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

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

Madam Speaker, one man is dead and at least seven people were injured in a rash of bloody attacks on the weekend as tensions reportedly escalate among drug dealers and gang members in a city already troubled by recent violence. At least two people were shot and five stabbed Friday evening to early Monday morning in addition to a slaying Sunday at West Broadway Commons, an apartment building in Winnipeg. Winnipeg police spokesperson Constable Dani McKinnon said on Monday that there have been 60 shootings so far this year. Tragically, a man named Austin Mark Chief, 24, later died in hospital. The death is being investigated as the city's 24th homicide of the year.

Mitch Bourbonniere, a community social worker whom we also had at the public safety and national security committee for our guns and gangs study, gave a comment to the Winnipeg Free Press for the story, where he said of the violence:

“It's intensified...meth and the opiates and fentanyl and the poisonings [have increased]...It's really violent out there right now...I've come to the conclusion that we are undeniably in a violent spike right now in our city.”

“It's ongoing, but it's escalated. People are more desperate, more violent, there's more competition, it's more serious street drugs, there's more guns—there's just more of everything,” he said. “Drugs, gangs and guns—those three words.”

That was the top story in the Winnipeg Free Press just this morning.

Just last week, there was yet another story. This is almost weekly now in Montreal. The police are investigating three shootings in various areas of Montreal. Drive-by shootings have also increased in Montreal and cities like Toronto. Another story from just last week, June 6, 2022, in Winnipeg was told about an adult female with her infant child being robbed at gunpoint and having her car stolen in front of her. She was robbed at gunpoint with her infant child.

These stories are becoming a weekly occurrence in Winnipeg and cities like Toronto, Montreal, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver, so much so that I think the public is starting to become desensitized to the rising violent crime in our cities under the Liberal government's watch. It is fact that violent crime has increased steadily in the seven years the Liberals have been in power. It is fact that our streets are less safe under the so-called leadership of the Liberal government and the Minister of Justice.

Today, we are debating third reading of Bill C-5, which would remove mandatory minimum sentences for a number of serious crimes. I am going to go through them for the House.

The bill would remove mandatory prison time for firearm offences. From my recent discourse, I cannot wrap my head around how the government can claim it is getting tough on guns while Bill C-5 would remove mandatory prison time for dangerous gun crimes, for example, robbery with a firearm. In the story I just told, where a woman with her infant child in Winnipeg was robbed at gunpoint and her car was stolen from her, no longer would that individual who terrorized that woman with her baby face mandatory prison time under Bill C-5.

Other crimes are extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized and discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, which is firing a gun at someone with the intention to hit the person with the bullet. These would no longer have mandatory prison time in Canada if Bill C-5 comes into place.

Other such crimes are using a firearm in the commission of an offence and possession of firearms knowing their possession is unauthorized. Someone who is not allowed to have a firearm but has one would no longer have to face mandatory prison time. Meanwhile, we well know the stats show that firearm violence in Canada is by those who are not legally allowed to possess a firearm. Under Bill C-5, no longer would those individuals who would terrorize our communities be absolutely going to prison.

Other charges include possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, and discharging a firearm recklessly. These are very serious gun violence crimes that would not longer face mandatory prison time because of Bill C-5.

I consistently hear from Liberal members that they are repealing these bad Conservative policies, but the fact is that many of these mandatory minimums were instituted by Liberal governments. In fact, one of them in particular, the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, was instituted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government back in 1976. The Liberals are actually keeping a number of mandatory minimum sentences that the Conservatives did bring in, so their argument does not stand.

To be clear, the Liberals would be eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. They make the argument that it is soft on crime and say, “Let us go easy on criminals.” They seem to be more interested in defending criminals than the victims being terrorized with guns.

For example, the Liberals would expand conditional sentencing and would allow house arrest for crimes such as sexual assault. If a person sexually assaults someone, they could be serving house arrest in the neighbourhood of the individual they sexually assaulted. Conditional sentencing, house arrest and others would become more commonplace and more easily accessed by the courts because of Bill C-5.

Then there is kidnapping and abduction of a person under the age of 14. Abducting a child could mean house arrest. Arson for fraudulent purposes, so setting fire to things, could mean house arrest too, as could assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon and trafficking in or exporting/importing schedule III drugs.

Let us talk a bit more about the drug offences, because this is really interesting. The bill would also eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers. Last year, over 7,000 Canadians died as a result of opioid overdoses from things like fentanyl and carfentanil. Addiction to drugs should be treated as a health care issue. The Conservatives believe that someone addicted to drugs needs to be treated. We need to have more access. It is why in the last election we proposed building more treatment beds. That is very clear.

