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

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the sentiment behind my colleague's question, but my speech was on mandatory minimum penalties, which is what we are here to talk about.

This is an important step in the right direction. I would like to see the data surrounding other MMPs to see if they are also having a desperate effect on communities to see if we could further repeal those.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the aisle.

Earlier I asked the Minister of Justice about the relevance of imposing a gag order. If he ever gets a chance to speak with me about it, I would be pleased to do so, but I would like to come back to the issue that has also been raised by some of my Bloc colleagues. The bill currently before the House deals with mandatory minimum sentences for gun possession, but it also deals with everything related to the decriminalization of drugs. We are dealing with two very different subjects. Why did the government reject our proposal to split the bill in two?

By splitting the bill, we would have had the opportunity to study each of its two aspects in greater depth, so that they could be dealt with in an intelligent manner, and this would mean that members would not have to vote for or against the bill in its entirety. I think the government is mixing things up. This is creating confusion both in the debate and in the study of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I humbly reject the premise of my hon. colleague's question. We would not be decriminalizing drugs with this bill. We are looking at mandatory minimum penalties.

I want to be clear that this is not a soft-on-crime approach. Those who commit serious offences would 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, who just needed help.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Malton for his focus on this being about trust in the judiciary, first and foremost. My question for him builds on a comment he made earlier on wanting to go further.

Recognizing this legislation only targets one of five of the existing mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code, and that, for example, Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action 32 calls for departing from this, could he share more about his interest in going further in removing mandatory minimum penalties?

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

The hon. member for Mississauga—Malton has time for a very brief answer.

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

Madam Speaker, again, these proposed measures represent an important step in further addressing systemic issues related to existing sentencing policies. We know rooting out systemic racism and discrimination cannot be accomplished with just one measure—

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

Unfortunately, we need to move on to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I spoke to the first iteration of this bill back in April 2021, I remarked at the time on how out of touch the Liberal government had become. If anyone from the new NDP-Liberal coalition actually took time to come and speak to mayors, chiefs and councillors, or the RCMP members in northern Saskatchewan, they would know that bills like this do far more to hurt communities than to help them.

When I speak to elected leaders, I constantly hear that there are violent offenders they do not want in their communities. In fact, they are searching for ways to keep them out. They wonder why these repeat offenders cannot remain in custody and why they are allowed to keep returning to victimize their communities. They are frustrated. They realize that when certain people are removed, they seem to have a time of peace and quiet. This bill would add to the frustration.

Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory minimums for offences such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, and discharging a firearm with intent. The list goes on. The Minister of Justice, just this afternoon, told us that he believes these are just minor offences. I do not believe these are minor offences.

Police officers, judges, prosecutors and many others in the communities already do everything they can for non-violent offenders to ensure they have every opportunity to stay out of prison. Sometimes the peace of mind that comes with mandatory minimums is essential to ensure our communities feel safe and are safe.

In northern Saskatchewan, there is a concerning trend of witness intimidation, as well as increasing recruitment of young people into gangs and the drug trade. Mandatory minimums assist the police and prosecutors to ensure the safety of witnesses. By keeping violent offenders off the street, greater opportunity is provided to engage in early intervention and prevent criminal gang recruitment.

March 17, just last week, Meadow Lake's RCMP Staff Sergeant Ryan How wrote an article in Saskatchewan Today. It reads:

From October 1, 2020, to March 15, 2021, Meadow Lake RCMP responded to 66 firearms complaints. In the same time frame in 2021 to 2022 RCMP have received 30 firearms complaints. Any level of gun violence is unacceptable and the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment is unfortunately still busy dealing with violent occurrences, while at the same time noting that this reduction in gun calls is welcome progress.

A focused formal enforcement project led by North Battleford Provincial GIS was put in place in early 2021 to dismantle one of the gangs involved in the violence and has resulted in the following convictions....

He goes on to list the names, the offences they are charged with and the sentences of several violent gang members. It is shocking that the charges include one that is being proposed to no longer have minimum sentences under this bill. The Government of Canada ought to be supporting more initiatives like the one Staff Sergeant How talks about and supporting enforcement officers like him who are investing time and energy in building relationships in the communities they serve, rather than basing Criminal Code policy on political ideology.

