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.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation Motion

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for the question. I am pleased to admit that I, too, have a hard time with the French term for “diversion measures”. We can stumble over it together.

Fighting gangs and gun trafficking is not the objective of this bill. We will be introducing another bill, as we did in the previous Parliament, to tackle the problem raised by my hon. colleague.

In this case, we are talking about minimum sentences for offences that do not pose a threat to public safety and should be considered differently to ensure they are more effective for communities, making them safer, and for the justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of a successful opposition party is that it does not just oppose all the time but comes to the table to propose.

I have heard the same tired arguments from the Conservatives about mandatory minimums, but they have yet to show the House evidence to back up their point, and they completely ignore sections in the Criminal Code that allow judges to increase or decrease a sentence based on the severity of the crime. Let us face it: Conservatives do not trust our judges.

My question to the minister is this. If Conservatives are so concerned about the content of the bill, would it not be a good idea for them to bring their arguments and their witnesses before the justice committee, propose amendments and demonstrate to Canadians that they are actually serious and know what they are talking about?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, in the previous Parliament with this bill's predecessor, Bill C-22, and now in this Parliament, we have had ample opportunities to discuss this bill. We are still waiting for the opposition to show the evidence.

Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with a report looking at one of the minimum mandatory penalties that was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada. The clear conclusion of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was that not only did it contribute to the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system, and not only did it cost more money, but it was completely ineffective at reducing the overall sentencing rates.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the Minister of Justice back to 2019 when we had a round table in Scarborough with a number of different stakeholders who were directly impacted by mandatory minimum sentences, particularly members of the Black community. We know that the statistics are quite relevant here because MMPs have disproportionately impacted members of the Black community, as well as indigenous communities.

Can the minister give us a sense of how the changes to MMPs in Bill C-5 would ensure that fair justice is administered when it comes to racialized and indigenous people, as well as talk about conditional sentencing orders and what kind of impact those would have on sentencing?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I remember that round table very well.

This is precisely the reason why we brought forward this bill: to combat overrepresentation of Black and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. What MMPs do on crimes that do not threaten the safety and security of our society, but on fairly minor crimes or mistakes, is tie the hands of judges and restrict them from fashioning appropriate orders. The possibility now of having a conditional sentence order, which the previous Harper government rejected, would allow judges to fashion a sentence, often in the community. The community can help to rehabilitate people. If it is an indigenous community, they can use restorative justice. It allows them to fashion a sentence that actually works, that serves victims and that serves the community, instead of what we have now.

A study from Professor Kaiser-Derrick, published by the University of Manitoba Press, highlighted the vastly disproportionate and negative impact that minimum mandatory sentences and a lack of conditional sentence orders had on indigenous women. It is an endemic problem and it is a shame in this country, and we are attacking it.

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

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

Through translation, I heard the minister say, if I got it right, that this was tackling issues and offences that were not a threat to public safety. We have reckless discharge of a firearm: that means a drive-by shooting, potentially, of an occupied residence.

First, how is that not a threat to public safety? Second, the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fallacy and the argument that is being brought forth by the hon. member is quite clear. We are eliminating minimum mandatory penalties. There is still a maximum sentencing range that exists for all crimes. In the crime that he described, and in the circumstances that he described, a judge would have the flexibility and the opportunity to give a serious sentence. That is precisely what happens.

What we are doing is taking away the lower end, where a person perhaps has a few too many on a Saturday night and puts a couple of bullets into the side of an empty barn. There are differences in the way these sentences ought to happen. What we are doing is giving power back to the judges.

Judges are the hallmark of our common-law system. I do not know why the other side does not trust them.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the response from the minister and I have full confidence in the independence of our judicial system. It was actually quite refreshing to hear about giving that power back to judges.

I would appreciate it if the minister could expand on what is being proposed and how the independent judicial system can ensure that justice is being served, rather than perhaps advancing more of the systemic issues that we know are far too common within our prison system.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I worked a great deal together, and continue to work a great deal together, on these kinds of issues.

What the bill would do is allow for context to be taken into account. I will give an example. In a ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed a sentencing judge to take into account factors, for an indigenous person, of how that person's life might have helped to account for the crime and what ought to be taken into account for the sentence. This was the so-called Gladue report.

A minimum mandatory penalty means the judge's hands are tied, with respect to it. With this bill, the judge would be able to look at, first of all, not having a minimum mandatory penalty, but also being able to fashion, using a conditional sentence order, the kind of appropriate treatment that a person might need. Whether it is a health issue or a social welfare issue, people could get the support they need. That better serves the community, it better serves the victim and it certainly costs us less money in the criminal justice system.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister support and agree that it is important for us to get this bill to committee so we can have a conversation there on how we can improve this piece of legislation and offer the suggestions that have been brought to our attention?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think members on all sides of the House know, including many members of the official opposition, that with respect to the parliamentary process and committees, I work in good faith with all sides of the House on amendments. I am always open to the bill being improved. Any amendments brought in good faith are things I will study with my team and with other members of the House with due diligence. If we can make it a better bill, we will make it a better bill.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, house arrest for human trafficking is what the minister is proposing with this particular bill. In what world does he think that house arrest is appropriate for human trafficking? Human traffickers often operate from their house. This would do nothing to intimidate them or remove the issue from our streets here in Canada. The other question I have is, how in the world did he get the NDP to sign on to this?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question of the hon. member. Human trafficking is not one of the minimum mandatories. There are a number of different gun offences, a number of different tobacco offences and a number of different drug offences.

Any party that looks at the evidence, the statistics and the reforms that are happening around the world, including in the United States, realizes that minimum mandatory penalties simply do not work. They clog up the criminal justice system.

[An hon. member]

They keep people safe.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they do not keep people safe.

The majority of constitutional challenges to pieces of the Criminal Code are about minimum mandatory penalties, and over half of them succeed. They clog up the system and cause delays. Perhaps hon. members of the opposition will take responsibility if and when Jordan rulings come out as a result of the system being clogged up by minimum mandatory penalties.