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

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

Madam Speaker, once again we are privy to a front-row seat to the decline in democracy. Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, has gone through committee, and there have been thousands and millions of dissenting voices on this bill. There have been advocates and stakeholders, and there have been police chiefs and police forces across Canada that have spoken against this bill, because it does diminish mandatory minimum sentences.

Just to give an example, Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and weapons trafficking excluding firearms and ammunition. This would only embolden criminals, make them more brazen, in our communities in Canada.

The Liberals have been aided and abetted in this time allocation, this motion of closure, by their puppy-dog partners in the NDP. They have pulled the choke collar on the New Democrats to get them to conform and sit and be good partners in this. This decline in democracy, this assault, will not make our communities safer and will threaten the lives of Canadians across the country.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Mr. Chair, when I was speaking with the minister earlier about the problems of circumventing the Cannabis Act, the minister mentioned that Mr. Lucas could provide us with a document outlining what has been done and what needs to be done. I would like that document to be tabled in committee.

Next, I would like to come back to a point that was raised earlier on Bill C‑5.

In all likelihood, this bill, which includes an important component for fighting drug addiction, should be passed. It introduces diversion measures. We agree that addiction problems must first and foremost be linked to public health and not strictly be a matter for the justice system.

Let's take Portugal as an example. Architect Dr. Goulão said that if the necessary resources weren't put on the front lines, if there wasn't any investment, if there were no means to carry out this diversion process, it would be better to leave it in the hands of the justice system.

The bill will be passed. Have you started discussions with the provinces, territories and Quebec on how to implement it, or are you going to leave people to fend for themselves?

This is a good example of why we need increased health transfers. The bill is about giving more responsibility to people on the ground and to front‑line workers.

Are we going to leave drug addicts on the street, without a criminal record, without them being prosecuted? This will not solve anything.

Where are the discussions on that? If you haven't started, when are you going to?

Bill C-5—Notice of Time Allocation

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us hear what Stephan Fogaing, a member of Montreal's Black community, has to say about Bill C‑5: “In short, when the federal government contemplates doing away with some of the minimum sentences in the Criminal Code, we can only wonder whether they are more interested in protecting criminals than the public and victims of crime.”

Given what these people had to say, is the Prime Minister interested in listening to them, or does he prefer to protect criminals over victims?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a 12-year-old girl found herself right in the middle of a shooting in Montreal. She was traumatized, of course. This is happening in our streets in Quebec.

Instead of tackling the problems of street gangs and illegal arms trafficking, this Liberal government is doing the opposite with its Bill C‑5. It is eliminating mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes.

How can this government be so disconnected from reality that it is doing the opposite of what is obviously common sense?

Public Safety

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share what I heard from the representative of a community that this government claims it wants to help. She says that eliminating these minimum sentences is not only a bad idea masquerading as a good one, but an idea that will further jeopardize the communities this initiative is supposed to protect. That is what we heard from Murielle Chatellier in a parliamentary committee.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister is abolishing mandatory minimum sentences with Bill C‑5; on the other, he does not mention victims of gun violence even once in Bill C‑21.

Why is the Prime Minister so intent on helping criminals rather than victims?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a question about crime. I want to talk about Bill C-5 and mandatory minimums, and I want to offer a very personal story.

When I was a small child, my mother practised law in northern Alberta. She did a lot of legal aid work and the overwhelming majority of her clients were indigenous. She would take me to court and sometimes she would take me with her to reserves, and I saw first-hand how our criminal justice system treats indigenous peoples. Our government is fixing that and everyone in the House should be supportive of that.

Bill C-5

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week, a coroner’s inquest has begun into one of the worst cases of multiple partner violence in Canadian history.

Basil Borutski murdered Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam, and Carol Culleton in separate incidents on the morning of September 22, 2015 in Renfrew County. Borutski was well known to all of his victims and to police for a long history of violence. He was a dangerous serial offender with a history of beating women. Now, the three families, and our entire community, are reliving the horror of that event through the inquest.

Bill C-5 is a radical left-wing bill that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties. It sends the wrong message to women who live in fear of domestic violence. It sends the wrong message to the courts. In this case, a violent offender who openly ignored court orders that were part of his probation was released anyhow. Bill C-5 is a slap in the face to every woman in Canada by a Prime Minister consumed by his own toxic masculinity.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the estimates. Several important steps are being taken by the government to support the effective and efficient functioning of the justice system, in particular regarding access to justice for youth, indigenous and Black persons and those who are economically disadvantaged.

