This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.
David Lametti Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-5s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-5 aims to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act by repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties, especially for drug-related and some firearm-related offences, with the goal of addressing over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians, and marginalized communities. It also seeks to increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders for non-violent offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety, allowing them to serve their sentences in the community under certain conditions. Additionally, the bill encourages police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to criminal charges for simple drug possession, focusing on diversion to treatment programs.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Green
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
December 13th, 2021 / 11:45 a.m.
Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Madam Speaker, I am a little speechless as to how to respond to my friend opposite, because there is very little truth in what he said.
Let me very clearly—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I am going to interrupt. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes just asked me to be very vigilant on the heckling on the other side, and he is doing the same thing. I would ask the hon. member to wait to hear the question so he can answer it. I am sure he will want to hear all the details.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me just be clear: Bill C-22 was introduced earlier this year. It was in our platform. On September 20, Canadians gave us a mandate to reintroduce that bill, because we promised to do so within the first 100 days. That is exactly what Bill C-5 represents.
I have a very direct question for my friend opposite. He has not used the words “systemic racism” at all. He has not even acknowledged that systemic racism exists within the criminal justice system. He has not addressed that within his comments this morning.
Why has he not included that important term in his speech today?
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about Bill C-22, which is really interesting. We are dealing with Bill C-5. Why are we dealing with Bill C-5 and not Bill C-22? It is because the Liberal Prime Minister, against the agreement of all parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, called an election during a pandemic. He killed his own legislation. He did not want to enact anything he had put forward at the time, because Liberals like to try to confuse motion for action. They get very little done. In this case, it is dangerous that one of the first pieces of legislation they are looking to enact is a soft-on-crime bill that punishes victims and rewards criminals.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to give my hon. colleague a chance to talk about something he failed to mention regarding this bill. Perhaps he has an opinion on this.
Does he not believe that, as we face this disturbing opioid crisis, it is important to ensure that addictive behaviours are not criminalized and, with that in mind, the best approach to helping people who are struggling with substance abuse and addiction is to repeal mandatory minimum sentences? That is one aspect of the only approach that works, namely, harm reduction.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, we know that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has already issued a directive with respect to these types of diversion measures. The effect of codifying them and having Bill C-5 enacted is that there will not be much of a difference between what is currently happening and what would happen as a result of this bill being put in place for those measures.
What we would see is the repeal of these mandatory minimum penalties and conditional discharges, weakening the accountability for folks who are committing drug trafficking and drug manufacturing offences. This, of course, is going to gravely impact our communities and have a negative impact on folks who are suffering from addiction. With respect to diversion measures, the ones that are currently in place and the directive issued are appropriate.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Madam Speaker, I feel like I am stuck in some kind of time warp after hearing the comments from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. That speech could have been given 10 years ago.
In the meantime, we have had more than a decade of experience with mandatory minimums and we know what they result in. They do not result in less crime. They result in the overincarceration of indigenous people and the overincarceration of Black Canadians. The academic literature is clear; our practical experience is clear, and even jurisdictions like Texas have given up on mandatory minimums as a solution to crime problems.
Will the Conservatives join us in the 21st century and give up this dated rhetoric about mandatory minimums that somehow implies that taking them away removes penalties altogether?
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, it is incredibly important that we have accountability measures in place. The mandatory minimums being repealed are going to weaken accountability; it is that simple. The crimes that are going to be impacted and the criminals who will be impacted will have been convicted of committing serious offences.
Victims need someone speaking up for them. That is exactly what we are doing here today. These crimes, the list I have read out twice, are not minor offences. They are serious and dangerous offences committed by dangerous people. The penalties being repealed serve as an accountability mechanism and should remain in place.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard from my colleague from the NDP. If he thinks it is a relic of the past to put people in prison for sexual assault, for trafficking in persons and for kidnapping, I will be a relic of the past for a long time. They just—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I am sorry. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
I want to remind members to hold off on their thoughts while someone is speaking.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, it is not like me to come to the defence of members of other parties, but what the member from the Conservative Party just stated was a complete, utter lie and misrepresentation of what was—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Kingston and the Islands just accused the member for Regina—Lewvan of lying. I am just wondering, with respect to—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
Given the information that the hon. member was providing, he did not indicate that the hon. member was lying.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes may finish.