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.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is currently in power.

There were three shootings in Laval last week. A man was killed in broad daylight in Montreal. Laval police say that today's criminals are impulsive and disorderly.

What is the Liberal government doing? It is proposing to eliminate minimum mandatory sentences for firearms possession offences with Bill C-5. Essentially, the Liberal approach consists of letting armed criminals continue to walk the streets.

Can someone explain to the Prime Minister that his approach is irresponsible and that it will only make things more dangerous than they were before?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's approach to justice reform has been an abject failure. It prioritized the wants of offenders over the needs of victims. There has been a consistent increase in the amount and severity of crime since the government took office, especially in Liberal ridings.

Bill C-5 continues to gut our justice system by removing minimum penalties for criminals who commit serious gun crimes. When will the Prime Minister finally admit his plan is not working, change course and stand up for victims instead of criminals?

Bill C-5

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night, Toronto Maple Leafs star Mitch Marner became the latest victim of violent crime in the GTA. According to reports, Marner was the victim of a carjacking near Queensway and Islington in Etobicoke. At almost the exact location, just two days ago, a woman was a victim of an attempted carjacking, so we know this is not an isolated incident.

Instead of preventing these violent attacks and cracking down on thugs and gangs, the Liberals' soft-on-crime Bill C-5 rewards violent perpetrators and reduces the penalties for these very types of crimes. It is time for the Liberal members in the GTA to speak out against the dangers of their kid glove approach. We should remember that the bill they support eliminates mandatory jail time for major violent and firearms offences. They should be behind bars.

Maybe Mitch Marner will get their attention and convince them to stand up for victims instead of criminals.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Great. Thank you for that.

The third component of Bill C-5 is the expansion of conditional sentencing for very serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson for a fraudulent purpose. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that, as a police chief.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses.

I'm going to address my questions to Mr. Brochet.

Bill C-5, in addition to eliminating mandatory jail time for very serious firearms offences, also eliminates mandatory jail time for serious drug offences, including trafficking and the production of schedule I and schedule II drugs, like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. As a chief of police, does this concern you?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Just so you know, some of Bill C-5, which we're discussing right now, is looking at conditional sentences for many more offences: drug trafficking, assaults with weapons, and things like that.

I realize that Cranbrook needs some assistance, especially with rehab and the addiction issue.

Do you think the victims have been left behind, and that it's all about the offenders?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses on a Friday afternoon. I appreciate their input, especially on such an important bill, Bill C-5.

Ms. Durham, thank you for being here today. I know it's hard for an individual to come before a parliamentary committee and make a speech. I really appreciate your being here today.

What's important, I think, for us in the committee, is understanding the differences between rural and urban. When people haven't been exposed to some of the rural challenges, it's nice to hear from those who come from a smaller community, such as Cranbrook. I'm well aware of the issues Cranbrook is having: challenges with assaults, vandalism, break and enters, and arson. It almost seems as though it's a bit of a revolving door, with the local police having their hands tied in terms of being able to do any kind of incarceration. The same individuals are continually committing the same offences.

Two and a half years ago, Cranbrook was a community where people moved to raise their children, because it was safe, fun and, of course, in the middle of the Rocky Mountains, so it's a pretty beautiful place. Today, it's changed dramatically. The crime increase has been huge. The opioid crisis, like everywhere—a lot of places in Canada—is spinning out of control. Of course, the opioid overdoses are frequent, if not every day.

I do know, too—you might not be aware—that the city mayor and council brought in British Columbia's attorney general to address the fact that small communities are not designed to handle some of the issues that come along with the opioid crisis and violence, with their smaller police forces. I'm sure our Quebec police officer can attest to this. They just can't handle the challenges in smaller communities. The attorney general, of course, said it was a federal problem with Bill C-75, which is catch-and-release, and threw it back to the federal side.

You're not only an individual victim but also a business owner. Talking to a couple of businesses.... One problem is, when they get repetitive break and enters, the amount of damage done is so much that, now, where they used to donate $50,000, $60,000 or $80,000 to non-profit organizations, all that money is going into repairs and in trying to build back their losses.