As the House is well aware, our justice system has been faced with mounting challenges in recent years. Some of these challenges, such as the increasing length and complexity of trials, preceded the COVID pandemic. Other challenges, such as the need to conduct trials virtually, were generated by the pandemic. Some of the justice system's challenges were felt most acutely by our provincial partners, as they bear the responsibility for the administration of justice, including the increased costs of technology and other public health measures.

Of course, many of these challenges affect not only governments, but also individuals. These include the many individuals who struggle to afford legal assistance when they need it. Many of them also experience systemic disadvantages and discrimination. In some cases, these individuals come into contact with the justice system.

Through the budget, our government made multiple investments to support the justice system to ensure that it treats those who come before it in a fair, equitable and effective manner. Budget 2021 announced an ongoing annual $43.3-million increase in funding for the youth justice services funding program. New six-year funding agreements for the April 21, 2021, to March 31, 2027, time frame were successfully negotiated and are now being put into place with the provinces and territories to implement this funding.

This funding will enable the expansion and sustainability of critical youth justice services and programs delivered by the provinces and territories. Priority funding areas under the youth justice services funding program include diversion and alternatives to custody programming, which will allow more youth to stay out of the formal youth criminal justice system and/or custody. This new funding will allow jurisdictions to further develop and expand the range of culturally safe and responsive programming available to better support indigenous youth and other racialized youth populations overrepresented in the youth criminal justice system. This is particularly true for diversion programming, for which an increased demand is anticipated resulting from the implementation of former Bill C-75.

While we are all pleased that there has been a downward trend in youth crime rates over time, this new funding is needed, as there has not been an increase in funding since 2006, when the Harper government came into power and implemented its failed criminal justice policy that did not focus on rehabilitation or diversion. We are fixing that through many measures, including budgetary measures such as this one and Bill C-5.

The general youth population is increasing, which is expected to affect the demand for youth justice programming and apply additional pressures on the provinces and territories. There is a need to respond more effectively to the diversity of risks and needs of today's youth population. The new funding will therefore enable the sustainability and expansion of critical and more responsive youth justice services and programs.

Our government also re-profiled $40 million in funding for criminal legal aid, provided through the 2020 fall economic statement to 2021 and 2022-23. The COVID pandemic generated significant multi-faceted and long-term impacts on legal aid in Canada. It also produced socio-economic conditions that foster high demand for legal aid, while simultaneously complicating the delivery of legal aid services and limiting non-governmental income sources such as law foundations. This additional investment of $40 million in criminal legal aid funding provided over two years is allowing legal aid plans to better align themselves with the reopening of the courts and provide services to accused people whose cases are backlogged. The additional funding also addresses deficits resulting from decreased law foundation funding and supports legal aid plans in fully implementing technological innovations and ensuring interoperability with the courts.

Vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals and women, have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In view of their mandate to help the disadvantaged, some legal aid plans relaxed eligibility guidelines early in the pandemic to support individuals facing job loss.

As the courts reopen, they are dealing with backlogs of cases accumulated during the pandemic. The additional funding for criminal legal aid will enable jurisdictions to meet increased demand, thereby reducing the number of individuals who self-represent. Self-represented accused people cost the system both money and time because of adjournments, multiple court appearances, a lack of information and confusion about proceedings. We are continuing to provide additional needed support to the legal aid system to address these systemic pressures so the justice system remains accessible to all Canadians.

The past decades have seen a criminal justice system characterized by the increasingly disproportionate representation of indigenous and Black persons and vulnerable persons such as those experiencing a mental health and/or substance use disorder. The 2020 fall economic statement announced $6.6 million over five years, followed by $1.6 million annually, to support the implementation of impact of race and culture assessments, or IRCAs, nationally. From this, $1.3 million is available for 2022-23. IRCAs are better pre-sentencing reports that help sentencing judges better understand the effects of poverty, marginalization, racism and social exclusion on the offender and their experience with the criminal justice system.

Federal funding will support the development of training curricula for IRCA writers, professional development programs for criminal defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors, and education programs for judges on IRCAs and on the preparation of IRCA reports for eligible racialized accused. The Government of Canada is committed to providing fair and equal access to justice for Black individuals and other racialized people by addressing systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system and overturning a decade of failed Conservative criminal justice policy.

Building on previous investments, budget 2021 also announced an investment of $26.8 million for 2021-22 to support the delivery of immigration and refugee legal aid services. This funding supports access to justice for economically disadvantaged asylum seekers by ensuring that provinces delivering immigration and refugee legal aid have the capacity to maintain service delivery levels. This includes the processing of many asylum claims from individuals who arrived in Canada prior to the pandemic-related border closures, those who made asylum claims from within Canada during the pandemic and those who are now arriving at Canada's borders.

