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

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax West.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Today I would like to address necessary amendments proposed in Bill C-5.

Our criminal justice system continues to perpetuate a cycle of systemic racism, a system which is disproportionately overrepresented by indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities both as offenders and as victims. Sentencing laws within the Canadian criminal justice system have historically focused on punishment through imprisonment rather than ensuring that the responses to criminal conduct are fair, effective and prioritize public safety.

Adopting the proposed amendments to Bill C-5 are imperative to stop the cycle of systemic racism and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, while taking steps towards addressing the disparities experienced by vulnerable groups. The proposed amendments maintain the courts’ ability to impose serious penalties in appropriate cases for firearms offences, ensuring that sentencing is proportionate to the crime.

I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Our committee recently completed a study on this bill. We heard from experts, law enforcement, legal representatives, and those who are marginalized and who have interacted with the criminal justice system. The testimony encompassed the diverse experiences of those who have encountered the consequences of Bill C-5 from across the country. The testimony recounted racialized and marginalized individuals’ intergenerational experiences with racism in policing and sentencing, arguing that a colonial system of incarceration is not encompassing of the needs of Canadians.

Bill C-5 would address the concerns raised by the witness testimony we heard around racism and overrepresentation in the justice system by promoting judicial discretion and prioritizing individualized sentencing. This process ensures that an individual who is found guilty is sentenced appropriately to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence. A sentencing court must look at all mitigating and aggravating factors specific to the case, including the offender’s risk to public safety, circumstances specific to the offender and instances of systemic racism experienced by the offender.

When it comes to crimes, specifically gun crimes and youth violence, I have been working hard with groups for over decades. I can tell colleagues that minimum mandatory penalties have not deterred or reduced gun crime. Prevention, intervention or tough enforcement at borders have been effective. Most of these young folks need help and jail is not the answer.

A criminal justice system which utilizes a mandatory minimum penalty as a model of reform is not reflective of Canadian values or the needs of racialized and marginalized communities within Canada. We can see from the statistics that the Canadian criminal justice system has historically been ill-equipped when considering individuals who are vulnerable, struggle with mental health and substance use, are experiencing homelessness, live in poverty or lack access to essential and social services. We must ensure that Canada does not use the criminal justice system to address social issues. Rather, we must ensure public safety, accountability and justice.

Research shows that in Canada indigenous people, Black Canadians and other racialized persons are more likely to come in contact with the criminal justice system, often due to systemic racism as well as other social and economic factors. These statistics are further exacerbated by the fact that members of these communities are overrepresented in correctional facilities.

Between 2007-08 and 2016-17, indigenous and Black offenders were more likely to be remanded to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum in the last 10 years. The number of indigenous adults admitted to federal custody for a firearm-related offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty increased by 23%.

Despite representing only 5% of the Canadian adult population in 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. In 2018-19, Black inmates represented 7% of the federal offender population, but only 3% of the Canadian population. If we continue to support a system which perpetuates systemic racism, the cycle of incarceration will continue to be the path for many marginalized communities.

There are 13 mandatory minimum penalties related to firearms offences that would be removed, empowering the courts’ ability to impose proportionate and individualized sentencing to offenders.

Bill C-5 would repeal the firearms-related mandatory minimum penalties for possession of a loaded firearm, prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, possession of an unauthorized firearm, and importing a firearm knowing that it is not authorized.

Repealing mandatory minimums for these offences would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders in cases where an offender faces a term of less than two years' imprisonment and does not pose a threat to public safety. It would also require police and prosecutors to consider measures aside from incarceration.

The reality is that the restricted availability of conditional sentencing has contributed to the disparities experienced by racialized and marginalized communities in Canada. Consistent with the government’s commitments, mandatory minimum penalties would remain in place for offences related to robbery, extortion, discharging a firearm with intention to cause bodily harm, firearm trafficking and importing, and making automatic weapons.

A justice system that unfairly targets indigenous peoples, Black and marginalized communities is not effective. It does not keep us safe and must be changed. For those who say that Bill C-5 is not tough enough on crime, those who commit serious offences will continue to receive serious sentences.

