Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising to give a speech as a member of the 44th Parliament, I want to take a moment to thank the people of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for re-electing me to this place on their behalf. It is a responsibility, honour and privilege that I do not take lightly. I am really grateful to them for sending me back here.

My re-election was made possible by everyone who supported my campaign, believed in me, had my back and helped me through this journey. With the dedication and professionalism of my team, the passion and commitment of our volunteers, the generosity and sacrifice of our donors and, of course, the love and support of family and friends, we were able to share our positive Conservative vision. I am grateful beyond words.

I would not be here without my amazing campaign team. I thank my campaign manager David Sverginsky, my official agent Doug Plummer, and the rest of my core team and staff without whom I would not be here. They are Russ Kykendall, Tony Reznowski, Yvonne Hundey, Anna Marie Young, Todd Gurd, Cheri Davies and Kim Heathcote; and the group of volunteers who canvassed with me almost every day: Archie Nugteren, Mark Etienne, Gerry Rupke, Steve Stellingwerff, Marius, Juliette, Hannah Kurjanowicz, Brandon MacDougall, and my predecessor, Bev Shipley.

I would also like to thank Julie, Angela, Holly, Candice and Jennifer for always being there and for their steadfast support throughout my political journey.

The sign crew put up over 3,000 signs. I thank them for their hard work and dedication.

A special thanks to my parents, Diane and Theo Rood, for their love and support. My dad took on the enormous task of installing the signs, removing them and just being there for me throughout this.

I thank my brothers Jeremy Rood and Steele Leacock, and my grandma, Helen Jamrozinski, for their love and support throughout this journey.

Going on to the bill that is before us, it should come as no surprise when I say the Conservatives are the party of law and order. We are the party that stands with victims of crime and their loved ones. We are the party that applies common sense and outcome-based principles to protect innocent Canadians from violent criminals who would harm others. We are the party that understands that it is criminals who are committing these crimes, not law-abiding firearms owners, anglers, hunters and sports shooters.

The Liberals claim to be serious about getting tough on crime, but their hypocritical actions speak louder than words. Last February, in the previous Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-22. The goal of this harmful legislation was to reduce the sentences for illegal gun smugglers and remove mandatory minimum sentences for many serious offences. That bill died when the election was called, but here we are again with the same bill, but with a different number.

Just months before the Prime Minister called an unnecessary election in the middle of a pandemic, my Conservative colleague introduced a private member's bill, which would have imposed tougher sentences for criminals who were caught smuggling or in possession of illegal guns, which is the larger problem.

Brian Sauvé, who is the president of the National Police Federation, has said that policies like what the Liberals are advocating for may be politically popular, but they fail to address the root cause of gun violence. He says:

The narrative is that we need to restrict gun ownership because that will curtail crime, when really the evidence is that illegal gun trafficking leads to criminals owning guns, which leads to crimes with firearms.

Therefore, we need to look at the source of the problem.

Crimes with firearms are exactly what the government claims it wants to stop, yet it voted against a bill and continues to fail to support legislation that will do just that. Does that sound like a government that is serious on tackling gun crime for the people of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex? It sounds kind of hypocritical to me.

Bill C-22 is back as Bill C-5, but with the same purpose. This legislation is a revolving door for criminals. It would do nothing to stop crime. It would do the exact opposite. It would repeal the penalties for crimes like weapons trafficking, reckless discharge of a firearm, discharge with intent to wound or endanger and armed robbery. It would also remove conditional sentencing for heinous crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, child abduction, human trafficking, vehicle theft and arson.

That tells me the Liberal elites in Ottawa do not care about our safety or the safety of our loved ones. Conservatives like myself will always fight against harmful legislation like Bill C-5. Canadians do not want the justice system to be a constantly revolving door. Common sense must prevail for all common good.

I studied criminology in university, and I have friends who are corrections officers, probation and parole officers. I hear the same thing from them all the time. It is the same people revolving through the doors committing the same crimes over and over again. If it is a provincial offence, which is two years less a day, they will not get the kind of help they would need. If they were sent to a federal facility, they would have help for mental health and addictions problems.

