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

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to your response, I am sure, if you consulted with Hansard, you would find that at the conclusion of the member's comments he did in fact make that very assertion. The member for Kingston and the Islands said the member for Regina—Lewvan lied. My understanding is that is not how we speak in this place.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, you do not even need to check Hansard. I can confirm that I did indeed accuse the member of lying, based on what I heard the NDP member say and what the member for Regina—Lewvan said. Because it was unparliamentary of me to do so, I apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There we go. We have an apology in place.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to raise this point of order.

The comments made by the member for Regina—Lewvan are a misrepresentation of what my colleague the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said. We are all hon. members here. We are all hearing and listening carefully to the debate. It is inappropriate and I find it offensive that someone would get up in the House right after another person spoke and misrepresent what they said. I would ask the member to retract those comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The information the hon. member is providing is part of a debate. I want to remind members to be extremely judicious and careful in their comments, to ensure that they are not speaking directly about an individual. I just want to make sure members are very judicious and respectful in their debates and responses in the House.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan can finish his question.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to indulge this debate with some common sense.

I was going to say that if it is a relic of the past to say that people should go to prison when they commit the offence of sexual assault, trafficking in persons and kidnapping, I will be proud to represent that common sense for as long as I am allowed to be in this House. Would the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes agree with those comments?

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

Madam Speaker, I expect this is not just a point of order, but perhaps a question of privilege. For a member to stand up and completely distort and say that I had said something that I most certainly did not say in the debate affects my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament. It becomes part of the official record.

What I said was that the Conservatives were arguing about the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. I did not say people should not be subject to penalties under the Criminal Code. I said they should not be subject to mandatory minimum sentences, which have been demonstrated not to work, to be ineffective and to result in the overincarceration of indigenous people and Black Canadians.

The member is completely distorting my remarks for his own political purposes, and I consider that a violation of my privilege as a member of Parliament.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member's setting the record straight. I want to again remind members to be very judicious in their comments and their words in the debate. This is a very passionate and very sensitive bill that we are discussing at this point. Again, I just reiterate the fact that we need to make sure we are not attacking individuals and we are speaking to what is in the bill and not what is not in the bill.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments on the elimination of mandatory prison time for people who have committed serious offences, it is contrary to ensuring we have accountability when these crimes are committed. Again, I remind people these are not folks who are accused of committing crimes, these are people who have been convicted of committing criminal offences such as discharging a firearm with intent, weapons trafficking, extortion with a firearm or robbery with a firearm.

Surely we can all agree one should go to jail for those offences, but it does not seem we have an agreement on that in this place. I heard from a previous member that this is an argument of decades past. I do not think so. I want to ensure the folks who live in my community know that anyone who commits those offences will be held fully accountable, and that includes time in prison.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, on the topic of sticking to what this bill is about and what this bill is not about, I have a very simple question for my colleague, with whom I share a floor in our office.

If we can agree things need to change in order to get better and we can agree this is about helping people get better and helping society heal, can we not agree the system, as it currently stands, is overreliant on incarceration, is overreliant on penalties rather than helping people get better, and that we should be relying more on various methods by which people are reconstituted into society and brought back in so they can develop and redevelop as people, or is it all just about punishment?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we do agree that Canadians who are suffering from addiction should be getting treatment, and if the crime is simple possession, there are currently directives in place and the discretion can be exercised to divert those individuals from the criminal justice system to help them get help. That is entirely appropriate. We absolutely need to help people who are suffering from the scourge of addiction, and this bill is not about that. It does codify the discretion currently in place, but I would much prefer we have a conversation about helping people who need help instead of relaxing important accountability measures in place for people who commit serious crimes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑5 is important. It was introduced during the previous Parliament when it was known as Bill C‑22. The two bills are substantially the same, with some minor differences. What really makes Bill C‑5 different from Bill C‑22 is context. Society is in a completely different place now.

In my mind, Bill C‑5 might be better off being split up. The debate over diversion and the debate over minimum penalties are two completely different debates. People could be very much in favour of one and against the other. If we want to be able to work effectively on this bill, all members of the House need an opportunity to speak to each of the aspects of the bill. We should be able to agree with one aspect and disagree with the other.

That said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of decriminalization. We believe that rehabilitation is an essential step to eliminating crime in a society. We can never completely eliminate crime, of course, but rehabilitation would at least help make our society better and more in line with our values.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. This can be seen particularly in Quebec's young offenders legislation, which facilitates diversion. For example, young people who have broken the law are asked to do community work, to engage in activities with various organizations.

I know of a case where a young man who shoplifted and vandalized the wall of a convenience store had to meet with the store owner, clean up the wall and do some work for the store. They ended up fully reconciled. While the young man and the convenience store owner may not have become great friends, they developed a relationship that was probably conducive, if not essential, to the young man's rehabilitation. There are other positive experiences and cases like that one. That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that diversion has a role to play and it has historically agreed with this principle.