However, the individuals responsible for pushing deadly drugs on Canadians, killing 7,000 people last year, deserve to go to prison, full stop. This bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking drugs. That is drug pushers and drug dealers. It also includes importing or exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting. People who smuggle drugs into Canada that kill thousands of Canadians would no longer have mandatory prison time.

Consider the production of substances in schedule I or schedule II, which are drugs such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. The people who create these drugs, who kill thousands of Canadians, particularly young people in B.C. and Ontario, would no longer face mandatory prison time as a result of Bill C-5.

This comes in light of the controversial decision in B.C. to decriminalize 2.5 grams of opioids and other hard drugs. For carfentanil, for example, 2.5 grams is capable of killing 1,250 people. What message does it send that we are decriminalizing at the same time as Bill C-5 is coming out? On one side, we are decriminalizing deadly drugs that killed 7,000 Canadians last year, and on the other side, we are saying there is no more mandatory prison time for the people who are responsible for making those drugs, smuggling those drugs or trafficking those drugs and preying upon vulnerable Canadians. What kind of message is that sending? Drug dealers are rubbing their hands at how much money they are going to make because of these actions.

It is devastating for families. I know there are different approaches for how to deal with the drug epidemic in Canada, but I firmly believe, as do other Conservatives, that anyone responsible for dealing these dangerous drugs that kill thousands of Canadians deserves to go to prison. It is over 7,000 people. Opioids are more deadly to Canadian young people than COVID was. That is how serious the drug epidemic is.

The Liberals are letting those responsible for taking advantage of vulnerable Canadians off the hook. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the 7,000 families that lost young people last year to opioid deaths.

This is all coming in light of violent crime stats going up significantly in Canada in the last seven years. For example, across the country, police reported 743 homicides in 2020, which is the highest number of homicides recorded in Canada since 1991. There were also 56 more homicides in 2020 than in 2019, a hike that pushed Canada's rate up 7% to almost two homicides per every 100,000 people in Canada in 2020. That is up from the year prior. Violent crime is increasing and the Liberal government is bringing in Bill C-5, which would let individuals who use firearms in very dangerous crimes off the hook.

There was also a recent Statistics Canada report released just a few weeks ago that said, per The Globe and Mail, “since 2009, the per capita rate of firearms being pointed at someone in the commission of a crime has nearly tripled, and the rate at which guns are fired with intent to kill or wound is up fivefold.” Again, as I said, these crimes, such as firing a gun with the intent to injure someone, are up fivefold, but no longer would those individuals face mandatory prison time.

The Toronto Police Service has proposed a number of solutions. It said that the federal government should look at requiring bail hearings for people charged with the most serious firearm offences to be heard by judges instead of by a justice of the peace. It is a move the police said would “clearly convey Parliament's view of the seriousness of these offences.”

Again, the things we do in this place have important symbolism as well. The message we send to criminals and victims alike is very important. I think I have outlined quite clearly the message the Liberal government is sending to criminals who endanger the lives of individuals, especially in our vulnerable communities.

The police are also proposing bail reform, and I recently spoke to a number of police in southern Ontario and got their thoughts on bail reform. Members may remember that a few years ago, in June 2019, Bill C-75, a Liberal bill, updated the bail provisions in Canada's Criminal Code for the first time since 1972. There are varying opinions on this. Police will say that some aspects were good and that some aspects were very bad.

In a story from last year, Victoria Police Chief Del Manak was asked, “Why are violent, prolific and repeat offenders being released from custody with little or nothing to prevent them from reoffending?” We hear this from police all the time. It is the revolving door. Police put themselves in danger to catch criminals who are terrorizing neighbourhoods and put them in jail, but they are out the next week. It is a revolving door of essentially 100 to 200 offenders in cities, particularly in vulnerable neighbourhoods. They are the cause of the vast majority of the violence. The police catch and released them every week, putting police lives in danger to secure the safety of vulnerable communities.

The police are catching these guys over and over again, so I have asked them about this. Last year, the Victoria police chief was asked about this too. Of course, we know that in Victoria and Vancouver, it is unbelievable to walk the streets and see the crime that is going on, but as the Victoria police chief said, per the Victoria Times Colonist:

The answer to that...lies in recent extensive changes to the country's bail system that were intended to address clogged courts and the over-representation of vulnerable populations....

The law makes it clear, said Manak, that police are to give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

I asked police about this. Now, this was a couple of years ago, in 2019, and bail reforms had a bit of time to come into place. However, many in the police forces, the ones who see this more than anyone in the House, believe those bail reforms have further quickened the catch-and-release policies that we have seen. I bring this up to outline that we are seeing a rise in gun violence and violent crime in our cities, and many believe it is tied to the bail reforms from a few years ago, which are coming home to roost now.