I am neither an RCMP officer nor a crown prosecutor, like some of my colleagues, but when I hear from experts on the ground that getting rid of mandatory minimums like those proposed in Bill C-5 would put our communities in greater danger, I tend to believe them. We need to be equipping law enforcement to carry out their duties and keep our communities safe, not neutering their abilities to keep violent offenders off the streets.

One of the questions that keeps coming up around this bill is regarding judicial discretion. While I agree that judges should have some discretion when it comes to sentencing, this is also the role of Parliament. Parliament, in the past, has assigned not only maximum sentences, which impact judges' discretion, but also minimum sentences. This has been done with Parliament's wisdom. It is up to us and within our power to change that, but it has always been the case that Parliament sets out the parameters whereby judges sentence people.

We are the ones who decide, through the Criminal Code, what is a criminal act, and we set out the parameters for sentencing. That is part of our job, and it is not partisan.

Many of the minimums being eliminated by this Liberal government were in fact introduced by previous Liberal governments. This is about ensuring there is an appropriate sentence for someone who commits a very serious crime. Again, as I said previously, Bill C-5 is not about minor and insignificant offences. It deals with what I would conclude are very serious offences, such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. I have not even begun to discuss the sections in the bill dedicated to drug-related offences.

Bill C-5 would also eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting and production of a substance under schedule I or II. Examples of those are heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. When I read the legislation, it seems clear to me that no one from the Liberal-NDP coalition has ever sat across the table from a chief and elders pleading to get and keep these drug dealers out of their communities.

When I first spoke to Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, I shared a story from a local paper. The story was about a judge's decision, arguments by the Crown prosecutor and the victim impact statements of some RCMP officers. Today I am going to take a few minutes of my time to share that story again, one of the victim impact statements of one of the officers. I truly hope today that all members in this House, even if they ignore everything else I say today, will listen to this story.

The statement said:

When I encountered the gold truck you were in north of Loon Lake the only emotion I felt was sadness.

I knew right away how this was going to end. It’s always the same, just a varying degree of tragedy. When I saw your co-accused run from the Equinox and point what may have been a gun at me, I just felt tired and defeated....

I knew what you would do when you came up to the road block. And you did the same thing every other desperate criminal does—you accelerated and swerved towards the police.

As you did that, I took off my seatbelt and accelerated my truck directly at you. I wanted to be able to at least have the chance to manoeuver in the cab if you and your fellow gang members started shooting at me. As I lined up my truck to yours head-on I fully expected to be shot but I tried to make sure my truck would stay on a straight path and hit you even if I couldn’t steer because you needed to be stopped.... Even after all of this, after hours of chasing after you, hours of being frustrated, angry, and tired, [I] was required to be of calm mind and use sound tactics as I drew my gun on you and the people with you.... At that moment I was furious that it had come to this. I was furious that your stupidity was causing me to miss an important family event going on right at that moment I had you in my gun sights. I was furious that I might have to shoot and kill you.... I didn’t shoot you...My coworkers didn’t shoot you, even though we were taunted and dared to do it by the people in the truck with you. Even though your actions caused one of my coworkers to almost be run over and killed. We made sure you were safe. It was a joke and a game to you. It was life and death for me, for my partners, and the public. I’m telling you that on January 17, 2019, you were lucky to be arrested by some of the most capable and experienced police officers in the country. They showed incredible restraint and professionalism to make sure you lived to be here today.

I had the opportunity to speak to Sergeant How after this and he shared with me how these events had become almost routine in his world. I am asking members to imagine this becoming part of the daily routine. I remember having to fight back the emotion.

Finally, this bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders for a number of offences. Allowing criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest puts communities in my riding at risk.

In closing—

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

It is 5:45 p.m., and I have to stop the debate.

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. House leader of the official opposition.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I request a recorded division, Madam Speaker.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Thursday, March 31, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

The House resumed from March 30 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 3:14 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-5.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #53

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)