With respect to minimum penalties, the courts must be able to exercise their power freely and judiciously. The Bloc Québécois has always believed that minimum penalties are a hindrance, but that is not always the case. In some circumstances, minimum penalties can be a way of sending a clear message to offenders. We need to look at this aspect of the question. However, generally speaking, we do not think that minimum penalties contribute to a healthier society. On the contrary, we believe that they may have given rise to some highly regrettable situations.

I remember one case in the Lower St. Lawrence region of Quebec. An 18-year-old man had a 16- or 17-year-old girlfriend. Both families were aware of the relationship and approved of it. Everything was fine. However, for one reason or another, they found themselves in court, and the young man was found guilty of corrupting a minor. The judge said he hated to do it, because the situation did not warrant it, but he had no choice, because there was a minimum penalty in the Criminal Code, and he had to impose it. At the time, this caused an uproar and a certain amount of frustration in Quebec, and for good reason. I was one of the ones who felt that, in a situation like that, not only did the minimum penalty not help, but it hindered the judicious exercise of judicial power. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois has historically also been in favour of the abolishment of minimum penalties.

That being said, I am speaking from a historical point of view, but we are now in 2021. The situation is not the same as it was in 2020, 2019 or 2018. I could go back as far as 1867.

Circumstances are changing, and the law is changing. There is a reason we pass laws here in Parliament and in the legislative assemblies of Quebec and the provinces. We are continually passing laws because circumstances change, society evolves and, as a result, the laws must be adapted to fit our different realities.

What is the context surrounding Bill C-5?

I think that it is important to discuss it, because that is our job as legislators. We cannot simply pass a law that will apply to everyone without considering the consequences. We cannot pass a law until we evaluate the context in which a decision will be made concerning Bill C‑5. What is going on in Montreal in 2021?

On January 4, 2021, a 17-year-old boy was injured in a shooting in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood of Montreal. On January 31, 2021, a 25-year-old man suffered minor gunshot wounds in the Rivière-des-Prairies borough of Montreal. On February 7, 2021, 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui died from a gunshot wound to the head in Montreal.

On July 5, 2021, 43-year-old Ernst Exantus was shot dead in Montreal North. He was known to police for his ties to organized crime. On July 26, 2021, a 22-year-old woman was injured by glass shards when her vehicle was shot at. On August 1, 2021, an 18-year-old man sustained gunshot wounds to his lower body during a dispute between groups. On August 2, 2021, three people were killed and two others were wounded in a shootout in the Rivière‑des‑Prairies borough of Montreal.

On September 1, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, a man was shot during an attempted murder. On September 10, 2021, 35-year-old Patricia Sirois was in her vehicle with her two young children when she was shot dead by her neighbour, a 49-year-old man from Saint-Raymond. On the night of September 24 to 25, 2021, a 19-year-old woman was shot dead in her vehicle.

On September 26, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, 33-year-old Yevgen Semenenko was found dead near a vehicle with bullet holes in it. On September 28, 2021, a man was shot as he was walking down the street in Mount Royal. On October 25, 2021, a 25-year-old man was shot and wounded in Montreal.

On November 14, 2021, in the Saint‑Michel neighbourhood of Montreal, 16-year-old Thomas Trudel was shot dead as he walked home. On December 2, 2021, in the Anjou borough, 20-year-old Hani Ouahdi was shot dead in a vehicle; a 17-year-old boy in the vehicle was also wounded. On the same day, in Coaticook, Quebec, 80-year-old Jeannine Perron-Ruel was shot dead by her 38-year-old neighbour. On December 3, 2021, in Montreal, a woman in her fifties was injured at home by a bullet that came through her window. On December 6, 2021, an 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a Laval library.

I have just listed 18 incidents that took place in Quebec in 2021. Were there more? Probably. I found 18 after a quick search.

Were there others outside Quebec? Probably. I would be surprised if crimes of this sort and gunshot victims were found only in Quebec. There are undoubtedly others. In any case, in the past 11 months, there have been at least 18 incidents involving as many, if not more, gunshot victims.

On September 21, the mayor of Montreal asked the federal government to institute gun control measures.

On November 22, the City of Montreal reiterated its request, and the Quebec government said that it wanted to increase pressure on the federal government regarding gun control at the border and banning handguns.

Many debates have taken place in the House in recent weeks, and I have taken part in them. We demand that the government take responsibility, because Quebec and certain parts of Canada are turning into the wild west.

We want the government to set up a special task force. Illegal firearms are flooding into Canada via the St. Lawrence River through the Akwesasne reserve, which borders the U.S. and the St. Lawrence. Quebec and Cornwall, Ontario, are just across the river.

We need a special task force. Currently, we can do little to prevent arms trafficking because there are too many jurisdictions involved. We need a special joint task force made up of U.S. agents, peacekeepers, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP to fight these crimes effectively. It could be funded by an investment from the federal government. For example, we could have five boats patrolling this part of the St. Lawrence 24-7. I can guarantee that the problem would be solved within a year. There would be no more firearms crossing the border there. They might cross elsewhere, but we will fight them where they are.