I wonder if you could comment on that for a second.

[Catherine Latimer]

Thank you very much.

I was talking about the benefits of conditional sentencing and how the two-year limit that is proposed in Bill C-5 seems unduly restrictive.

The other thing I would suggest is that, if we're going to determine whether or not conditional sentences are having the effect of reducing racial inequalities in the system, it's also important that we collect and keep data on the use of these conditional sentences.

Mandatory minimum penalties are of grave concern to the John Howard Society of Canada. We're long-standing advocates opposed to mandatory minimum penalties, which we consider to be always unjust when the proportionate and fit sentence in the circumstances is less than the prescribed minimum penalty.

Certainly there is nothing in a reduction or an elimination of mandatory minimums that would preclude the courts from awarding the penalty that is appropriate and fit in the circumstances if it's more than the mandatory minimum, so eliminating mandatory minimums doesn't affect serious offences.

If there is a reluctance to remove all mandatory minimums immediately—and I take Mr. Brochet's point that his organization is comfortable with having what Jonathan Rudin described as a safety valve—we have long urged that there be some discretion added to give judges the opportunity to impose other than a prescribed mandatory minimum penalty if it's needed to achieve a fit and proportionate sentence. We would agree with l'Association des directeurs de police du Québec and others who you've heard who would urge that there be judicial discretion to allow for something other than the proposed mandatory minimum penalty.

We think that, without a measure of judicial discretion to impose a fit sentence where a mandatory minimum is prescribed, the Gladue provisions and some of the other mechanisms that are intended to allow for a cultural context to have an impact on the sentence will have little effect.

Minister Lametti indicates that he hopes these provisions will address and reduce systemic bias in the system. We hope he's right. We think that it is one small step toward looking at a very significant problem, and we think a lot more needs to be done.

In conclusion, the John Howard Society of Canada supports the general direction of Bill C-5 but urges the committee to amend the bill to provide judicial discretion to impose other than the mandatory penalty to achieve a fit and proportionate sentence, require the collection of data to assess whether the provisions are having the desired affect of reducing racial inequities, and consider a broader application of the diversion and conditional sentencing provisions.

Thank you very much, Chair.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you very much, Chair and committee members. It's a great pleasure to be here before you to share The John Howard Society's views on Bill C-5.

For those of you who don't know about The John Howard Society, we are a not-for-profit that is committed to just, effective and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. We have about 60 offices across the country serving communities.

We fully support the policy objectives underpinning Bill C-5, but we feel that they have not gone far enough. I just want to take you through some of the ones that we specifically would like to raise.

One is the cautions, warnings and referrals to programs. It is often the case that it is more timely and more effective to deal with alleged criminal offences through cautions, warnings and referrals to community programs. It's not unusual for people to call the police when they see someone struggling with a mental health issue or an addiction issue in the hopes that by calling the police, they will enable the person to get the help they need.

In effect, that leads to the criminalization of the person and further involvement in the criminal justice system. It allows for the long-term discrimination of having a criminal record. These proposed amendments will allow for individuals with substance abuse issues to be referred to community programs where real assistance might be available.

These measures entrust the police with important discretion. As the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act show, they will lead to fewer people coming into the criminal justice system for less serious charges. To ensure that they are achieving the policy objectives of reducing racial inequalities in the use of such discretion, we think it would be important to track which races and genders are benefiting from this important discretion.

The next one that we like is conditional sentencing. We agree with Jonathan Rudin from the previous panel that this is essentially beginning to restore in some small measure what was there before and which had been proven to work very well. Conditional sentences are custodial sentences that are being served in the community. Unlike breaches of non-custodial sentences, a breach of these conditions leads to imprisonment. A warrant of committal to custody is underpinning the sentence, so if someone breaches the condition they can immediately be placed in custody. We feel that this is an excellent way to hold people accountable through the imposition of conditions that constrain liberties while promoting law-abiding circumstances such as the retention of employment, housing and community-based supports.