The government has a role to play in ensuring that Canadians, victims of crime and their families can exist freely and without fear in our society, but in Bill C-5, the Liberals are telling Canadians that these offences are no big deal. Is it no big deal that someone could leave prison, steal a car, rob several businesses, assaulting the occupants with a weapon, and then attack a police officer on their way out? Apparently, the Liberal government thinks that scenario only deserves a slap on the wrist, not a guaranteed minimum punishment for harmful criminal behaviour. In fact, what is proposed in this bill would allow someone who did all the above the opportunity to not even spend a single day in jail.

Again, as a Conservative, I have to stand here and attempt to bring common sense to a government that is clearly showing no indication that it has any sense left, common or not. In fact, some days it feels like the Liberals have removed the words “common sense” from the dictionary entirely.

At the end of the day, Bill C-5 gets soft on gun crime and gives great relief to criminals and offenders. It is missing any good reasons why this policy cares for, protects or prevents repeat offences against victims of violent crime in Canada. It misses the mark on what should be targeted to stop crime and illegal guns. As Winnipeg police constable Rob Carver said, “When we seize handguns, the handguns are always, almost 100 per cent, in the possession of people who have no legal right to possess them. They're almost always stolen or illegally obtained.” Again, it is not the law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters who are committing serious crimes.

Let us now look at the final part of this so-called landmark progressive legislation. During an unprecedented national overdose crisis, we have a government that is actively trying to enable the criminal proliferation of drug trafficking, importing, exporting and production. Where is the sense in that?

I heard from Louis, a constituent in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who asked me, “Can we address the fact that known drug dealers are getting away with murder? We lost a grandchild.” What Canadians want and need is a compassionate approach to mental health and addictions recovery, and this is not found in Bill C-5. In fact, no part of this bill even attempts to touch on the subject, and it is too busy enabling the pushers.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health estimates the economic burden of mental illness in Canada at $51 billion per year, which includes health care costs, lost productivity and reductions in health-related quality of life. Addictions and mental health issues have costly and far-reaching impacts in our society and must be given proper attention in legislation to combat the crisis.

When will the government put forward legislation to address this impact instead of using a real crisis to score cheap political talking points at the cost of protecting Canadians? The Prime Minister and the Liberal members across the floor are all talk. They talk big and they make sweet-sounding promises to address serious concerns about gender-based violence, opioid addiction, systemic racism and other forms of discrimination. They make boldfaced claims to be helping Canadians, but then offer nothing of use.

What I see, and what the constituents I represent see when the Liberals grandstand, is hypocrisy. I see before the House a bill that is soft on gun crime and soft on the criminal drug enterprise. Canadians know bills like Bill C-5 are contrary to evidence, countless news stories and the testimony of victims. It should be impossible to ignore the madness of the government’s relentless attempts to gaslight Canadians otherwise.

Canadians expect the government to stand up for the rule of law, to protect victims first and to stand up for their rights. The government should be targeting violent criminals, sexual offenders and criminal gangs, and ensuring that the Criminal Code protects Canadians. Any changes should be made in a well-informed manner that protects public safety.

As legislators, we must represent and reflect the values of the average Canadian, and Canadians consider the crimes that Bill C-5 relaxes measures against to be extremely serious. By reducing mandatory sentences for serious crimes, Bill C-5 says elected representatives do not need to be accountable to the victims of these crimes. The utter hypocrisy of this bill and those who vote for it is staggering.

To vote in favour of this bill signals a victory for violent criminals who commit some of the most heinous crimes against the most vulnerable victims in Canada. It comes at a cost to victims and their families, present and future, and to the dignity of our great nation. That is a fact I find unacceptable, and it is why I will be voting against the bill.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the member opposite, and I really cannot believe what my ears were hearing, this vehement defence of the failed Harper, so-called “tough on crime” policies that have failed Canada over the years. They have resulted in nothing but over-incarceration of indigenous people and Black Canadians for offences that are not serious in nature. This is a defence of policies that the courts have found to be unconstitutional in many respects.