We now have Bill C-5. Do members think it is going to get any better when we do not put violent criminals in jail for firing guns at people with the intent to injure them with a bullet, for robbing them at gunpoint or for pushing drugs on vulnerable Canadians and killing 7,000 people last year? What do we think is going to happen to the crime statistics when the bill comes in? Do we really think they are going to go down? I do not think so. Based on the recent policies on bail reform and the feedback I am getting from frontline police officers, I would guess that in a couple of years, we are going to be seeing increased violence in our streets and less safe streets than we have now because of Bill C-5.

House arrest is very interesting. If someone fires a gun at someone, they would not be serving mandatory prison time but would maybe get house arrest. What does that mean? I was not even sure what “house arrest” meant. I kind of thought it meant that a police officer would be stationed outside the house of a dangerous offender who shot a gun at someone, robbed someone at gunpoint or extorted them with a firearm, as they must be watched. It does not mean that exactly. This individual is put in their home in the community, often the one they terrorized, and is in essence left to their own devices.

Can members imagine what is going happen when a vulnerable community has been terrorized by a criminal with a gun, and rather than being removed from the situation and put in prison to serve time for the crime they did to their community, they would be serving a sentence surrounded by the gang influences that led them to a life of crime? How do we think that is going to work?

There were some comments from the members opposite, and I would ask them to consider sexual assault. I went through this already. A person can sexually assault someone and then serve house arrest in the community of the individual they sexually assaulted. It is in the bill. It really does not make a lot of sense to me.

We heard the speech before me by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I am sure he was very sincere in his speech, and I have a lot of respect for the member. However, whenever he and the Liberals are pushed on this and asked why they go easy on criminals who use guns in dangerous crimes, they say they are also increasing mandatory sentences for them. The argument does not follow. We ask why they are going easy on criminals with guns and they say they are increasing sentencing. It does not make sense. They say they are increasing sentencing, but they are also letting them off the hook to serve house arrest in the communities they have terrorized.

I just went over a situation where a woman with her child was robbed at gunpoint. Robbery with a firearm will no longer get mandatory prison time. That may be something members opposite are uncomfortable with, but that is in their bill. The individual who robbed that woman at gunpoint with her baby deserves to go to prison, no excuses. There is no other way to see it. It is unbelievable. That individual, who the police did catch, was charged with robbery with a firearm and violating his prohibition order for possessing a firearm. He had already been caught before, charged with something and then released. Now he has terrorized the community again and robbed a woman with a baby at gunpoint and will likely be out again.

Recently, I was in Grand Bend, a lovely community on Lake Huron, with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. I was speaking to police on the ground there and they told me what has happened as a result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policy on bail reform. An individual was stabbed to death outside a bar at 2 a.m. in this beautiful little tourist town. It is a very rare occurrence in this otherwise very safe, wonderful community. Two weeks later, when that individual was released on bail, he went into a gas station and threatened the lives of two teenage girls at the cash. This man murdered someone with a knife, an innocent man who was outside of the bar at the wrong time. He murdered him and was out on the streets two weeks later threatening the lives of two teenage girls. That is a result of bail reform and what the Liberals have done with their soft-on-crime policies.

If the Liberals would just take time to talk to the police in their communities, they would hear the same things I am hearing. It is unbelievable. It is as if parts of our communities are becoming lawless.

When we think of police, what do members think it feels like for police officers to endanger their lives and run after the guy I just talked about who robbed a woman at gunpoint? What do members think it is like for them? They are putting their lives on the line and he is back on the street three days later. What kind of incentive do they have to rush to the scene of a crime when they see the same guy they have been apprehending week over week? It is unbelievable.

I would like to move an amendment with my remaining time. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 12 with a view to remove the provisions in the Bill that would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences for very serious crimes, namely robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and discharging a firearm with intent, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence and possession for purpose of weapons trafficking.

The purpose of this amendment is to take out the most insane parts of Bill C-5 so that individuals—

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is probably very sincere in his remarks. However, I do have a legitimate concern regarding Bill C-5 with sexual violence against women. In Bill C-5, the conditional sentencing of house arrest would now be an option for sexual assault.

The member and the Liberal Party continue to refer to vulnerable communities. They mention Black and indigenous communities repeatedly. My concern is that someone would be sexually assaulted and the individual responsible for that heinous crime would be able to serve house arrest in the community or maybe even next door to the victim whom the individual sexually assaulted.