Our bill is about getting rid of the failed policies that filled our prisons with low-risk, first-time offenders. They do not need to be put in jail; they need support. These failed policies did not deter crime in the past. They did not keep us safe and they did not make our justice system more efficient. They target vulnerable and racialized Canadians.

Canadians see the devastating effects that come from firearms on a daily basis. I am no exception. However, I recognize that a one-size-fits-all system, where mandatory minimum penalties are considered just and fair, is not representative of those who are disproportionately impacted by the Canadian criminal justice system.

For those who are a danger to the public, or are serious or repeat offenders, a judge would be able to award stiff and harsh penalties in some cases higher than the minimum sentences. This is not a soft-on-crime approach. This is an approach that separates social issues from judicial issues, and allows the judiciary to make the appropriate sentence.

To end the cycle of overrepresentation, we require a tailored approach that encourages rehabilitation and acknowledges the historical and ongoing injustices faced by Canadians across the country. Repealing select mandatory minimum penalties does not mean that firearms offences are considered serious offences; rather, it provides the courts with the ability to impose appropriate and proportionate sentences.

The changes we make today to our criminal justice system will have an impact on current and future Canadians. It will change the way we engage with racialized and marginal communities. This includes providing meaningful support for victims, accused persons, offenders, their families and their communities.

Our government is committed to maintaining public safety, and has taken urgent and significant action to make Canada safer.

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

Madam Speaker, while I might not use quite as broad a brush in condemning my Conservative colleagues as the hon. member did, I think he draws attention to an important ancillary benefit of these changes in Bill C-5.

We certainly heard that one of the problems that comes from the existence of mandatory minimums is that they prevent the ability to plea bargain and keep cases out of court that take up valuable space in our courts that could be used for tackling, without delay, the more serious crimes. They increase court delays. They increase court costs.

Of course, when we keep someone in custody, as I talked about in my speech, for only a short period time, it is very expensive to do so and, at the same time, guarantees that they will not get the rehabilitation and training they need to successfully rehabilitate into society. It is not a good economic deal, as well as being not a good justice deal, as well as being not a good public safety deal.

Eliminating mandatory minimums will help us make progress on all of those fronts.

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

Madam Speaker, I do have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge as a member of Parliament.

Again, I think we are talking about something that is not going to happen here.

The penalties for sexual assault rarely come in under two years in custody and so anything with two years in custody is not eligible for a conditional sentence. It is not eligible for house arrest. It is not eligible for serving time on weekends.

I do share with him the concern about the way sexual assault is treated in our criminal justice and policing system and I do share his concern that we need to do better by victims, not just of sexual assault but of all crimes in our community.

In fact, allowing judges to use conditional sentences to get a sentence that fits the crime, fits the offender and fits the community is an important piece of progress in Bill C-5.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise virtually to speak to Bill C-5 at third reading, but I have to say that I look forward to the day when circumstances do not force me to give speeches through pinhole cameras, with all the technical problems that go with it.

I want to start today by talking about what Bill C-5 is and what it is not. I want to say clearly, as we approach third reading of this bill, that I am happy to speak in support of it because of what is actually in it.

Though modest, Bill C-5 is an important contribution to tackling the systemic racism in our justice system. All we have to do is take a brief look at the statistics, which show that despite no more involvement with drugs by certain communities and no more involvement in criminal activities, certain members of Canadian society, indigenous people and racialized Canadians, end up in prison far more often, far out of proportion to other Canadians.

The correctional investigator pointed out that indigenous people make up less than 5% of the population, but over 30% of the people in Canadian prisons. Canadians who identify as Black are about 3.5% of the population and over 7% of those who are in prison. The situation is worse when it comes to indigenous women and women who live in poverty. These women make up over 50% of the population in women's prisons. Again, if we look at Black Canadian women, they are about 3% of the population but make up over 9% of the inmates in correctional institutions. Clearly, we have a problem with systemic racism in our justice system.