The two-year sentence limit for conditional sentences proposed by Bill C-5 seems unduly restrictive. Many people are supervised in the community successfully for more than two years while on parole. It seems to me that this certainly could be extended.

The restriction will also mean that the reform will have no impact on the federal prison population. To determine whether this most welcome reform has the impact of reducing racial inequalities, data would need to be collected on which rates—

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to sound like a broken record, but this is on the same subject. This section of Bill C-13 reminds me of the government's Bill C-5, where it used a declaration of principles rather than doing the heavy lifting of amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This talks about setting objectives, targets and indicators. There is no catch-up target and no clearly stated objective. Francophone communities outside of Quebec have been let down for a couple of decades.

Would my hon. colleague not agree with me that having some specificity in this bill would give those communities some certainty and hold the minister to account, rather than giving a wide swath of interpretation as the bill is currently written?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm glad that Mr. Chambers is here to keep some of us in line. They're giving themselves until June 10.

Why? It's because as independent and regionally or conservatively minded senators, they have decided among themselves that the best way for them to balance between presenting legislation promised by an elected government to properly scrutinizing bills.... I'd be really interested to see how many ministers and how many hours ministers are required for in the other place versus the simple one hour that we got here.

By the way, I do think we can improve that process. If a minister is going to come for one hour, we should only be giving them a five-minute introduction, because that really did cut down the amount of time the rest of us had to really do what our focus is, which is holding the government to account.

I know you'll take that, Mr. Chair, and you and the clerk will try to work on that, or at least I'm hoping.

I'm looking to see, Mr. Chair, that you're listening. Okay, there's a dutiful nod. Anyway, I'll take what I can get. Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me that nod so I know that I'm not just speaking into the ether.

I've talked a little bit so far about previous experiences, whether it be the miscellaneous tax amendment bill of close to 700 or maybe 800 pages that in the 41st Parliament the NDP wanted to look through, even though most of those laws had already been through the ways and means motion process or acted like it was....

I've talked a little bit about Bill C-12 and how that really strained what was really a well-functioning committee, and the absolute gong show that happened. Again, if you listened to Michael Geist interview the former heritage chair, Liberal member Scott Simms, you'd know that the process did not do anyone right.

I would like us to avoid those issues, Mr. Chair. I would like us to actually see better communication and for the government to start saying, maybe we have to make the committee process work for everyone and not just simply for a few members here and there. They should actually say, perhaps...and if they don't want to agree with me, then they can maybe agree with Mr. Chambers. I can understand not wanting to say that they agree with the member of Parliament for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola because that might be publicly frowned upon, but at least I would hope they would say that they would agree with MP Chambers.

Again, I have talked about how this process could be improved. I've been speaking with some of my Conservative colleagues. We're not at a stage where we can talk about that because right now we're discussing a subamendment to MP Ste-Marie's amendment, but I just have to say again that the process the government is pursuing here is not the right way to do it.

I would hope that the government is getting the drift of where Conservatives are coming from. I think that a reasonable timeline would allow us to get back on track. Unfortunately, the unreasonable timeline that we have, the programming in the original motion and the subamendment that we have here have created a sense of bad faith among members of the committee.

What we've seen with the passage of just the short time between our Monday meeting and today is that this schedule, again, which looked ambitious then, right now is just looking like Bill C-10 or Bill C-12 from the last Parliament waiting to happen.

We pitched over 46 witnesses, from right across this great country, and we want to hear from them. That's where I think the government members need to just simply back off of the process we have ahead, table the motion, get committee witnesses in and let's go through them all. They can always come back with a motion.

We actually have some ideas about a much more reasonable timeline, but unfortunately at this stage of debate we can't do that.

Let's be mindful that we didn't really have to put out a call for witnesses. They were coming to us. I'm sure that MP Ste-Marie's phone is going off the hook with people wanting to speak with him and wanting to come here. In fact, I saw that the clerk had sent out, to all committee members, other witnesses who have suggested that they want to appear before the committee outside of the usual process of speaking to individual members. Why? It is because they want to be heard by this government.

