David Lametti Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 18)
We have Green Party amendment 42. I'm going to have to rule this inadmissible, as section 9 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 20)
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Continuing the discussion from my colleagues, I think the introduction of this aspect to Bill C-5 just smacks of the Liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the substantive issue. The substantive issue and the elephant in the room, as my colleague Mr. Cooper has addressed, is the opioid crisis.
I just did a quick Google search of the Liberal platform in the last general election, as follows:
The opioid overdose epidemic has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tragically, in 2020, there were 6,214 opioid overdose deaths in Canada.
To save lives, we need a whole-of-society approach to the opioid epidemic that addresses the main causes and supports...who use drugs with the respect and dignity they deserve.
That particular framework is not unlike the framework of the Conservative policy in the last election. Punish the trafficker, not the addicted. To that, I think, we are consistent. Although that language isn't as clear as I just addressed, when the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada says to address the main causes, the addicted rely upon the traffickers. They rely upon the mules who are transporting the drugs across our porous borders.
What kind of horrible message is the federal government sending to Canadians? The number one priority of a federal government is to protect Canadians, not to continue to cause death. In my view, the Liberal government has blood on its hands. Quite frankly, they are talking a good game when it comes to the opioid crisis. There's very little mention of that in the current budget. They're not doing enough. Let's face facts here. How do traffickers conduct their business? They conduct it from the comfort of their own homes. This federal government with Bill C-5 is now giving licence to the traffickers to serve the sentence in the very same place in which they do business.
We've heard from several witnesses at this committee that conditional sentences do not work, notwithstanding the Liberal government narrative that it assists in their rehabilitation. Traffickers need to be punished. Importers, exporters and distributors of drugs need to be punished. They need to be removed from society, not be given a legal licence to ply their trade where they're conducting their trade before their arrest.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In many of our ridings, and indeed across Canada, there is a serious crisis when it comes to drugs. Much has been said about Bill C-5, about so-called simple possession. Again, in the same vein as the mandatory minimums, simple possession of drugs is not what is contemplated in this piece of legislation. In fact, it deals with importing, exporting, trafficking and the production of schedule I and schedule II drugs, which include heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.
These are, first, serious drugs, and second, serious crimes. They have absolutely nothing to do with simple possession. Bill C-5 eliminates the mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking, importing, exporting and distribution. Our amendment, CPC-12, maintains a six-month mandatory minimum penalty for importing and exporting illegal substances. As has been the case with many of the Conservative amendments, there is an attempt to bridge the divide between us and the government, which is seeking to eliminate many mandatory minimum penalties. We feel there is a place for them when we are talking about taking drugs off our streets and going after the people who are causing this scourge in our society.
This would maintain a six-month mandatory minimum for importing and exporting illegal substances.
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
My interpretation from our clerk is that any member of Parliament can submit, but it would have to be moved by a member of this committee. If he or she subbed in, then they're deemed a member at that time.
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
We're going on to Green Party amendment 40. The chair rules that this is out of scope. In the opinion of the chair, prohibition orders are a type of order not contemplated by Bill C-5 and are, therefore, beyond the scope of the bill. Accordingly, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
(On clause 14)
We have Green Party amendment 41. I believe Mr. Morrice would like to.... No? Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 16)
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you.
Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code by repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties. Conservative amendment 11 seeks to amend paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which deals with principles of sentencing.
As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, amendment of the principles of sentencing in the Criminal Code goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.
Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code by repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties. The amendment, BQ-5, seeks to add a new section in the Criminal Code that would allow the court to waive any minimum punishment of imprisonment under exceptional circumstances.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, allowing the court to waive any minimum penalties in the Criminal Code goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Health-based Approach to Substance Use ActPrivate Members' Business
Sherbrooke Québec
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health
Madam Speaker, the opioid and toxic drug supply crisis is heartbreaking and has taken a tragic toll on the families, loved ones and communities of those we have lost across Canada. I would like to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his advocacy on this critical issue and for prompting this important debate in the House of Commons.
The Government of Canada recognizes that the overdose crisis is one of the most serious public health threats in Canada's recent history. This unprecedented crisis is having devastating effects on people, friends and families, as well as on communities across the country.
Unfortunately, the most recent national data shows that there were 26,690 apparent opioid toxicity deaths between January 2016 and September 2021. Fentanyl and its analogues continue to be the primary causes of the crisis. Up to 86% of accidental apparent opioid toxicity deaths over the first nine months of 2021 are tied to fentanyl.
Our government recognizes that problematic substance use is, first and foremost, a public health issue. Since 2017, our government has moved forward with significant action, investing over $800 million to address the overdose crisis and substance use-related issues. We have improved access to treatment and harm reduction, improved access to a safer supply, reduced regulatory barriers to treatment, strengthened law enforcement, developed educational products and tools for health care providers, as well as the public, and advanced research and surveillance to build the evidence base.
These key investments include $282 million for the substance use and addictions program, which provides grants and contributions to other levels of government and to community organizations in order to address the illegal supply of toxic drugs and substance use issues.