I am very concerned about that and would like to hear the member's thoughts on this serious issue with Bill C-5.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, Scarborough is one of the most diverse areas in Canada. I represent a riding that is highly racialized, particularly a very large percentage of Canada's Black community is in Scarborough. Every time I go door to door, I hear stories from mothers, from siblings, from young men who continue to complain about over-policing which in turn has led to over-incarceration. My community is a stellar community in every respect save and except for the trauma that they face with the criminal justice system.

I believe that Bill C-5 is a very important starting point in addressing the over-incarceration of Black and indigenous people, but this is not the only answer. As a government, we are working on a Black and indigenous justice strategy. We look forward to bringing that to Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for the good work that we managed to do together at committee to improve the bill.

We have just seen a couple of examples from the Conservatives and the Bloc of the attempt to somehow say that Bill C-5 threatens public safety. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could talk about the actual evidence we heard at committee on the impact of mandatory minimum sentences and how their impact, if anything, actually improves public safety by eliminating them.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken extensively on systemic racism within the criminal justice system and why it is important to ensure that those who do not pose a risk do not end up in jail.

With respect to gun violence, it is a very important and real issue. My community of Scarborough—Rouge Park has dealt with this. I dealt with this when I ran a youth organization. I have buried my share of young people disproportionately in my community and it is an awfully painful process. It is one that I am still traumatized by.

What is important is that Bill C-21 addresses the issues that my friend opposite is talking about. It increases penalties for those firearm offences. It gives discretion to the judge to impose a sentence of up to 14 years, which is higher than we have right now.

What we are impressing in Bill C-5 is to make sure that those who do not pose a risk and maybe are first-time offenders are given an opportunity to get out of the criminal justice process and continue their lives.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague got some things mixed up in his speech.

I believe that we must work to stop profiling by police. However, I do not think that eliminating mandatory minimums with Bill C‑5 for people who discharge a firearm with intent will help eliminate racial profiling.

I think that this sends a mixed message in Quebec, which is seeing a surge in gun crimes.

Could my colleague explain how removing mandatory minimums on people who discharge a firearm can help eliminate racial profiling?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back in your seat.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-5, An act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which proposes to consider alternatives to incarceration in appropriate cases while reducing recidivism and keeping society safe.

I want to acknowledge that I am speaking on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Bill C-5 is an important step forward in addressing systemic racism and discrimination. It puts forth an approach that promotes fairer sentencing outcomes for everyone, notably indigenous peoples, Black persons and members of marginalized communities who are disproportionately and negatively impacted by inflexible sentencing laws. These changes would continue to denounce and hold offenders accountable.

The bill advances three broad categories of reforms. I will speak on the specifics later on. I want to speak today about what it means to be incarcerated. I know that the Conservative approach to crime is about locking people up and throwing away the key. The reality is that many jurisdictions where this was tried have realized its innate failures. I want to note that Newt Gingrich, one of the early proponents of mandatory minimum penalties, has now recanted and suggested that mandatory minimum penalties do not work. All across the United States, this realization is coming into the public discourse.

Incarceration is not the answer to all people. There is a need for us to use incarceration only for crimes that are of a serious nature and that pose risks to individuals. We need to provide off-ramps. Systemic racism in the criminal justice system is real. While we may think that our justice system is blind, the outcomes tells us a different story. Indigenous and Black Canadians who go to prison are treated differently; that is, they are mistreated. Their lives are devalued. I would invite anyone who still doubts that to look at the latest Auditor General's report on our correctional system.

I want to give members some snippets of her findings. For example, indigenous and Black offenders faced greater barriers to safe and gradual reintegration into society than other incarcerated groups.

The process of assigning security classifications, including the use of the Custody Rating Scale, and frequent overrides of the scale by corrections staff, result in disproportionately higher numbers of indigenous and Black offenders being placed in maximum security institutions. I quote:

We noted Indigenous representation gaps among correctional officers across institutions, Black representation gaps among program and parole officers at institutions with a high number of Black offenders, and gender representation gaps among correctional officers at women’s institutions.

Indigenous and Black offenders, for example, were placed at a higher security level on admission into custody at twice the average rate of other offenders. Indigenous and Black men were placed at maximum security institutions at twice the rate of other offenders and made up 51% of maximum security placements.

The report added:

We also found that Indigenous women were placed at maximum security at more than 3 times the rate of non‑Indigenous women and made up almost 70% of maximum-security placements.

Corrections staff can override classifications, which means that once a classification is completed, corrections staff have the discretion, at times, to override them. In this case, corrections staff overrode up to 53% of minimum security placements, compared with 27% for non-indigenous women. Indigenous women were classified upwards by 53%, while the average was 27% for non-indigenous women.

For indigenous men, correctional staff overrode up to 46% of minimum security placements to higher levels compared with 33% for non-indigenous offenders. The report said:

...more Indigenous offenders remained in custody until their statutory release and were released directly into the community from higher levels of security.