I'm not going to claim that all of our witnesses are the right ones. There might be others who other members might have heard from who right now we can't hear from because this government has chosen to start with a programming motion rather than letting a process evolve.

There is always a time, Mr. Chair, when either the compromises that MP Dzerowicz spoke of need to come together or there needs to be a democratic vote, but we are not at that time right now.

I would also say that one thing that is missing from Mr. Beech's subamendment is any reference to our being able to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer in addition to hearing from the Minister of Industry or having the Minister of Finance come back. I know the PBO pays particularly close attention to the tax-related measures and financial figures put out by the government. I think that would be a much better improvement to the subamendment that MP Beech has put out here.

Again, I should disassociate that. It's not fair to MP Beech to always make this program motion his, because really at the end of the day he's a parliamentary secretary, and this was written by someone else. At least I hope he would clarify if I'm mistaken on that point, Mr. Chair.

I say that because the Minister of Finance is a busy minister. In fact I think she's too busy.

I'm just going to talk quickly about this, because I think that is the direct reason she's not here in the subamendment by MP Beech. I think she'd be cross with him if she were in here, but I think it's worth pointing out that the job of being finance minister is busy enough as it is. A deputy prime minister, Mr. Chair, I can only imagine is so much more, and again it's not up to the Deputy Prime Minister in her function as that, or as the Minister of Finance, to decide what her job is. That is the Prime Minister's job.

The Prime Minister by putting those two roles together, despite the talents of any individual, Mr. Chair.... I think this is a point that needs to made: She doesn't have the time. She doesn't have the time to stay more than an hour at this committee. She doesn't have the time to answer conclusively questions by members. In fact, again, the process of giving her 10 minutes.... Look, I'd love to give every minister 20 minutes if we had three hours. To me that would be fair, but, again, for a minister to have only 50 minutes spread among all these members here, I just don't think that is a very good process.

I do think that the Prime Minister should be looking into that, because if the Prime Minister wants to have a finance minister who is on top of her file, who is able to come and spend the time with the finance committee to defend her bill, to be able to spend the time, it obviously is not here.

From what I've heard from member of Parliament Mr. Ste-Marie, the luxury tax is not properly designed. We have heard that there wasn't even an economic impact study. There were no jobs and whatnot, and that may reflect that the Department of Finance is not getting enough attention. I do know from speaking to people who worked with former finance minister Jim Flaherty, who is no longer with us, that when you had someone who was completely concentrating on that file, they would ask every question of every proposal that came forward.

Then they would have to bear the scrutiny of members of Parliament whether in the minority years or later in the Harper majority from 2011 to 2015. Not having a finance minister who is also the deputy prime minister would probably also improve this process. Again, this particular motion doesn't include having her come back. I would simply suggest that is something we should all consider. I'm not satisfied with the amount of time that's there.

I saw that president for the wine growers was here on Monday. I'm sure he wanted to give an earful because, when I asked the Minister of Finance about some of the provisions in regard to this government's treatment of their industry, I was deeply disappointed that they were just surface answers when there are so many issues going on here.

To members of the government, if this is a serious discussion we're having and you're truly saying that politics should be about compromise, I do hope that right now you're taking the time to text, to message or to email one another. Again, you don't have to say that you agree with Dan Albas, but you could certainly say that you agree with MP Chambers that we could make a much better process.

I know they've already done that for MP Ste-Marie because he put forward the amendment that they said they, in essence, support.

Time is incredibly important in this place. We have until June 23 where we could actually be discussing legislation. The government has a lot of time, especially now with motion 11 that was passed with the NDP, which gives them the opportunity to extend midnight sittings. Those sittings certainly can have more debate. I'm really upset that I wasn't able to speak to C-19 in the House. I think there are a lot of provisions in here that Canadians largely need to know about.