Why are the Conservatives so focused on championing policies that have failed us and not looking at data to ensure that Canadians, no matter what background they come from, have an opportunity to be able to serve their sentences in the community and to be rehabilitated and reintegrated back into society?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about victims and needing to protect them. A lot of victims are exactly what the member said; they are also racialized Canadians. I believe that people who commit a crime should be punished for their crime. On mandatory minimums, when I talk to people who are working in corrections and who see these people coming in every day, they feel that if these criminals had actually done time that was reflective of the crime they committed, it would deter them from coming back again and again and committing the same crimes. We need to be protecting victims of crime here.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois really believes that there are distinctions to be made when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences.

As my colleague stated, we believe that this is not the right time to abolish mandatory minimums for firearm offences, given the Liberal government's failure to respond to the catastrophes and tragedies that have taken place in recent weeks and months, particularly in Montreal.

We see that the Conservative Party is hemming and hawing over gun control, particularly for assault weapons.

What concrete action is my Conservative colleague proposing to reduce murders committed with firearms if her party does not support initiatives like banning handguns?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated here before, and I will state it again: I am an RPAL holder myself. I have to go through rigorous background checks. I have to submit documents every day my background is checked. I do not own a firearm personally. The law-abiding citizens who have a possession and acquisition licence, who are trained, who are hunting and who are farmers like me, who have been out in the woods or in the middle of a field in the middle of the night with wildlife around them, are abiding by the laws of this country. It is not those people who are committing crimes.

The people who are committing crimes with handguns are obtaining them illegally. They are getting them from illegal sources. They have no permit or right to own that gun, and then they are committing crimes. Most of these guns are being smuggled across the border from the U.S. People committing these crimes are the ones who should be behind bars, not law-abiding hunters and farmers.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the arguments the Conservatives are making is that they are equating the elimination of mandatory minimums with the end of sentencing altogether, and nothing could be further from the truth.

On the example the member cited in her speech of someone getting out of prison and committing robbery and assault with a handgun, there is no doubt in my mind that the judge looking at that case would recommend jail time. The Criminal Code already has provision 718.2, sentencing principles, which allow a judge to increase or decrease a sentence based on aggravating factors.

My question is a simple one: Why do Conservatives have so little faith in judges to mete out the appropriate sentence based on the crime committed?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have faith in judges and the judicial system, but sometimes the judges need to have something in front of them in the form of a mandatory minimum sentence so that people who are committing these crimes can get the help they need from the institutions they would go to so that they are not out on the streets.

The House resumed from December 15, 2021, consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, inscribed at the top of one of the great law schools of this continent is the motto “Not under man, but under God and law”. I would read these words and feel a sense of pride that ours was a nation of laws, not men; a nation of citizens, not parties; of Canadians, not Liberals or Conservatives. For a nation as big and diverse as ours, our institutions, our norms and our rules bind us together, give shape and order to our common lives even when we disagree, and especially when we disagree.

However, every so often comes a time to make a change, a step in a better direction, a turn of the page, because in our very creed as Canadians, we are always striving to do better. The time has come to turn the page—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member very briefly.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Malton.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the time has come to turn the page on many mandatory minimum penalties. This was a policy that in the end did not discourage crime. It certainly did not make our justice system any more fair. All it did was imprison far too many indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians. The evidence is in the numbers of the prison population, and the numbers are stark. Indigenous individuals represent 5% of the general population but account for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. This is double what it was 20 years ago. The number is profoundly higher for indigenous women, who represent 42% of those who are incarcerated, and these numbers are even more exaggerated in some provinces. Black inmates represent 7.2% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the general population. This is shameful.

The numbers are so high because of sentencing laws that focus on punishment through imprisonment. The centre of this is the mandatory minimum regime. The broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities. This rigid one-size-fits-all approach takes power away from judges to look at mitigating factors.

