.

We have a Prime Minister who is so convinced that he knows better than anyone else, better than this House and better than Canadians, that he takes these big legislative swings and misses. Because he did not bring this House along with him, he did not bring the country along with him. From what I have been reading in the news of late, it sounds like he has lost any interest in bringing his own party along with him. It is just the Prime Minister out there on his own, doing his own thing and not particularly concerned about the consequences because he knows best. He is not concerned about the consequences because, if we are honest, when has the Prime Minister ever been accountable for his actions? He would not know a consequence if it jumped up and bit him somewhere unparliamentary.

In fact, the only time the Prime Minister expresses any concern for outcomes is when his own political fate may be jeopardized. Then he cares. High inflation does not affect him. When was the last time the PM set foot in a grocery store, other than, of course, for a quick photo op? Regarding house prices, let us just say he has options. He is in Rideau Cottage while the family is at the lake. There are a mere 38 rooms between them all, but I hear they are getting by, unlike many Canadians. Regarding gas prices, he is still jetting around the globe to take pictures and lecture people about emissions, so obviously, the price of gas does not affect him. With respect to rising crime rates and gang violence, he has never had to live in downtown Winnipeg or Thompson or Thunder Bay. Let him live in a rooming house on Magnus Avenue or Regent Park and see what he says then, but he does not and he will not. He would not even visit those neighbourhoods.

It should not come as any surprise to anyone that we keep getting this out-of-touch legislation. It was the Prime Minister's father who stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. I find it quite ironic that the government wants to be not just in the bedroom, but in every room, every device and every thought. There is no aspect of Canadian life that the Liberals do not feel they need to control. Despite that, they are still so out of touch with the reality of everyday Canadians. It is actually very sad.

I wonder if the government spent a little less time pushing narratives and virtue signalling and a little more time actually listening to Canadians, it would not be better off. Perhaps then we could get legislation that deals with the root causes of these problems, rather than just the symptoms.

Let us take a look at this bill, because this bill is a great example of what I am talking about. It gives great insight into the Liberal mentality, at least that of the PM and his cabinet and the inconsistency of their government's reasoning. Why put this bill forward? The Prime Minister was clear when he spoke in the House last week. He said our previous Conservative government's tough-on-crime agenda was racist. The PM claims our attempts to crack down on serious crime and put victims first was really just a cover to discriminate and put Black and indigenous Canadians in jail. That assertion is as false as it is insulting as it is ridiculous.

Here is our position. If someone commits a crime in Canada and is convicted of that crime, that person should be held accountable for that crime, period. Race does not come into play. The law is colour blind. I wish the government would be intellectually honest enough to try to stop bringing race into every equation, and that it would stop with the identity politics and stop dividing Canadians.

People who are convicted by a court of law and sent to jail are not in that position because they are victims. They are in that position because they are criminals. They have victimized another person. That is not to say that they themselves were not victimized somewhere along the road. They probably were, and that needs to be part of this discussion. However, being the victim of a crime does not entitle someone to commit crimes. However, we know that hurt people hurt people, and that is the bigger conversation.

Do we need to have discussions surrounding the extenuating circumstances that might have contributed to that choice? Absolutely, we do. We need to address poverty. We need to address housing, the cost of living, education and opportunities. We need to discuss the role of the entertainment industry and media. We need to discuss the role of parents, or in too many cases, the lack of parental involvement that leads to young people being out on the streets.

There is a lot we need to talk about, but at the end of the day, those external circumstances aside, that person standing before the judge made a choice. They did not make that choice because of the colour of their skin, and to insinuate they did is the very definition of racism. The ability to make choices between right and wrong has nothing to do with skin colour.

The government can throw around all the talking points about intersectionality it wants, but it does not change the fact that somewhere in that situation somebody made a choice, and choices have consequences. I know Black Canadians, white Canadians, Asian Canadians and indigenous Canadians, many of whom have been through difficult times and circumstances, had terrible things happen to them and had their backs up against the wall, and they did not resort to crime. In fact, too often, what we are seeing happen is that in those same racialized communities that a disproportionate number of offenders come from, we also see a disproportionate number of victims.