That's not your fault, Mr. Chair, because a lot of people, believe it or not, don't actually watch the committee work. In fact, I get more responses from people on speeches in the House of Commons because they watch CPAC. They see the chamber functioning, but they don't always get a chance to see us here at committee.

This is really the only place I'm going to get a chance to talk about C-19. I can't talk about C-19 until we have a process that will work for this committee. I will not allow this committee.... At least, I will do my utmost to make sure that this committee fully understands that if we go along with this programming motion—even if it's slightly improved by MP Ste-Marie—to where suddenly we have “recommendations in relation to the provisions considered by them, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday May 20, 2022”, those other committees won't have a chance. That is literally eight days from now and we're still talking about this because that's an unreasonable time frame.

The parliamentary secretary, even though he didn't write this motion that someone in the minister's office.... Maybe it was the minister, but probably it wasn't. Why? You're right, Mr. Chair. She's too busy with too many things. For us to be considering these, I have to say that I don't believe the government has given this committee adequate time. It's certainly not giving other committees adequate time when it comes to consideration of C-19.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair?

If a standing committee listed in (a) chooses not to consider the subject matter of the provisions, it advise the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance by letter, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 13, 2022.

May 13 seems to me a bit of a problem. Why? May 13 is tomorrow. If a committee chooses to say that it's too busy, it's supposed to let you know in formal writing that it is not possible. They won't even have the opportunity to do that, so either we're forcing them to do that or we're forcing them to not respond.

To me, Mr. Chair, as I said, it's time, time, time. This government is too short with the time of others, and rather than letting the parliamentary calendar settle this, and to have all reasonable parties come together by the 23rd, they are pushing not just this committee into a terrible process but other committees into a worse one.

On my point on that, Mr. Chair, if they can't write to you under this motion by tomorrow, what then? Are they obliged to now study it? Are we going to have, because of the M-11 motion, extended sittings where some committees are being cancelled? How are they supposed to get the resources? Is the government going to give us more translators, along with Mr. Beech's motion, or I should say the Minister of Finance's office's motion...?

These are things that they are not commenting on. Again, if they don't reply to you in writing by tomorrow, then they're obliged. When do they call their meetings? Are they supposed to attach committee business? I guess there are just so many unanswered questions here that, obviously, it comes back to my original premise that this is not really a good-faith process. Do you know what? We can simply sit back and be told by a government, by its parliamentary secretary on committee, what we're going to do and what other committees are going to do. It's just not healthy.

It's not what the Liberals promised in 2015. They promised many things. Omnibus legislation, that was out. It didn't happen. Parliamentary secretaries would be non-voting members. That's out. They've always said that the committees are independent. That's out.

I say there needs to be a few things in. One of them is that you have to get Conservatives in a process that we feel is fair. It doesn't mean that we agree with everything in that process, but that we believe the process is fair.

The second thing is that we want to see those witnesses. We want to have them here. We want to ask them questions. We want to see the PBO. We want to see the Minister of Industry. We want to see the Minister of Finance come back and actually show some ministerial accountability for what was, I think.... This is how bad inflation is now. I thought at the start of this it was a 423-page bill. Actually, it's 468. That's the inflation under this government.

I kid, but I would much rather that we be studying that bill and having the Minister of Finance come for a second hour, or having her come here and talk for three hours as was set out by the previous motion on the inflation study. I even think that my colleague, MP Stewart, put forward a very good motion on studying advance pricing arrangements. The decisions made by CRA that have been in the news of late.... We haven't even been able to get to that, because this government is again putting forward a programming motion that has been amended by a Bloc member, or at least may be amended by a Bloc member. That is now being further amended, because the government ultimately wants to control the process. The process itself is not connected to a proper process, the proper scrutiny of it.

I have sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—one of the best committees we have, very important. I would hate to put that committee in a position where they do not have proper process. Because for goodness' sake, if we can't have that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that they can look over some of the issues that are in this bill....

The judges' quadrennial pay review is in this bill. There are Criminal Code amendments, ones even relating to the moon and extending Canada's Criminal Code jurisdiction outside of its waters. In fact, I hear there is water on the moon, so maybe we can argue that there is Canadian water on the moon somehow. I don't know how that will work. I don't think we can apply maritime law to that.