Additionally, the 2020 fall economic statement provided $49.3 million over five years, starting in 2021, and $9.7 million in ongoing funding to increase the application of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and address systemic discrimination. As the House is aware, Gladue principles seek to ensure the systemic or background factors that may have played a part in bringing an indigenous person in contact with the law are considered in criminal justice decision-making, and that community-based, culturally appropriate restorative and traditional indigenous justice supports are available to help individuals meet the conditions of their sentences and implement healing plans.

This investment includes funding to support the development and expanded use of Gladue reports, including the training of Gladue report writers, and will support community-based and indigenous-led post-sentence Gladue aftercare. This funding will also support projects focused on addressing systemic barriers and bias in the criminal justice system. The implementation of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system is also a key federal initiative in the Government of Canada's federal pathway to address missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

Finally, building on the success of our existing work to address overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, and to improve indigenous people's access to justice in all areas of the justice system, budget 2021 provided $27.1 million over three years for indigenous community-based justice programs to address long-standing program integrity needs and to provide trauma-informed training on working with victims of crime. Funding will also help indigenous families navigate the family justice system and access community-based family mediation services.

Among other objectives, these efforts seek to prevent crime and protect victims by addressing matters before they escalate. They also aim to help decrease the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care across the country and allow these children to remain with their families where appropriate and connect to their communities and culture where possible. In tandem with support for the implementation of Gladue principles, this work will further support the Government of Canada's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada, eliminate systemic discrimination from the justice system and respond to the MMIWG final report's calls for justice and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Through the main estimates, we are seeking to access the funding to support these initiatives this year. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the critical steps we have taken to support the justice system, and I hope that all members of the House will support these estimates to advance this important work in criminal justice reform.

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

Madam Speaker, that may be a first. It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, especially on such an important night in this Parliament. Every day is obviously important, but when we discuss important motions, when we talk about money and confidence votes, it is an extremely important day.

Today we are talking about Department of Justice estimates. One thing I want to discuss from the get-go, to lay the groundwork for what I am about to say, and this will likely build upon some of what my colleagues have had to say, is about justice versus criticizing the judiciary. I believe that all of us here want the same thing. All of us obviously want a safe Canada. I cannot look at any member here and think that anyone does not want a safe Canada. That would be nonsense.

There are times, though, when I look at the Supreme Court and some court decisions, and I may not agree. There are times when I could look at the court's decisions and I understand how it got to the decision, and while I respect that, I may not agree with the ultimate conclusion. There are times when I look at the court's decision and the logic is unassailable, and it is clear that the right decision was made. Then there are obviously going to be times when we look at a decision and we say to ourselves, “I just do not understand how we got to that decision.”

Our role as parliamentarians is unique, because we have this separation of the legislative branch and the judicial branch, but the two go hand in hand. When I was doing my first law degree, one thing I was taught, and I know that some judges do reject this, was that Parliament and the judiciary are in a dialogue, so to speak. The way that this dialogue typically happens is between the courts and Parliament. Generally what will happen is that there is impugned legislation, that legislation is challenged, and if that legislation is challenged and upheld, then there is no dialogue to be had because the courts have said that Parliament got it right.

Then there are situations where the court strikes down the legislation, sometimes with a sunset clause, saying there is one year to fix it, or other times when the legislation is simply struck down, saying why the legislation did not meet the constitutional bar. That is where that dialogue frequently happens. Parliament acts, the court interprets the laws, and then it is incumbent on Parliament to act again.

The distinction that we are talking about, though, is Parliament acting. How should Parliament act? Some people may say that is criticizing a decision. My respectful view is that it is not, because what we are doing here is that we are actually part of that dialogue, part of that law-making component that is so special and so central to this place.

This is my recollection, and I think I'm going back to 1994 here, when I was still in high school, but that is how section 33.1, which was struck down a little while ago, actually came to be in its form that was, again, struck down. Again, we are going back 15 or 20 years, so please do not quote me on that law.

I am also mindful of the Chief Justice's recent comments about the politicization of the courts. We need to be able to have a candid discussion about what legislation should flow from the Supreme Court's decision, perhaps not about the merits of the case but whether we are comfortable with the outcomes of a decision that is predicated on the legislation.

I gave an intervention a week ago and that intervention was about the fact that I thought Parliament should be acting because there was a decision that offended my sensibilities when a seven- or eight-year-old was abused by a parent. That mother avoided jail and was given a community-based sentence. In doing that, my goal was not to necessarily say what this judge should have done, and I did not name the judge for a reason. I do not think that is the way we should be doing it.