Bill C-5 would also make a modest contribution to the fight against the toxic drug poisoning crisis in our country. Removing mandatory minimums for drug offences and increasing the ability of police and of judges to divert those who are struggling with addiction from prison to treatment will obviously help.

Is there more we can do on both systemic racism and the opioid crisis? Clearly there is.

Let me talk at the outset about what Bill C-5 does not do, because we have heard many outrageous claims, from the Conservatives in particular but sometimes also from the Bloc, about what the bill does. The bill does not in any way reduce sentences that judges will hand out for serious crimes. Removing mandatory minimums does exactly what it sounds like: It removes the minimum penalty for an offence, not the maximum, not the average, not the normal penalty, but the minimum.

The evidence we heard at committee, as well as the evidence in criminal justice, is quite clear. The mandatory minimums do not deter crimes. There are very few criminals who thumb through the Criminal Code to decide which offence offers them the best deal, obviously. We know from research what the real deterrent is, and that is getting caught. All criminals tend to think that they are the smartest in the bunch and will not get caught, but it is that fear of enforcement that is actually a deterrent to crime.

The evidence shows us that mandatory minimums, if anything, actually increase the likelihood of recidivism and that in fact their existence makes the public, if anything, less safe rather than more safe. We should pay no attention to those who tell us that Bill C-5 is soft on crime. Instead, let us look for a moment at what it actually does.

It removes 20 mandatory minimum penalties: 14 from the Criminal Code and six from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. There are many more mandatory minimum penalties that could be removed, but we heard from experts that these 20 will make a significant difference when it comes to the overrepresentation of racialized and indigenous people in our correction system.

New Democrats do support maintaining mandatory minimums for the most serious, violent crimes, where there is evidence that longer times of supervision may make a difference and may be necessary for public safety, but we acknowledge that all mandatory minimums can and do have disproportionate impacts on indigenous people and racialized Canadians.

That is why we attempted to amend Bill C-5 at committee to add a waiver restoring judicial discretion in offences with mandatory minimums when it would be manifestly unjust to apply those mandatory minimums. This is in line with the Gladue principles, which require judges to consider the circumstances of aboriginal people when it comes to sentencing. Unfortunately, in the laws that exist right now, the Gladue principles do not apply where there is a mandatory minimum.

I do have to point out that I think the member for Rivière-du-Nord, from the Bloc, misremembered what happened at committee. There were several attempts by several MPs and parties to add this kind of waiver to Bill C-5, but due to the narrow drafting of the bill, unfortunately, they were ruled out of order, outside the scope of the bill, so no one voted against adding this waiver.

Again, New Democrats do support adding a parallel provision to the Gladue principles requiring judges to take into account the circumstances when it comes to sentencing racialized Canadians as well. This kind of waiver would be a further improvement to our attempts to attack the systemic racism that exists in our justice system.

Again, what is actually there? There are 20 mandatory minimums, most of which specify terms of imprisonment of less than two years, that would be removed. What this means is that if there is a mandatory minimum of less than two years, generally not much time would end up being served. When we take into account time that may have been served before the trial process, and when we take into account provisions for earlier release for good behaviour, which is essential for maintaining discipline within our corrections system, then the time served under these mandatory minimums would be very, very short in most cases.

It also means that the time would be served in provincial institutions, and those provincial institutions generally do not have extensive rehabilitation programs, due to the short time most offenders spend there. Obviously, if people are in custody only for a few months, they cannot really complete an addictions treatment program. They cannot really get training that might allow them to get a better job when they leave the corrections system. They cannot even complete literacy training, which is often important for those who have come into the criminal justice system, in that very short period of time. There is not enough time spent in custody, under these mandatory minimums, to get any real help that would allow people to be rehabilitated back into society and make them less of a threat to public safety.

What there is under these mandatory minimums is a guarantee that the offenders would serve just enough time to lose their job, their housing and often the custody of their children. These are pretty heavy additional penalties that I do not think were ever intended for things like personal possession of drugs. It is just enough time to make it more likely that the offenders would return to the behaviour that got them into trouble in the first place, rather than become successfully reintegrated into their community.