Treatment is an essential way to help people struggling with problematic substance use who want to stop using drugs and live a healthier life. We have invested $200 million over five years, with $40 million ongoing each year, to improve the delivery of culturally adapted substance use treatment and prevention services in first nations communities.
Our government has also provided one-time funding of $150 million to the provinces and territories through the emergency treatment fund in order to improve access to evidence-based treatment services. The provinces and territories are also contributing an amount matching the federal funding beyond the first $250,000.
The evidence clearly shows that harm reduction measures save lives. Since 2017, supervised consumption sites in Canada have received more than 3.3 million visits and reversed almost 35,000 overdoses without a single death at a site. These sites also provide access to supportive and trusted relationships for people who use drugs, including opportunities to access treatment.
These sites made more than 148,000 referrals to social services and health care services. Since January 1, 2016, our government has increased the number of approved supervised consumption sites from one to 38. We also increased access to naloxone, a life-saving medication, including in remote and isolated indigenous communities.
Improving the safe supply will also be critical to saving lives, and we are investing more than $63 million to extend access to a safe supply of pharmaceutical-grade alternatives.
Treating addiction as a public health issue means we are also committed to diverting people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and toward supportive and trusted relationships in health and social services.
In December 2021, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Among other measures, the bill would have the police and prosecutors consider alternative measures, including diverting individuals to treatment programs, giving a warning or taking no further action, instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple drug possession.
Our government also facilitated the passage of the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act in May 2017.
In August 2020, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada released guidelines for prosecutors indicating that alternatives to criminal prosecution should be considered for simple possession for personal use, unless there are serious aggravating factors.
We also recognize the different approaches that cities, provinces, territories and other organizations are taking to address the opioid crisis, including how they are approaching the potential decriminalization of personal possession in their communities. We continue to work with these partners, many who are pursuing comprehensive, regional decriminalization proposals for their jurisdictions.
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act generally prohibits such activities, including personal possession of controlled substances, unless those activities have been specifically authorized through regulations or an exemption under the act. Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gives the minister broad powers to exempt people for controlled substances from the application of any of the provisions of the act for medical or scientific purposes or if otherwise in the public interest. Currently, the federal government is reviewing requests for section 56 exemptions for the decriminalization of simple possession from the Province of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver and Toronto Public Health.
This private member's bill, Bill C-216, proposes to immediately decriminalize personal possession of controlled substances across Canada without addressing the complex issues of implementation. This does raise significant concerns. Decriminalization of the personal possession of illicit drugs at the national level requires a comprehensive and well-thought-out, multi-jurisdictional strategy around implementation. This includes ensuring adequate and appropriate health and social services resources; engagement, additional training and guidance of law enforcement; specific definitions of personal possession; public education and awareness strategies; as well as meaningful consultations with indigenous governments, partners and organizations.
Our government will ensure that these decisions are based on evidence and applied research. In getting this right, effective indicators, data and evaluation will be important to inform our approach going forward.
Other jurisdictions are evaluating evidence-based approaches, and we are working with our partners to find innovative solutions.
The mandate letter of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health calls on the minister to advance a comprehensive strategy to address prohibitive substance use in Canada, support efforts to improve public education to reduce stigma, support provinces and territories, work with indigenous communities to provide access to a full range of evidence-based treatment and harm reduction, and create standards for substance use treatment programs.
We know that more must be done, and we will continue to work with the provinces and territories, experts, stakeholders, people with real-life experiences and local communities to put an end to this strategy.
Our government will use all the tools at its disposal to put an end to this public health crisis.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you.
While I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been brought forward, and I congratulate my colleague Monsieur Fortin for addressing the issue that's pertinent to our discussion—that is the overincarceration issue—I want to highlight to the committee that our Conservative amendment number 11 also speaks to the spirit of this particular amendment.
The only concern that I have, and why I cannot support it, is that, in criminal law, and particularly in my previous career, I demanded clarity with respect to the law. I guess an argument could be made that much of the litigation that flows from criminal law is the result of confusing terminology and different interpretations.
Wherever possible, I look for clarity. I look for definitions of clauses. The reason I cannot support Monsieur Fortin in this particular amendment is that I don't know what he means by “exceptional circumstances”. I don't know if that is what was contemplated by Monsieur Fortin. I think the spirit behind it captures what we're trying to do, but Bill C-5 is premised, again—at least with some of the narrative of the government—on reducing litigation. In my view, this creates more confusion. That's why I cannot support it.
Thank you.
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you.
I want to make one quick point, because you mentioned, Mr. Chair, that should Green 17 pass, then BQ-1 would not be dealt with or CPC-7.
I want to quickly remind.... I even heard this idea today in question period. I believe it was the parliamentary secretary, who did a great job of standing up and responding, but the only problem is that I want to make sure we have the facts. Because we should all be well informed on this legislation, as well as on the amendments, I don't want any member of the justice committee to be under any illusion as to the origins of this particular provision.