The point was to ask whether we should be looking at the legislation that led to this outcome. This outcome is based on legislation. There is a question, and a very live question in my mind, about whether we should be questioning that. That is one of the issues I have today. The point is this: How should Parliament respond to these decisions that some may agree with and some may not agree with?

The cases I am going to look at are the Sullivan and Brown grouping of decisions. Those are the extreme intoxication decisions. There is a case about consecutive sentences for parole eligibility, although I think the extreme intoxication cases are a little different from my view.

Right now, we do not have a law in place because it has been struck down, but the upshot is that, based on the court's decision, a person can avoid criminal liability based on extreme intoxication. This was always the case for murder because a person has to specifically intend to kill somebody or cause grievous bodily harm and be reckless as to the outcome. That is a specific-intent offence.

The point is that a person who voluntarily consumed drugs no longer in this case could have the intent to kill or intent to have any criminality. This is what I find interesting and this is what I want to focus on. The courts have acted. How should Parliament respond?

In my view, the court, at paragraph 12, laid out a road map for us, and it said:

Parliament did not enact a new offence of dangerous intoxication, nor did it adopt a new mode of liability for existing violent offences based on a proper standard of criminal negligence. With the utmost respect, I am bound to conclude the path Parliament chose in enacting s. 33.1 was not, from the point of view of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, constitutionally compliant.

What I found interesting on my reading of that, and others may disagree and that is fine, is that it is almost as though the court is giving us a road map here of criminal negligence. That is what it seems to me. I have not watched the debate, but it is something I want to do and I was recently encouraged to do it.

This very point, from what I can gather, was hit on about the foreseeability of these consequences of self-induced intoxication, followed by subsequent violence. I hope we all agree in this place that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The problem is that it has not yet been addressed.

I was one of four signatories on a letter to the government saying we will work with the government to address this and to address it as soon as possible. Frankly, I would have liked to see legislation tabled within a week or two of this. I am mindful of the justice minister's comments saying that they are looking at it, but this is critical.

A lot of victims groups and women's groups have sounded the alarm, and for good reason. This is an important issue that really needs to be dealt with. Sometimes we talk about virtue signalling. This is one case where we, as a united House, should be signalling to the public and to potential victims that we are prepared to cover this legislative gap.

I will close with this. If the government does wish to act, I will be prepared to help in a non-partisan way. I believe the other three signatories would be prepared to act in a non-partisan way. We are expending hundreds of millions of dollars when it comes to the administration of justice. This is one area that I have chosen to focus on that, in my view, has a gap.

There are other gaps that we can get into, like Bill C-5 and things like that. However, this is one of the areas that I invite the government to consider when it is considering its spending and what it is doing in its legislative agenda.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member hit the nail on the head. What we have is a situation where law-abiding firearms owners are not the problem. However, once again, as we have seen over the past couple of decades, law-abiding firearms owners are the target of the Liberal government. Meanwhile, with Bill C-5, jail time is being eliminated by the government for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized and discharging a firearm with intent, all of which are offences that used to carry with them mandatory jail time.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has listed some things, so I will note that we have a vacant position for a victims ombudsman. When the offenders ombudsman position was vacant, it was filled the next day. For the victims ombudsman position, it has been months since it should have been filled.

In a very short period of time, we have had a Supreme Court decision that says if someone drinks enough, they might be found not guilty of a serious offence. We have had the striking down of a law that valued every life for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. We have also had Bill C-5, which says that for serious gun crimes and serious offences against other individuals, a person can serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home. That is just in the last month that we have been dealing with these things.

It is time for the government to reverse course, drop Bill C-5 and respond to these Supreme Court decisions.

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister of Justice to listen to the following quotation: “while the federal government is using the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and people of diverse backgrounds in our prisons to justify abolishing many minimum sentences, it seems to forget one important fact: Members of these same communities are equally overrepresented among the victims of these armed crimes”.

This quotation came from Murielle Chatellier, who is a member of Montreal's Black community.

Would the Prime Minister like to discuss Bill C-5 with her, or does he think she is racist, too?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, shootings are happening more and more often in the greater Montreal area. Fear is taking hold in some neighbourhoods, and children have been traumatized by shootings in broad daylight.

What is the government doing to address this? With Bill C-5, it is eliminating mandatory prison time for armed robbery, armed extortion and weapons trafficking.

What is the world coming to? Why is the government so soft on crime?