Instead of mandatory minimums, Bill C-5, and this is important, would grant additional access to conditional sentences, so judges may choose conditional sentences over those mandatory minimums right now. This means that judges may assign penalties like serving time on weekends or serving time under house arrest. This is important, because the Conservatives are again distorting what the bill would do. Judges are allowed to use conditional sentences only in those cases where the penalty being assigned is less than two years in custody. The kind of extreme examples the Conservatives are giving of things that would be subject to conditional sentences simply are not in this bill.

What a conditional sentence might do, if people serve time on weekends, is allow them to keep their job and be able to continue supporting their family. Time served under conditional sentence in house arrest might allow people to be the primary caregiver of their children and remain in the home so their kids do not go into custody. It could allow them to keep their family together. We have all seen the terrible impacts on both indigenous Canadians and racialized communities of kids ending up in care in a system that has just as many problems with systemic racism as our justice system does.

Again, Bill C-5 does nothing that would reduce the amount of time judges hand out for serious crimes, nothing at all. Judges' discretion and sentencing guidelines mean that serious crimes would continue to get serious time in custody even after Bill C-5 passes.

The third aspect of Bill C-5, the third major thing it would do that is actually in the bill, is that it would increase the ability of police and prosecutors to use warnings and diversions instead of charges when it comes to drug possession offences. The use of alternative measures, like warnings and referrals to counselling for low-level criminal offences, not only avoids wasting expensive court time and evades further delays in our court system, but there is the obvious connection made to diversion and avoiding future involvement in criminal activities. The obvious benefit of diversion is that it allows people to get drug treatment and get out of the addiction problems that led them into conflict with the criminal justice system.

All of these aspects of Bill C-5 would increase public safety and not, as opponents of the bill would have us believe, put public safety further at risk. No one denies that there are many crises in public safety we need to address, but what Bill C-5 does is create room in our criminal justice system to address the most serious crimes by taking the less serious crimes out of the justice system and allowing judges to apply penalties that would be the most appropriate, not just for the offender, but for making sure that offenders do not reoffend, thus helping defend or protect public safety in the community.

These three things, the elimination of 20 mandatory minimum penalties, increasing access to conditional sentences and increasing access to diversion, are why New Democrats said we would support the bill at second reading. Frankly, we were not that excited about this bill, because we had hoped the Liberals would be bolder when it came to tackling the problem of systemic racism in the criminal justice system. People may often hear that Parliament is dysfunctional and that we do not co-operate, but what we proved at the justice committee is that there can be co-operation to improve bills. At committee, we proposed four amendments, two of which were adopted, and I can say that personally I am now a lot more excited about the bill.

The first amendment adopted requires that records be kept on the use of discretion when it comes to diversion. That is important because keeping records on diversion will open up the use of police discretion to study and accountability. It will ensure that we can check that discretion is not just being used to favour those who are already the most privileged in society, but is being used fairly when it comes to indigenous people and racialized Canadians. The amendment also guarantees that warnings and diversions cannot be used in further court proceedings. That is an important factor in that it guarantees there is a real incentive to complete things like diversion.

The final amendment that was adopted tackles the question of criminal records for the personal possession of drugs. Bill C-5 would now guarantee that within two years all of these records will disappear, so that those who are often denied housing, employment, the ability to travel, bank loans and mortgages or the ability to volunteer with seniors or children will actually have those criminal records removed and be able to pursue rehabilitation into society that would allow them to make their way forward in life, just like other Canadians.

The Liberals previously set up a record suspension process for marijuana when it was legalized, but I have to point out that that process cleared the records of only 484 of the hundreds of thousands of people with records for simple possession. Bill C-5 will now clear them all. It will clear them all without an application process and without a fee.