I want to be very clear: This is not a soft-on-crime approach and these are not hardened criminals we are speaking of. We are speaking of low-risk, first-time or non-violent offenders.

We are introducing legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-5 is an important step in the right direction, as the legislation would make reforms to sentencing. We are proposing to repeal MMPs of imprisonment for all drug offences and certain firearm offences. These MMPs in particular have been shown to have had a disparate effect on Black, indigenous, and marginalized communities.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest and curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family ties, community and health-related support systems. By repealing these MMPs, we will restore the judge's ability to impose an appropriate sentence, moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach.

Again, this is not a soft-on-crime approach. To be clear, we are keeping some mandatory minimum policies in place for murder, sexual offenses, impaired driving offenses and serious firearm offences, including those that involve organized crime. The powers of judges will not be limited. In fact, we will allow them to do the job they have been trained to do.

I was in law school, and that is where I was introduced to certain ideals or principles within a justice system, one being that the aim of justice is not just retribution. Mandatory minimums are just that—retribution. There are more useful aims, such as rehabilitation. We can make ourselves into better people even after we have wronged and especially after we have wronged. The justice system should be a part of that rehabilitation. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work in criminal law terms. They do not have a positive effect on recidivism. They tend to overpunish people who should be helped through other channels.

When it comes to deterrence, MMPs do not do any better. In sentencing for less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective and unduly punitive. A longer sentence is not going to do anything more than a shorter sentence will, except destroy entire lives. In America, for example, the notion that harsh minimums could seriously dampen the drug trade has collapsed in the face of the manifest failure of the drug war.

With the way our current justice system is set up, we have criminalized poverty, mental illness and problematic addiction. It is so much harder to get that second chance with MMPs in place. Once a person is out of prison, their opportunities are limited and their circle oftentimes becomes the people that they met in prison. This has to stop.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increase in the indiscriminate use of MMPs is problematic. They have proven to be costly and ineffective in reducing crime. Indeed, other nations have move away from this regime because it encourages cycles of crime.

MMPs are a failed policy, and we are turning the ship around. What we propose is a necessary reset for our criminal law, which is necessary to address systemic racism in the criminal justice system. This policy change is necessary, but further work must also be done.

We are also developing an indigenous justice strategy in collaboration with indigenous peoples, and we are developing a Black Canadian justice strategy. We will continue to address the social determinants of crime. Every action that we take to improve access to housing, mental health care, addiction treatment and youth employment helps build a safer country. Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum, and we must do more so that we are better informed.

In my life, I have come to understand certain principles and rules, and that we are not just our mistakes. We are not just the worst thing that we have ever done. I believe we are more than that. As a society, we should make no mistake that we will not be judged for our reason and our intelligence and for our technology and tools. We will not be judged by the towers we build. Ultimately, our society will be judged not for how we treat the powerful, the rich and the privileged, but for how we treat the poor and condemned.

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

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

My hon. colleague and I do agree on a number of points, one of which is that there is a necessity to keep and to lower incarceration rates for marginalized people. Now, where he and I part company is when he frames the discussion as one around retribution. The courts in this country have consistently highlighted the need for denunciation and deterrence, and part of denunciation and deterrence comes by way of sentencing.

When we are talking about shooting at people, these are not the low-risk, first-time offenders, necessarily, that the hon. member highlighted. How does he reconcile those concepts?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the premise of my hon. colleague's question.

These policies have been shown through data to affect marginalized communities, and by repealing them, we are helping those communities and those individuals who were targeted to rejoin society. The way the policies are currently set up, they are focused on retribution, and we are trying to change that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in his comments, the member talked about ending the war on drugs, and he talked about addressing the overdose crisis. From that perspective, I would ask him whether or not he supports the private member's bill, Bill C-216, of my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, which calls for the decriminalization of a small amount for personal use. It is one way to ensure that people are not criminalized. It is one way to ensure that we end the war on drugs, and it is one way to ensure that we actually help save lives.