This essentially means that once somebody is classified, the higher the security classification, the harder it is for them to get the programs of support necessary for them to reintegrate into society.

It also means that they serve a longer period of their sentence in custody, while those who were maybe classified at the lower levels are able to spend less time in custody and more time in bridging programs that will allow them to integrate within the community. This essentially leads to higher levels of recidivism.

For me the most profound thing about the Auditor General's report is that, for the first time, it has quantified systemic racism within our criminal justice system. As we look at reducing mandatory minimum penalties, a very important takeaway is for us to reflect on what that means. We know the offences that are the subject of Bill C-5, for which we are repealing many of the mandatory minimum penalties, directly have an impact on indigenous and Black offenders. It is so critical that we keep that in mind as we look at this bill.

I do want to talk about my personal experience working with young people in the criminal justice system. I used to run an organization called the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre back in the late 1990s, early 2000s, before going to law school. I dealt with a number of young people who were involved in the criminal justice system as young offenders and even young adult offenders. I was able to work with them for many years. I still continue to call many of those people my friends because of the relationships we built during that time.

Some of these young people were involved in violence. Some of them were involved in petty theft or other mishaps within the community. What I realized during that time was that they needed support. It is very easy for us, as a society, to incarcerate someone. It is the easiest thing we can do. The harder thing for us to do is to support young people as they redeem themselves as they come out and reintegrate into society.

One of the things I realized is that the more support that we were able to give young people, the more off-ramps we provide to those who may engage, for the first time or second time, in the criminal justice system, the better off society is in the long term. I have consistently seen, in a number of cases, these young people who have come out of the system, and they are now very active and contributing members of our society. That is not always the case, but based on the vast majority of the people I have worked with, that continues to be what I have seen.

During the deliberations at committee, we heard from a number of important stakeholders. I want to highlight the testimony of Raphael Tachie, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and who obviously supports the repeal of many of the mandatory minimum penalties that are here.

He spoke about what his lived experience was as a young Black man growing up in British Columbia. He talked about the first time he was at a theatre and there was some commotion going on outside of the movie theatre. He was there on a date. He found himself, with many other young Black men, surrounded by police and essentially questioned. Luckily for him, he had a great support system that allowed him to really defend himself because he did nothing wrong.

However, the reality for many is that over-policing oftentimes leads to over-arresting and subsequent convictions because, once one is within the cycle of the criminal justice system, it often just perpetuates. The safeguards are limited.

When Mr. Tachie spoke, his words resonated with me and my personal life, considering the number of times, as someone who is racialized and who grew up in Scarborough, I have been stopped by the police. I continue to be stopped, and this is not something that unique to me. It is the same for many people who may have grown up in my community. They get randomly stopped and questioned. This happens to me even as an MP. It did not stop when I became an MP, a parliamentary secretary or the candidate for the Liberal Party. It continued.

Especially for young people, this means that oftentimes they are without the right supports, without the right legal advocacy and without parents who are able to support them, perhaps because they have multiple jobs or have jobs where they cannot take time off. It really does put young people at an enormous disadvantage.

I often reflect on what Mr. Tachie spoke about and on what my life might be like today if, during one of those half a dozen or dozen times when I had been pulled over or subjected to this type of inquiry, I had given the wrong answer or had been with the wrong people. This is the story for so many people, not only within my community of Scarborough—Rouge Park, but also in many other parts across Canada. It is so profound.

The incident that occurred with George Floyd two years ago really tells a story of the disparity we see in the U.S., but it is not unique. We know there have been a number of times in Canada where indigenous men and women have oftentimes been arbitrarily arrested or arbitrarily beaten up. We have seen where discrimination does not really stop, even with chiefs and people who have a national or local profile, because of who they are, and we see that particularly with young Black men.

In 2019, just before or around the election, I remember the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada came to my riding on his way to the GTA, and we were able to meet with a whole bunch of stakeholders, most of whom work with youth in our communities. The overwhelming message was that we need to ensure that mandatory minimum penalties are addressed. They have disadvantaged many indigenous and Black Canadians. It is a system that does not work. They are failed policies of the past and something we need to address. Louis March, who many members may know is the leader of the Zero Gun Violence Movement, was one of the people there. His entire life has been devoted to fighting gun violence. He profoundly stated that the system of mandatory minimum penalties does not work and asked that our government address it, so here we are.