Our amendment also dealt with future conditions for the personal possession of drugs, which is still possible after the government ensured the defeat of Bill C-216, the private member's bill of the member for Courtenay—Alberni, which would have decriminalized the personal possession of drugs completely. Since those convictions are still possible, what Bill C-5 now does, with our amendment, is guarantee that any new convictions will disappear from criminal records two years after the end of any sentence resulting from those convictions, and not result in a lifelong criminal record that has all those negative impacts I just talked about. This process, which the government is calling the “sequestering of records”, will make sure those criminal records do not show up in criminal record checks, and 250,000 Canadians will benefit directly.

Let us not listen to the naysayers who are trying to stir up public safety fears about Bill C-5. It is more than a little frustrating, when the bill will actually do so much more to help make our communities safer. It is frankly maddening to see opponents of this bill ignore its real impact in beginning to address the systemic racism that afflicts our justice system and makes the lives of so many indigenous and racialized Canadians that much harder.

Is this bill everything that community advocates hoped to see? No, it is not. The Liberals could have been bolder, as I said before, in addressing both systemic racism and the opioid crisis, but is Bill C-5 a significant step forward in addressing these concerns? I believe it is, and that is why New Democrats are happy to support Bill C-5 at third reading today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is conflating Bill C-21 and Bill C-5. I think we need to come back to Bill C‑5, the bill we are discussing today.

As I said, we have stated our position. We agree with the introduction of diversion measures, but since this is an omnibus bill, it contains two confusing and intertwined items. We certainly have the right to ask questions about minimum sentences.

However, one thing is certain: For these reasons, especially since diversion is so important and has such positive effects, as we have seen in various countries around the world, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill. That said, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord so aptly put it, we will do it while holding our noses.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-5, my mind is once again filled with questions and confusion.

As critic for status of women and gender equality, I have observed an uptick in the number of femicides and incidents involving gender-based violence. Like my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, whom I commend for his speech and for sharing his time with me, I wonder about the odd message the government is sending with this bill.

I will therefore address the delicate question of mandatory minimum penalties by starting with my experience in the community sector. Next, I will address the bill's shortcomings. I will end with a few suggestions for countering violence and sending a strong message to end the acrimony currently surrounding the bill and, in particular, the disinformation we have been hearing, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned.

I have a background in community work, more specifically with an alternative justice and mediation organization. I sincerely believe in restorative justice. I am entirely in agreement with the Bloc's traditional position, which mirrors Quebec's position on mandatory minimum penalties.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois advocates for an approach that promotes rehabilitation and crime reduction. We believe that mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, have few benefits, that they do not deter crime and that they introduce many problems, including the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons, as well as additional costs to the system. The Bloc Québécois is therefore more favourable to the principle of repealing certain MMPs.

However, the Bloc also believes in timing, since life is all about timing. Now is not the right time to repeal MMPs for firearms offences, seeing as a number of cities in Quebec and Canada are plagued by a rash of gun violence, mainly because of the Liberal government's inaction when it comes to border controls.

Many women's groups are particularly concerned about this and would like to see better gun control measures to help reduce the number of femicides. Repealing MMPs without doing anything to stop the illegal flow of firearms across the border sends a mixed message.

Conversely, Bill C-21 would strengthen certain maximum penalties, but we must be careful not to mix up these two bills. Although we believe that repealing MMPs for firearms possession is defensible, the proposed repeal of MMPs for certain gun crimes, including discharging a firearm with intent and armed robbery or extortion, appears to contradict the government's claim that it will maintain MMPs for certain categories of serious crime.

We need to monitor this aspect of the bill closely, as well as the possibility of maintaining MMPs for second or third offences. As the Bloc Québécois suggested, the courts could be given the power to depart from the MMPs in cases of serious crime where justified by exceptional circumstances.

I would like to clarify that the Bloc Québécois expressed support for the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession during the last election campaign and the debates on Bill C-236. Let me remind my colleagues that some of the MMPs that are to be repealed involve drug production, at a time when the opioid crisis is claiming more and more lives in Quebec and Canada.

During the last election campaign, I was approached about this topic by community groups that work with the homeless and whose street outreach workers are doing an excellent job, like those in Granby. However, the Bloc Québécois would like to point out that such a measure will be effective only if investments are made in health care, to support health care systems and community organizations. These institutions need resources so they can help people struggling with addiction and mental health issues, another subject that voters broached with me during the last election campaign.