Paragraph 244(2)(b) and its mandatory minimum penalty of four years, originally, for discharging a firearm with intent, was introduced into our Criminal Code in 1995 under a Liberal government. I don't know how many of you on the Liberal side know her, but Marlene Jennings, I believe, used to be the parliamentary secretary for justice. When I was on the justice committee she was on there as well, both in government and I believe in opposition. Marlene is from the Montreal area and a long-time Liberal, and I just want to quote her. She said:
It was a Liberal government that brought in mandatory minimum sentencing for firearm related crimes. There is a whole category of them where currently it is a minimum of one year.
I'm not going to list off all those offences because we've already dealt with a bunch of them in our clause-by-clause and eliminated the one-year minimum, but she went on to say:
There is [a] second category of designated offences where currently it is four years. In committee, and again at report stage in the House, the Liberal members attempted to increase the one year to two years and the four years to five years.
This was May 17—so just about this time—in 2007.
For those of you who know Marlene, number one, you know that she is certainly not a racist—because that term has been tossed around in the context of Bill C-5—and you also know that she knows what she's talking about. She was a long-time Liberal member of Parliament.
Before we vote on Green-17 and deal through that vote with possibly BQ-1 as well as CPC-7, and then go on to clause 10, I want it to be abundantly clear that the mandatory minimum we are dealing with in this section has its origins with a Liberal government.
With that, I've finished with my comments, Mr. Chair.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Just following up on Mr. Morrison's comments—and I think I reiterated this several times in my interventions on Tuesday—this particular point and this particular section of the code are probably the most topical right now in our country. They have been topical for the last 10 years. It's what strikes at the heart of community concerns and safety. I just worry about the message that this particular Parliament is sending to like-minded individuals who would be so cavalier with the lives of innocent victims as they carry out their vendettas in a gang-by-gang type of warfare. As I reiterated many times on Tuesday, they are very poor shooters. They shoot at random, quite often from moving vehicles, and innocent victims are impacted.
To my colleague Mr. Morrison's point, we need to send an appropriate deterrent message to the Department of Justice officials. I am sure if I were to pose the question directly to them, they would agree with me that the primary sentencing features and focus of this type of offence are denunciation, deterrence and removal from society. We already have a problem in terms of that messaging with mandatory minimum penalties already on the books. It's abundantly clear that these like-minded violent recidivist criminals have absolutely no regard for criminal law and the penalties that flow from it. Now, once it is heavily advertised that this is the new law, that Bill C-5 would actually make it easy for them to prey on each other and to impact communities, we are definitely going to see a spike in crime.
I certainly want to go on record, as a former Crown attorney who fought daily to ensure that my community was as safe as possible, who fought daily to hold these recidivist criminals to account for their behaviour, that I certainly do not want my DNA on any part of Bill C-5 that supports this amendment. I will be voting against it.
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.
As a reminder, for interpretation, for those of you who are on the monitors on Zoom, there's a globe icon at the bottom of your screen. You can switch to the language of your choice. Make sure that your headset is House of Commons compliant, with a microphone. That would be helpful.
We want to welcome our witnesses. Again we have Andrew Di Manno and Matthew Taylor from the criminal law policy section, who will assist us in any questions as we go through clause by clause.
(On clause 10)
I believe we were at Green Party amendment 17. I believe we had done with debate and were going to vote on that clause, so I will read it out.
Shall PV-17—
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Madam Speaker, the government can try to deny it all it wants, but organizations like MADD Canada and Women's Shelters know the truth. With Bill C-5, the court may order that the offender serve the sentence as house arrest for offences such as sexual assault and harassment. This means that many women would be stuck in their community with their offender.
The Prime Minister claims he is a feminist, but his legislation would cause harm to women. If he is really a feminist, why would he do that?
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister calls racist for opposing this dangerous law, he does not realize that, by the same token, he is accusing members of his own caucus of the same thing.
Bill C-5 is nothing more than a public relations exercise that seeks to reduce incarceration statistics by letting violent criminals go free when they should be behind bars.
Since the Prime Minister likes to brag about having Canadians' support, is he aware that Stéphane Wall from the Communauté des citoyens en action contre les criminels violents said, and I quote, “There is absolutely a dichotomy between Bill C‑5 and the social context of gun violence”?
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not standing with victims. Victims have spoken loud and clear. As a matter of fact, a poll published this week found that most Canadians feel that gun violence is getting worse in their communities. Rather than stopping illegal firearms from coming across the border, the Liberals' Bill C-5 will help repeat offenders charged with multiple violent gun crimes escape accountability.
We know the Prime Minister likes to govern by opinion polls, so will he finally do the right thing, reverse course and abandon the soft-on-crime Bill C-5?
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill C-5 goes soft on violent crimes that are ripped right from the headlines. Just yesterday, a news headline read, “Montreal man charged with firearm offences after investigation into drive-by shootings”. This was right in the Prime Minister's own neighbourhood, yet Bill C-5 lets drive-by shooters off easy.
Why is he putting his own neighbours' lives at risk with the soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5?