First, we are here to repeal all MMPs for drug offences, tobacco-related offences and 13 firearm-related offences. I know that when we say we want to reduce the mandatory minimum penalties for firearms there are many in the House who may legitimately ask why we are reducing the penalties when the use of firearms is on the rise. It is a question that is very pertinent here because Bill C-21, which was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, addresses that issue as it would increase the maximum penalty for gun-related offences from 10 to 14 years. We are saying there is a need for judicial discretion. That is what that bill would do, it would ensure judicial discretion. It would give discretion to the judge to look at the individual and the circumstances of the case and increase the penalty up to 14 years. I think that is a very important point that is sometimes missed in this debate.

Second, it would remove certain restrictions that would prevent a sentencing court from considering the imposition of conditional sentencing orders. That is a very important issue. It is important to note that our criminal justice system is an unfair system, and I have outlined the issues of systemic racism, particularly as they relate to indigenous and Black Canadians, which not only results in over-incarceration, but also unfairly misclassifies people.

What conditional sentencing orders do is allow the judge to impose conditional sentences, which may be out of custody, on individuals who do not pose a risk to society. This is a very important point again. Oftentimes it is not about giving every offender a conditional sentence. It is about smart policy that says, when we put someone in institutions, we criminalize them even further. We do not give them the right supports. We take them away from their families, and we take them away from the addiction treatment they may need. We also take them away from their responsibilities of going to work, doing work in the community, being a member of their church or being part of the local community, which would give them the support they need to get out of the criminal justice system.

It is a very smart policy. Oftentimes it is mischaracterized, but this would not be available to everyone. It would be available to those who are deemed to not pose a risk to society.

If we look at the numbers over the years, prior to many of these mandatory minimum penalties coming in, there were over 11,000 conditional sentencing orders in Canada. That number is now down to about 6,000.

I know many colleagues who are very progressive would also say that this bill does not go far enough. I would tell them that this is an important bill because it would allow conditional sentencing orders to be expanded in a very smart way, which would allow judges the judicial discretion to place individuals who do not pose a risk and allow them to pay their debt to society while allowing them to continue their lives at the same time. This is about 5,000 Canadians, as per the statistics we have seen.

The final part of this is that we are looking to encourage alternate approaches at an early stage for responding to persons in possession of illicit drugs. I know the Minister of Mental Health recently supported the call from British Columbia and allowed British Columbia to take more control over issues around drugs. We know that the right supports are essential to ensuring that addictions and mental health are supported. This bill allows that.

Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to complete my speech. I do want to emphasize that this is smart public policy. This is smart criminal justice policy. I look forward to the support of all members here.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

moved 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.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight once again to speak to the government's proposed Bill C-11. In the last Parliament, it was Bill C-10, and it certainly generated a lot of feedback and frustration from Canadians across the country. We have been witnessing that here again in the last couple of months with this bill in its current form.

I have been receiving a lot of emails and advocacy petitions from constituents, both online creators and those who consume the content. They are concerned about what this bill entails and, frankly, among several things I will get into, what it does not entail. I believe that kicking the can to the CRTC and other organizations is a slippery slope and not a good precedent, based on the precedents that have caused a lot of frustrations to build up over the years.

I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

We are debating this motion tonight because of an attempt by the government and its NDP partners to try to jam this legislation through the House of Commons once again. I know there are still numerous witnesses who want to provide their perspectives and voices at the heritage committee and share the legitimate and reasonable concerns they have and the clarifications they wish to see that they are not getting from the government and its partner.

One of the problems we have that is typical of the Liberal-NDP strategy when it comes to legislation, which we are seeing in Bill C-5, the criminal justice reform legislation, is that if members do not support the Liberals and NDP on the bill, it means we do not care about racism. If members want an end to federal mandates and the chaos we are seeing at the borders and airports, it means the members hate vaccines and health care workers. Now, with the Internet censorship bill, Bill C-11, if we do not support their way and their ideas, we hate content creators and arts and culture in this country. It is an either-or, a divisive approach, but it is not surprising. It is one that we see more and more.

I will repeat what I said in the last Parliament because Bill C-11, as we have it, is very similar to what we saw in Bill C-10, and a lot of the concerns we had last time are not addressed or clarified in the bill in its current form.

Let me start with a positive in terms of agreement in Parliament. The Broadcasting Act was created in 1991. I do not remember it. I was about five years old at the time. Boyz II Men, Paula Abdul and Bryan Adams had some hits then, but since that original piece of legislation, a lot has changed in how Canadians create content and get it out there as well as in how they consume it.

We have the Internet, social media platforms, YouTube, Spotify, TikTok and so forth. There is an agreement that we need to have a level playing field with these large conglomerates of a foreign nature and how they do business in this country. At the same time, we also need to make sure that we protect the individual freedoms and rights of individual content creators, like those on YouTube who have been able to explode in not only the Canadian market but also the international market with the evolution of the Internet and social media platforms.