The Bloc Québécois would like to note that we have still not gotten a response from the Liberal government on the issue of increasing health care funding to cover 35% of system costs, despite unanimous calls from Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, without that level of investment, it is hard for community organizations to meet the growing needs created by increased homelessness in municipalities like Granby. The pandemic only exacerbated the problem. Also, as critic for status of women, I see that homeless women are especially vulnerable.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois speaks for Quebec, where diversion is a well-recognized principle that has been integrated into several areas of the justice system. For example, in children's law, extrajudicial alternatives have been offered to young offenders since the 1970s thanks to Claude Castonguay's reform of the Youth Protection Act. There is also the alternative measures program for adults in indigenous communities, which allows individuals to opt for measures other than judicial proceedings.

There is the justice and mental health support program, which allows individuals who have committed a crime and are fit to stand trial to obtain a reduced sentence or, in some cases, benefit from diversion. There is also the general alternative measures program for adults, which is currently being implemented and which gives adults accused of certain crimes the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and resolve their conflict with the law in ways other than the usual judicial proceedings provided for in the Criminal Code.

For all of these reasons, I would like to salute the organization Justice alternative et médiation, for which I used to work. I would like to apologize for missing the general meeting, but I know that the organization's work on all the issues I mentioned is crucial.

Lastly, with regard to drugs, there is the Court of Quebec's addiction treatment program, which makes it possible to postpone sentencing to allow the offender to undergo court-supervised treatment for addiction. It also provides for close collaboration between the court and drug addiction resources to establish treatment methods, including therapy, rehabilitation and social integration. Unfortunately, this program is offered only in Montreal and Puvirnituq. It would be good if it could be expanded.

In short, as the previous examples show, the principle of diversion is not new in Quebec's judicial ecosystem. Quebec's Bill 32 was studied and also involved diversion. The CAQ government concentrated on securing the passage of this bill, which aims to promote the efficiency of penal justice. The bill introduced the concept of an adaptation program, which will give municipalities another option for administering statements of offence to vulnerable individuals, such as those experiencing homelessness or mental health or addiction issues.

As critic for status of women, I am always rather appalled to observe the overrepresentation of indigenous individuals in prisons and to note that the problem is more pronounced among women than men. Some 38% of women incarcerated in provincial and territorial prisons after sentencing are indigenous, while the corresponding rate of incarceration among men identifying as indigenous is 26%, so this affects far more women than men. In federal prisons, indigenous women account for 31% of offenders sentenced to prison, while indigenous men account for only 2%. These are huge numbers. Given these figures, could MMPs be contributing to increasing the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the prison system? Certain signs point to yes.

Diversion is also beneficial for individuals. It reduces the stigma associated with drug use, as well as the negative consequences of a criminal record, which are disproportionate to the crime of simple possession. One last thing I should mention is that MMPs are expensive, because they generate long-term correctional service costs and court costs. MMPs have a major social cost because the money invested in putting people in prison is not devoted to social reintegration.

In conclusion, because of my background in community work, I am sensitive to many considerations associated with this bill. One thing is certain: It should not relieve us of our responsibility as members of Parliament, especially since gun crime is an important issue, given recent events where many innocent victims were killed by guns. Although we agree with the repeal of MMPs, we should not minimize gun crime or the importance of making the public feel safe and considering better gun control measures. That will be debated in another bill. Let us focus on the bill at hand.

I can say one thing. On the one side, we have the NDP saying that this bill does not go far enough. On the other, we have the Conservatives clinging to their “tough on crime” approach. Is that the way to go? I do not know.

Then there are the Liberals, who, as I mentioned, are playing both sides of the fence, especially in the case of crimes against women. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action 32 sought to allow judges to depart from MMPs under certain circumstances, by which I mean serious crimes against women. The idea is to allow judges to decide whether getting rid of the MMP is a good idea. This is meant to send a strong message, especially in the case of serious crimes against women. The Liberals managed to do this in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation.