I look at this legislation, and on the face of it I can only see one message the government is trying to send: that it has actually come to believe that racialized Canadians somehow lack the ability to choose between right and wrong. It is ridiculous and it is insulting. I am not about to speak for those racialized communities, but if it were me, I would find this legislation incredibly insulting, because rather than empower racialized Canadians and fight racism, this bill enshrines a racism of lowered expectations, one that will harm the very communities the Liberals actually genuinely want to help.

That is the first big inconsistency, and here is the second: At the same time the government is lowering penalties for serious offenders, as it has done before, it is once again targeting law-abiding Canadians. The government will not address illegal guns flooding across our border, but it will go after farmers. It will not deal with illegal border crossers flooding into Canada, but try to cross the border without completing the ArriveCAN app. People can burn down churches, and the Prime Minister says that he understands their anger, but try parking a truck in downtown Ottawa.

That is how backwards the Liberal mentality is. If someone commits a serious crime, they are a victim, but if they obey the law, they are clearly a danger to society. It is backwards. It is not progressive. It is regressive.

There is one more thing. We started by talking about drugs. I would like to end there as well.

The government touts the fact that 75% of mandatory minimum prosecutions were for drug offences. What it does not and will not tell us is that 89% of those cases were for drug trafficking. It was not for personal use or simple possession. It was for dealing. I am fine if we want to shift to diversion programs and treatment for simple possession for those who are addicted, as addiction is a medical issue, but I am not okay with diversion programs for those who peddle this poison to our kids.

All we need to do is look at downtown Winnipeg or Vancouver to see the deadly consequences of drug use. I believe that those who are instrumental in causing the chemical carnage should not have the option of house arrest, that they should go to jail, yet still there are those in the government and in this House who would say to take away penalties, legalize drugs and remove the stigma. For those who do that here, we have another inconsistency and another illogical gap, because saying that eliminating penalties and legalizing drugs will help fix drug addiction is like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline. It would not be laughable if it were not so true.

Once again, we have an example of legislation that addresses the symptoms, but fails to address the root causes of the problem. It is a backward approach that would harm the very people it claims to want to help.

This is typical of the government's failed approach. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-5.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask another question, because I have a lot of concerns about Bill C-5 when it comes to victims of sexual assault.

I have spent a great portion of my career here in Parliament defending the status of women in Canada, and to think that someone could be sexually assaulted and their attacker could actually get house arrest in the same community is very worrisome to me.

Does the member have a comment on the perspective of the courts?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I certainly have a lot of respect for his experience.

From his experience as a prosecutor, what kind of message does he think it sends to criminals, as well as to the victims and their families, when we have bills like Bill C-21, which attacks law-abiding firearms owners, and Bill C-5, which would lessen mandatory sentencing? What kind of message is this sending to Canadians, to victims and their families, and also to criminals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know he cares a great deal about this issue and his constituents.

When we look at penalties, they are just one part of a bigger puzzle. When we look at Bill C-5, we are asking what the appropriate penalty is. If the member were to consult our recent election platform from 2021, he would see that we have been advocating treating substance abuse disorder as the health problem it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have only two and a half minutes left for my speech on Bill C-5. The point I want to emphasize to the House is this: There is a middle ground.

We have talked about what the government wishes to accomplish and we have considered how the government should go about accomplishing it. What I would propose and have proposed is to add a mechanism to this law that would allow mandatory minimums to remain in place but make an exception, by way of an exceptional circumstances provision, for somebody who represents a group that is overrepresented in the justice system or has had a life-changing event. This would enable the government to maintain mandatory minimum sentences, but in exceptional circumstances they would not apply.

This would do exactly what my counterparts on the other side of the House have advocated. It would allow for judicial discretion where necessary, but would still communicate to the public that gun offences will be taken seriously and that things like robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and reckless discharge, as in a drive-by shooting, would still result in a substantial sentence, absent very significant circumstances.

Such a provision would be constitutional, and it is my belief that it would strike an appropriate middle ground. I wish the government had done the same in this circumstance; it did not, and I exhort the government to do so in the future.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Government Policies

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

Mr. Speaker, airports are in chaos. The passport office is snowed under. Inflation is out of control. Ministers are misleading Parliament. The government's current priorities are an incoherent mess.

Bill C-5 would drop sentencing requirements on violent offenders and drug traffickers and open the door for sex offenders to serve community sentences near their victims. Bill C-21 pretends to address gun violence, but literally only affects people who obey Canada's existing strict firearms laws. Bill C-19 would remove any pretense of fiscal control from the undisciplined and unserious government. Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. None of these bills would do anything to fix any of Canada's serious problems.