There are serious flaws, and I have a perfect example. My colleague from Perth—Wellington, the shadow minister for Canadian heritage, raised this as a perfect example today. We all want to make sure Canadian content is created and is fairly represented on Netflix, Hulu, Crave and all the different platforms. He alluded in the chamber today to this bill not creating the specific measures to clarify some of the red tape about what is Canadian content. A perfect example that was illustrated was The Handmaid's Tale. I do not agree with Margaret Atwood and a lot of her politics, but I will admire her and give her respect as an artist and an author and for what she has done over her incredible career. A proud Canadian she is.

The Handmaid's Tale, a blockbuster TV series, was filmed in part in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. One would think Margaret Atwood and filming in the province of Ontario, the GTA, would classify as Canadian content. It does not. That speaks to the need to define this content better, to set better parameters and better definitions when it comes to this. Sadly, the bill would not do that. One would think it would when we talk about the modernization that we face.

I want to specify my concerns during my time. This comes perhaps from my background before being in the House, as a mayor at the municipal level, and perhaps it is a bit affected by my experience in the past few months on the public accounts committee, which reviews Auditor General reports on programs and efficiencies and how they run.

I want to reiterate my concern with regard to the vague definitions particularly around user-generated digital content, claiming there is an exemption, but section 4.2 is there. The government says not to worry about it. The CRTC says not to worry about it. I do not think Canadians have a lot of faith in that approach to what we have.

The CRTC is a public entity, but considers itself very independent. I have a lot of frustrations with the organization that I will not get into tonight when it comes to providing Internet service to rural and remote communities. That is a speech for another night.

Particularly, what is happening is that the government's legislation is extremely vague. Conservatives have been standing up in committee and in the House, not just in this Parliament but also in the last Parliament, and I have foreseen and I am foreshadowing what I know is to come. We see it over and over again. The government says, “That is not our intention. Do not worry.” The legislation would pass and then it would go to the CRTC, after which, at some point down the road after the bill is passed, after it has come into law and been enacted, suddenly we would see algorithms or we would see content. At that point, the CRTC would say, “We are independent. There is nothing you can do. This is the law that was passed and this is the way it is interpreting it.”

The minister has tried to claim that user-generated digital content and YouTube creators, TikTok creators and Canadians who have been able to burst onto the scene, not just in this country but internationally, are free from having their content regulated. They say that they have no interest in looking at that.

If that is the case, the government should be going for what we have been advocating for: it should specifically rule it out and make it black and white. It should make it very clear so that there is not a little door poked open for the CRTC, when it is batted over there to look after, all of a sudden to decide that, in the public interest, it is going to be doing this.

This is the time for Parliament, for Conservatives, for us to stand and be on the record to say that there are amendments. There are a lot of things that need to change, but there are specific amendments at least on that. I believe that just speaks to the rushed attempt that we are seeing from the government. It speaks to the secrecy of what it is trying to do. It is trying to pass the buck over to an independent organization, one that is overly powerful in my personal view, to interpret these laws, at which point the government can later say that it was its goal but secretly it was not the government's problem but somebody else's.

It is government creep at its worst. We have seen it before. We see it at the public accounts committee, in terms of leaving it to bureaucratic organizations to organize, and the success of that.

In my time remaining tonight, I want to acknowledge some of the comments made by a Canadian YouTube creator who spoke at the Canadian heritage committee a few weeks ago, J.J. McCullough. I go back to what we could agree on: Modernization is needed for the Broadcasting Act to make sure that large companies such as Netflix pay their fair share and also create Canadian content for us to have as Canadians. J.J. McCullough noted the following, which really hit home when I heard his testimony:

The tremendous success and even worldwide fame of many Canadian YouTubers in the absence of government regulation should invite questions about the necessity of Bill C-11. An unregulated YouTube has been a 17-year experiment, and the result has been an explosion of popular Canadian content produced by Canadians of every imaginable demographic....it is important to understand that it is simply impossible to regulate a platform like YouTube without also regulating creator content.

We have seen more Canadians become known. We have seen more Canadians make a living on these platforms. What the government is proposing is not that if one does not support this, one does not care about Canadian artists. We are standing up for individual content creators to say that platforms like these have given them the opportunity to make a living, to get known and to get Canadian brands, Canadian stories, Canadian music or other things we could name out there.

Our colleagues will stand up for those individual creators in making sure that we get the government to better define the very slippery slope it is on, not just with Bill C-10 in the last parliament. It is repeating the same mistake with Bill C-11.

Criminal Code

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-5.

The question is on Motion No. 2.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 5.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Justice

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP philosophy towards crime is hurting Canadians. Bill C‑5 will do nothing to deter crime and will only encourage it.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that the Black and indigenous populations are overrepresented among victims of violent crime?