Once again, this bill reflects the Liberals' penchant for catch-all bills. Minimum penalties, maximum penalties, diversion: Everything is lumped together. In short, once again, the Bloc Québécois is acting like the adult in the room, trying to adopt the most well-reasoned and reasonable approach.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a whole other question.

I voted against it because it had nothing to do with Bill C-5. I do think the issue of criminal records should be discussed. It is very interesting and important.

However, to circle back to the amendments to Bill C‑5, members will know that we proposed maintaining minimum sentences for these crimes, but adding a new provision to allow the courts to override them in exceptional circumstances. That recommendation came from an expert witness. It was discussed and, although I would not go so far as to say that everyone agreed, it was welcomed by government officials.

Unfortunately, when we brought these amendments forward, the government members on the committee voted them down, which was very disappointing. My NDP colleague also voted against them. Again, I think the issue here is not criminal records, but shootings.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the member for Rivière-du-Nord has changed his position on Bill C-5 since he did vote against the bill at committee. I want to ask him about another vote at committee. He voted against my amendment that would add a provision to Bill C-5 to remove criminal records for personal possession for about 250,000 Canadians.

Does the Bloc still oppose removing criminal records for personal possession of drugs?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his stated support of Bill C-5.

I realize and acknowledge the issues around gun violence. I want to point the member to Bill C-21, which is now before the House. It does, in fact, increase the penalties for firearm-related offences. This is the type of smart criminal justice policy that we are talking about.

We are, in fact, increasing the level of penalties available to judges for those who commit a crime with firearms. At the same time, we are ensuring that increased judicial discretion happens at the lower end of the spectrum where there are other alternatives for those who may be first-time offenders and those who may not pose a risk.

I want to thank my friend for the support, but I also want to reassure him that Bill C-21 will address many of the issues he has mentioned in his speech today.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start where I left off.

The bill summary reads as follows:

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.

For the Bloc Québécois, which has consistently advocated for diversion, rehabilitation and giving judges the discretion to determine appropriate sentences, this looks like motherhood and apple pie at first glance. However, as is often the case in the House, that pie was made with rotten apples that no one wants to eat. I am very pleased with the diversion measures. Too many people who need health care more than anything are unnecessarily crowding our courthouses and prisons. As unfortunate as addictions are, they need to be treated, not punished. This flawed and harmful paradigm needs to be set aside.

The same is true for conditional sentence orders. They are not a magic bullet, far from it. If they are used appropriately, and I have no reason to believe that our courts would be incapable of making sound decisions, they too will lead to better rehabilitation.

Most of the minimum sentences slated for repeal should be, and I applaud this expression of confidence in our courts. Judges who preside over trials hear very detailed adjudicative fact evidence, so they are in a better position than anyone else to determine the appropriate sentence for any given situation. I have faith in them.

That said, Bill C‑5 is overly broad. Quebec and Canada are experiencing a widespread gun crime crisis, but the government's only solution is to abolish minimum penalties for some of these offences. I will go through some of them.

Section 244(1) of the Criminal Code states the following with respect to discharging a firearm with intent:

Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.

That is pretty serious. The Criminal Code currently provides for a minimum penalty of five to seven years for these crimes if they are committed in association with or at the direction of a criminal organization.

Armed robbery is liable to a minimum penalty of four years pursuant to section 344 of the Criminal Code.

Subsection 346(1) of the Criminal Code defines extortion with a firearm as follows:

Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

If a firearm is used in those offences, the minimum sentence is four years.

There are others, including robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure and extortion with a firearm, but for those three examples, the Criminal Code currently sets out minimum sentences.

Are judges capable of applying the appropriate penalties for these offences? Honestly, I think so. I think our courts are quite capable of hearing the evidence and determining what is appropriate in these and other cases. However, at a time when gun violence is on the rise, especially in the Montreal area, but also elsewhere in Quebec and Canada, I think this sends the wrong message.