If these are the government's priorities for the next two weeks, I suggest it quit now and spend the summer coming up with a real agenda to help Canadians.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. At the outset, I will note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher.

Believe it or not, this is an area that is close to my heart as somebody who previously taught a sentencing class and somebody who worked in the criminal justice system, both in federal corrections as a defence lawyer and then as a Crown prosecutor. This is an area that I find a great deal of interest in. I have heard different perspectives, some more compelling than others today. What I find noteworthy is that most parliamentarians want to get to the same place when it comes to this debate. The question is: how do we get there?

I was quite struck by some of the commentary that we have heard today because it was talking about where we want to be. The question, in my view, is whether this bill actually gets us there. If we look at the issue, I believe everybody in the House would resoundingly and unanimously say that they want gun crime to go down. There is no doubt about it. Nobody wants to see any more people shot, especially innocent civilians caught in the proverbial crossfire. The question then is whether this is the right mechanism to do so. I note that not once does the word “victim” appear in Bill C-5 or Bill C-21.

Gun crime, in my view, and I think in the view of a lot of people in the House, is out of control. No one here wants to see more gun crime. We have two different approaches in Bill C-5 and Bill C-21. Bill C-5, with the elimination of mandatory minimums, has been a failed approach. I will note here something that is not brought up very often. The reality is that most mandatory minimums, when it comes to gun crimes, were actually struck down.

When we talk about a failed approach, if the approach failed, it has most recently been since the time that the mandatory minimums were struck down. We have essentially been operating in a time where mandatory minimums have been struck down for most gun crimes, but not for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm or reckless discharge. Those minimums remain, but under section 95, for instance, that was struck down in the R. v. Nur decision many years ago. It is not as though we are talking about statistics as of last week, last month or last year when mandatory minimums were in effect. Most mandatory minimums have been struck down.

I want to now turn to what the parliamentary secretary said. When we look at the issue of overrepresentation, there will be no issue from me. I remember being a 22-year-old and a 23-year-old going to work in federal corrections for the first time and noting the overrepresentation of indigenous people, for instance, in the justice system. At that time, it was about six to one in terms of overrepresentation, so it was very substantial. As a young man, it was something that I had to learn about and, frankly, the decisions I made had to address. That is something I am quite proud of.

It is also something I had to address as a prosecutor. We have the R. v. Gladue decision, the Ipeelee decision, and we also have subsection 718.2(e), I believe, that address this specific issue of overrepresentation. I was bound by those ethical precepts to address Gladue considerations in sentencing, and I always took great pride in putting those considerations at the forefront of my decision-making.

Where the parliamentary secretary and I part company is where he notes, on behalf of the government, that we are looking at alternatives to incarceration while keeping the public safe. This argument might hold water, but for the fact that there are serious offences that are included in this bill. I am going to fast-forward to them. For reckless discharge with a firearm, section 244(1) reads that, “Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, or endanger life”.

We are talking about public protection. We are talking about gun violence. We want to reduce gun violence overall, yet this provision was included in Bill C-5. This allows what I would characterize commonly as a drive-by shooting. Rather than signal we are not going to allow a community-based sentence for such a serious offence, the question should be the length of incarceration. It is paradoxical.

I asked the parliamentary secretary about this, and I cannot remember his exact response, but essentially it was that I was using rhetoric. I am not using rhetoric. I am simply pointing out that a sentencing option now exists for drive-by shooters to serve their sentence in the community. I am not sure how we get here. I just do not know how the principles of sentencing in section 718 are enhanced and put forward by conditional sentence orders for drive-by shootings.

The hon. parliamentary secretary spoke about systemic racism, and he then spoke about corrections. My point is that I have no issue with targeting racism anywhere in Canada, none whatsoever. He talked about the custody ratings scale. As someone who has completed the custody ratings scale and who previously worked in corrections, I know that, if he wants to address the custody ratings scale and the overrepresentation of people in maximum security in federal custody itself, then he should do that. We would do that by amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, not by allowing conditional sentence orders for people who commit offences such as extortion with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, or most seriously, reckless discharge or discharge with intent.

The hon. parliamentary secretary talked about Conservatives wanting to lock people up and throw away the key. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we want is a safe society with just sentencing—