Pardon me, Mr. Chair. I have to read that into the record, because one of our members said specifically that he should be asking former astronaut Marc Garneau, our former transport minister. Do you know what? I wish this government consulted a bit more widely with members of Parliament, even its former ministers. Bring him as a witness, someone says.

That's the thing. There could be other witnesses who have similar experiences. We can ask MPs to come. We can't summon them. It would be quite a meeting to hear about that at the justice and human rights committee.

Again, whether they can schedule all of the hearings to talk about many of these matters.... They can't. I don't think it's feasible. I don't think it's reasonable. I don't think it's possible at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, because what are they studying? They're studying Bill C-5, which is making major changes to our Criminal Code.

The government is essentially saying, yes, we will send these things, but they won't be able to do clause-by-clause and we won't give them any time, and then somehow.... I don't understand how the government thought it would be. Again, I don't blame MP Beech, because I don't think he wrote this, unless he wants to make that point clearer, but May 13 is not doable.

That is a big issue. Other committees will have other things that they are studying. Given that M-11 and the late-night sittings won't allow for many of these committees to happen, they can't possibly meet, or if they do, they can't do clause-by-clause. I guess they could do what the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands has to do and come here as an independent member and table those amendments that way, but they are going to have get started very quickly. Right now, many of them, like the justice committee, are studying Bill C-5.

I don't understand why the government is so firm on these timelines. Why not let us start having witnesses? Do you know what? We have lots of time between June 23 and today. With the right spirit, the spirit that this member here—MP Chambers, an eternal optimist—has had, maybe we can reward some of those people who believe that reasonable minds can set aside some divisions and that we can start moving forward.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair? After this particular subamendment is debated by other members, perhaps we can have a vote and it will get defeated. We will then have another motion come forward that is more in line with what MP Chambers was discussing in his intervention. I hope so, because the world needs optimism. We have so many things that are not going well.

I know that the government wants what it wants, but it should also want to have members of Parliament feel that they are doing their jobs. The government should try to empower MPs, because that is what many members of Parliament came here to do. They came here to get a sense that they could ask questions, they could move amendments and they could have a process where they feel that they are part of something. I'm sorry to say that the programming motion and the subsequent subamendment by MP Beech, which may not be from MP Beech himself, doesn't allow for that. It doesn't make us feel like we are in and part of that process.

Again, there are so many things we could be doing here. I would like for us to again be bringing in the CRA commissioner. I would like for us to be talking about competition when it comes to open banking. I would like for us to be talking about.... MP Dzerowicz has talked a bit about the effects that getting rid of trade barriers would have, but, no, we're stuck here because MP Beech and the person who wrote this felt this was the best thing to come forward right now.

To try to somehow jerry-rig a committee, as dignified as the finance committee, is not in the best interests of this committee, and I will not be going forward with my support.

I've mentioned a few things that might have my support. I really do hope that other members have listened to my intervention and that perhaps they are moved. Perhaps they are moved and will move at the appropriate time an amendment. Maybe we could just say, “No, cancel it. This is over. We're not doing this motion.” Maybe MP Beech, himself, realizes now that having a program motion that literally says, “No later than 4 p.m. on Friday, May 13”...I don't even know.

Mr. Chair, can I ask you, through the clerk, how fast could you get a letter out if you needed to? Do you have these letters already prepared? Do you have the letters ready?

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

Bill C-5 as drafted doesn't require keeping any records on the exercise of that discretion. I wonder whether you would be concerned about that, in the sense of how we would know who is benefiting from the discretion if the police aren't required to keep those records.

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

In other words, abolishing all minimum sentences, as proposed in Bill C-5, could send the wrong message to victims. We have to be careful about that.

Witnesses we have heard from here have given us examples of cases where, in a perfect world, the individual should not have been imprisoned and should have rather received a conditional sentence. So exceptional circumstances could lead to departures from the rule.