That is certainly not what I would call wise use of the power to legislate. The government could have proposed diversion and rehabilitation measures, as well as the repeal of certain minimum sentences, with the exclusion of crimes as serious as those committed with firearms. It could have done that.

At the start of the study of Bill C‑5, the Bloc Québécois asked that the bill be split in two so we could study diversion in one bill and then the minimum penalties issue in another bill. We could have passed one bill quickly and worked on the other, perhaps crafting it to reflect what Quebeckers and Canadians would want it to include. Unfortunately, the government is being obstinate, which I do not quite understand. In fact, I would say I do not understand it at all.

It seems that we will unfortunately also have to accept the rotten apples if we want to have the remedies of diversion and conditional sentencing and the elimination of certain minimum mandatory sentences for very specific offences. It is very disappointing to see the democratic process being taken hostage, and one day it is going to backfire. In the meantime, let us hope that the government will become a little wiser. Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, let us hope that it will happen, and that one day it will accept the opposition's arguments. Even when the opposition parties disagree and their position may seem unfounded, it is often well-founded and represents the opinion of a large part of the population. Let us hope that the government will one day accept the opposition's arguments and split this type of bill so we can discuss each provision objectively and effectively in the best interests of the people of Quebec and Canada.

For now, given the circumstances, the Bloc Québécois will have to vote in favour of Bill C-5. We will support it because, once again, we believe that diversion is essential for the entire justice system. We need it. We will vote in favour of Bill C-5 because we believe that conditional sentences are judicious and essential to the proper functioning of our courts, to the proper functioning of the entire justice system and to the rehabilitation of many offenders. We will vote in favour of Bill C-5 because eliminating some of these minimum penalties is also essential to the justice system and to rehabilitation.

While we will vote in favour of Bill C-5, we will be holding our noses over this denial of democracy that the government is perpetuating by refusing to remove from Bill C-5 the provisions that will undermine the fight against organized crime, the fight against the daily and rampant shootings on our streets.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Shefford.

Bill C‑5 is another bill containing a mix of good and bad measures, and it puts us in a position where we have to hold our noses and accept the measures we would otherwise oppose.

The legislative summary reads as follows: “This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question. We have worked together on committee and I thank her for her hard work.

Winnipeg is the epicentre of murdered and missing indigenous women. It is an extremely serious issue that is wreaking havoc on Winnipeg's north end, in particular, and in our northern reserve communities. It is very serious. I know this issue very well, having worked for the provincial government at the time.

We can go back to Bill C-5. It allows house arrest for sexual assault and for kidnapping. It allows no prison time for firing a gun with the intent to injure, for robbery with a firearm and for extortion with a firearm. These are very serious offences faced most of all by the most vulnerable in our society. We see this time and again: There is story after story of indigenous women and girls suffering at the hands of criminals doing these exact crimes who will no longer have mandatory prison time as a result of the Liberals' Bill C-5. It is unacceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier today, we heard one of the Liberal members talk about the high rate of reoffending. I fail to see how Bill C-5, if it lets people out of jail early, is going to do anything to protect the public safety when people are reoffending, which is what the Liberals said.

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

Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the member opposite would suggest that there is not a crisis in public safety, following years and years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies. I talked extensively about that. I guess we will have to see. We will have to see what happens to the crime statistics after Bill C-5 comes in. I hope I am wrong. I hope there are not rapists serving house arrests next to the individuals they raped. Based on the powers of this bill to give discretion to judges, I am deeply concerned that individuals who brandish firearms and shoot them at people in their communities now would not have to go to prison for it. I will not apologize for standing up for vulnerable communities and the risk to them, first and foremost, that this bill would present.

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

Madam Speaker, I take particular exception to the remarks by the previous member that completely distort what is going on in Bill C-5. They distort not only what is going on in Bill C-5, but the position of police in Canada on the bill. Both the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Police Federation, which represents RCMP officers, appeared in committee and supported this bill. What is going on here by Conservatives is an attempt to distort the actual impacts of the bill and create some crisis in public safety when, in fact, the bill would do exactly the opposite.