Crime has only gone up over the past seven years under this government. When will the minister wake up and abolish Bill C‑5?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government is moving forward to make the criminal justice system safer for communities, make it better for victims and make it much more fair and just. What we are doing with Bill C-5 is attacking overrepresentation in the criminal justice system of Black and indigenous people by taking those offenders who do not pose a risk to public security and making conditional sentence orders available to more crimes and by reducing around 20 minimum mandatory penalties. We are also raising the sentences for serious—

Criminal Code

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand here this evening to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Certain elements of this bill are good and Conservatives, as always, will support common-sense gun laws that target criminals and gangs. We are the party that is focused on protecting victims of crime.

Earlier today, this side of the House presented a motion that would have sent certain elements of the bill to committee immediately, elements of the bill that focused on protecting potential victims of gun crime, elements of the bill that would tighten up gun laws that address gun smuggling.

One amendment to this bill included a red flag provision that would allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a dangerous domestic situation more quickly. I am in support of that. It is a common-sense amendment that this side of the House is in support of and was ready to send it directly to committee so it could be passed more quickly.

Domestic violence is something that we should not take lightly. This side of the House feels that if we can get this to committee, we are much closer to getting this passed and much closer to saving innocent lives. However, that side of the House blocked this from happening. I am not sure why that side wants to politicize the lives of innocent men, women and children who are caught in domestic violence situations. Why?

Our motion also supported more severe penalties for criminals smuggling guns. Watching deliberations regarding the massacre in Nova Scotia, we heard some testimony that the man responsible for the shootings had guns brought over the border. We also heard that it was well known that the man had a vast selection of weapons.

Had there been tougher penalties for those illegal weapons, would there have been a different outcome? We will never know. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the government would block such important measures. Why would it not want to take every opportunity possible to stop any occurrence of violent crime as quickly as possible?

Conservatives support the elements of Bill C-21 that are focused on protecting victims of gun crime and tightening up laws that address gun smuggling.

We know that gun crimes are not committed with legal guns or by law-abiding gun owners for the most part and represent a much lower proportion of violent crimes than those committed with knives or other weapons. We also know that the government has the means and ways to stop illegal guns from entering this country.

The question is why it is not stopping the illegal trade of firearms. If the government were as hell-bent on stopping illegal guns from getting into the hands of criminals as it is on keeping the useless travel restrictions in place, the streets of our cities would be much safer.

It is shameful that the Liberal government chooses politics over protecting victims and rejected our motion to immediately send those elements of the bill to the committee today.

Today's actions from that side of the House send a strong message that the Liberals are not serious about stopping dangerous criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns. Their actions tell me that they are not serious about making our streets safer. That is a shame, because the lives of so many are counting on the members of this House collectively to do the right thing.

The members opposite are simply not willing to back down on their political agenda and separate the ineffective and divisive parts of their bill that do nothing to stop gun violence and provide no benefit to vulnerable Canadians. I am confused.

When it comes to Liberal priorities, of course, they talk a good talk about gun crime, but the fact is the Liberals are going soft on real gun criminals and weakening the laws where it counts. For example, Liberals want a ban on pellet guns. I do not understand the mindset of the government. Do Liberals really believe a young person who owns a pellet gun is a criminal?

However, under Bill C-5, a gang member who is convicted of a violent crime would be allowed to serve his or her sentence in the very community that he or she terrorized. There is no mandatory jail time for those criminals. Let us stop and think about that for a minute. A violent offender has terrorized a person or a community and, rather than going to jail, that criminal can serve his or her time in the very community where he or she has committed the crime. This Liberal mindset is making our communities less safe and at greater risk for gun crime.

Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, gun crime has gone up steadily each year. For residents in cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg, gun violence is an everyday occurrence. The Liberals have ignored gun safety and put politics first at every step. This has come at an expense to everyday Canadians who are being victimized in their own communities by rising gun violence committed by gangs and dangerous criminals. Lives of innocent human beings are lost every day to legal guns used by criminals.

Canadians are tired of false promises. The Liberal government is more concerned about and focused on headlines and creating divisive legislation than the safety of Canadians. While the Liberal plan continues to fail and gun violence continues to grow, Conservatives will stay focused on common-sense firearms safety, tackling gun crime and making communities safer.

I grew up in a small community. Pellet guns were not considered a dangerous weapon, and I do not think any of the members across the aisle consider pellet guns or an airsoft rifle to be a dangerous weapon.

There are so many things in this bill that I cannot go along with. I have so many law-abiding gun owners in my riding who are feeling threatened by this legislation. Therefore, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion”.