Otherwise, generally speaking, abolishing mandatory minimum sentences would send the wrong message right now. That is my understanding.

Do you agree?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Yuen.

You said that judges could improve the administration of the justice system by abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences, as provided for in Bill C-5.

Do you think judges could impose more appropriate sentences based on the sociocultural context?

[Justin W. Yuen, Criminal Defence Lawyer, Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers]

Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you to the standing committee for the invitation to present today. I'm a member of the advocacy and policy committee of the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers and I'm also a criminal defence lawyer.

Largely speaking, FACL is supportive of Bill C-5 and the removal of mandatory minimum sentences.

Repealing mandatory minimums will not make our communities more dangerous. It does not mean that the courts will be light on violence and dangerous offenders. Removing mandatory minimums will allow justice system participants to achieve reasonable and fair dispositions in an efficient manner. Regardless of whether mandatory minimums exist, sentencing precedents provide a tariff in which courts are guided towards sentences that previous offenders received under similar circumstances.

A criminal charge captures a snippet of an individual's life. The trial itself then scrutinizes and dissects that moment. The crime is often a culmination of inescapable social circumstances and desperation. When it comes to sentencing, we must recognize that the offenders are more than their criminal charge. Along with addressing the harms done to the community, sentencing principles must focus on the individual's circumstances, how and why they turned to a life of crime, what steps they have taken since being arrested, whether they can rehabilitate and whether they can become productive and pro-social members of the community.

I want to focus my time on how the removal of mandatory minimums can streamline matters through the system and how judges will be allowed to ensure proportionality between the sentence and the harm done.

I was counsel on a matter where my 18-year-old client was charged with robbery with a restricted firearm. He was arrested with the gun less than five minutes after he committed the robbery. My client was young. He did not have a criminal record. During his time released on bail, he had taken meaningful steps to find employment and became involved with his local community. He never breached his bail.

Knowing that his charge had a five-year mandatory minimum, there was no real benefit in entering an early plea. The matter eventually made its way into the superior court and a four-week judge and jury trial was scheduled. It became apparent that my client had great rehabilitative prospects, and that a sentence shorter than five years would be appropriate. Eventually my client pled guilty to a lesser, related firearm charge so as to avoid the five-year mandatory minimum.

That disposition required substantial creativity from me, the Crown and the judge to find a way around the mandatory minimum, and doing so required additional resources to fight the charges, which drained valuable public resources. Without mandatory minimums, certain matters can be resolved in a timely manner. That prevents the court having to block off lengthy trials and prelims. Ultimately, it can alleviate the pressures that the courts are facing, especially during the current COVID-19 backlog.

I'll turn to my second point regarding immigration. Serious criminality can result in mandatory deportation. A sentence over six months is considered serious criminality. For the benefit of the court's information, oftentimes an accused person will actually end up spending a longer period of time in custody than is actually ever formally recorded. For example, if all parties agree that a nine-month sentence is appropriate and the individual has already spent four months in custody, often the judges will be explicitly asked not to note down the pre-sentence custody and simply sentence the individual to a further five months, and in doing so keeping the formal sentence noted on the information under six months. Mandatory minimums prevent any such discussions.

Courts are asked to consider immigration consequences when determining a fit sentence. Asians will often fall under a wide range of status in Canada, from being a visitor to holding either a work or student visa to being a permanent resident. Being charged with a criminal offence can greatly affect their immigration status. Mandatory minimums increase resistance in both the criminal courts and the immigration system. Clients have to fight both.

An informed member of the community would want judges to be able to have fair and open-minded discussions to consider the greater impact on the individual, their immigration status in Canada, and how deportation can then affect the lived realities of any of the dependents who they possibly care for.

Bill C-5 is not about being soft on crime. Those deserving of a long jail sentence will continue to get serious custodial time.

In addition to addressing the over-incarceration of people of colour and aboriginal offenders, Bill C-5 is about giving judges the discretion to ensure that justice is served in a proportionate manner.

Thank you, everybody, for your time.