We need to take concrete action. We demand investments in the fight against arms trafficking and the creation of a joint task force. A bill against organized crime could be tabled, like the one I introduced in the House in 2016 during the 42nd Parliament. Unfortunately, the bill was rejected for reasons that, in my opinion, were not justified, but I will not reopen a debate from the past. Maybe the bill could be reintroduced, because organized crime, arms trafficking and the government's complacency on gun control are causing immense harm and putting Quebeckers in an unsafe and vulnerable position. We cannot let that happen, not in 2021.

I read out a list of 18 incidents. I explained that cities in Quebec and the provinces are demanding that the government take action. What did the government do? The latest incident I mentioned happened on December 6, when the 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a library. A library seems like the ideal place to find peace and harmony, yet this young man was shot and wounded in a library on December 6. While we have been debating the topic for weeks, on December 7, the day after that particular shooting, the Liberal government chose to table Bill C-5, the bill we are considering today, for first reading. This bill aims to divert certain offences away from the justice system and to abolish certain minimum penalties, including for offences involving the possession and use of firearms and the commission of certain other crimes.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum penalties. However, I am starting to seriously wonder about the Liberal government's timing. If the Liberals were tabling Bill C-5 and creating a joint task force; if they were proposing to deploy river patrols starting Monday to put an end to the arms trafficking; if they were investing in the creation of a special unit to patrol the entire border of Quebec and the other Canadian provinces to fight arms trafficking; if they were adopting a bill like the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois in 2015 to create a list of criminal organizations and treat members of these organizations in the same manner as members of listed terrorist organizations, so that if someone in organized crime is caught with a firearm, he gets his comeuppance; if that were what they were proposing, I would feel less uneasy voting in favour of Bill C‑5.

Right now, I am feeling very uneasy about the government's timing and its complacency in the face of an almost unheard-of situation that is threatening not only people's quality of life and ability to thrive, but the very survival of our youth on the streets of Montreal.

Once again, we are not in the wild west. This is not the 1600s or 1700s, when cowboys rode around with guns, shot at each other for no reason and were summarily hanged because a trial was too much trouble. It is 2021. I think that we should be able to agree on the importance of keeping our teenagers and the entire population safe, and we should not have to discuss it. We need to do something about it.

Once the government has done something about that, then we can talk about diversion programs. In fact, we could talk about it at the same time; we could talk about it now. With respect to minimum penalties, we need to abolish many of them. The Supreme Court itself has said so, and far be it from me to go against it. I think that it is entirely justified: some need to be abolished, and others need to remain in place.

Bill C‑5 warrants a good, solid discussion in committee. We need to review the details of this bill, but the government needs to step up, for goodness' sake. We cannot tell citizens that we are going to do away with minimum sentences when there are people going around with guns, yet nothing is being done to stop gun trafficking and people keep getting shot at week after week on the streets of Montreal. That would be absurd. If the government is serious and really wants to get tough on crime, then we would be talking about diversion programs because we want to rehabilitate young people, and we would be talking about doing away with minimum sentences because we want judges to be able to do their job effectively and judiciously. Most importantly, the government needs to get tough on crime by taking responsibility and putting an end to firearms trafficking and the gun violence we have been seeing over this past year.

We will take responsibility and work effectively in the public interest. I am here for one thing. I want to represent my constituents and Quebeckers, and I will not keep silent on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I fully appreciate the concerns outlined by the member opposite.

The 18 specific incidents that the member refers to will not be impacted in any way by the repeal proposed in Bill C-5. We fully recognize the concerns respecting guns, not just in Quebec but also in Ontario and other places, and we will take decisive action in that regard as per our platform.

I do want to emphasize that we will work with the member and the Bloc Québécois to ensure we address all the important measures in the bill that would allow for off-ramps, that would allow for people who are charged with minor offences to receive the help they need, but also the discretion of the judges to ensure people are rehabilitated.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would not want to suggest that my colleague opposite is not speaking in good faith, but I am sick and tired of hearing that. They always say they are going to take things into consideration. I am not talking about what is going to happen next week, next month or next year. I am talking about what is happening now, today, Monday, December 13, 2021. This is the situation facing our society now. Does the government want to work with society as it is, or does it want to make promises about what it will do someday when society is different? If what the government is saying is that it will take action at some point and is taking things into consideration, then when the time comes, any action will probably be too late because the situation will have evolved.

What is the government going to do now?

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

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

My hon. colleague noted the necessity for a balanced approach. The hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned the term “systemic racism”. My question is a general one.

If the issue is one of systemic racism, why are we repealing all mandatory minimums? Why would the government not simply put what we call a safety valve or an exceptional circumstances provision in the legislation, so people who are the targeted outlaws, the people who are committing violent crimes, could be put in jail, and those who fit into that one category or classification could be dealt with as the government proposes? Would my colleague support that?