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.

[Elspeth Kaiser-Derrick]

I think it's a very complex context, of course. The part of my statement that I really rushed in the beginning was that number 32 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action directs the federal government to amend the code to allow judges to depart from both mandatory minimums and restrictions on CSOs when reasons are provided.

I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, because the bill is framed as trying to ameliorate the indigenous overrepresentation in the system, my concern is that if Bill C-5 is not expanded to include that call to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to allow judges to depart from mandatory minimums and restrictions on CSOs, the proposed amendments won't have the capacity to meaningfully address the scope of indigenous overrepresentation in the system because of some of the things that I mentioned about interrelationships between child welfare systems and—

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

Thank you for that. I wanted to give you a bit of time to carry on where you were unable to finish off.

When we look at Bill C-5, what we see is a rollback of a number of mandatory minimum jail sentences for some pretty serious offences. There's robbery with a firearm, for example, and weapons trafficking, extortion with a firearm and so on. Of all of the mandatory jail terms, it seems to be a strange way of addressing some of the issues that you have noted exist among indigenous Canadians, who are overrepresented both in the system and as victims. It's saying that the solution to that is to remove mandatory jail times for some very serious offences.

[John Maki, Director, Task Force on Long Sentences, Council on Criminal Justice]

Thank you very much. I want to thank you all for inviting me to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to present testimony on Bill C-5.

As you noted, I am the director of a task force on long sentences at the Council on Criminal Justice. The task force is a new initiative dedicated to assessing the impact of long sentences in the United States and making recommendations that advance safety and justice.

The Council on Criminal Justice is an independent non-partisan think tank. We're dedicated to advancing the understanding of criminal justice policy choices and building consensus that will enhance safety and justice. To be clear, the council itself does not take policy positions; instead it forms working groups, task forces and commissions to study and make recommendations.

As a task force, it's just begun its work. We have not yet come to the recommendation phase, so while I am unable to speak in support of Bill C-5, I can talk to you about the research findings around mandatory minimums. To be clear, most of these research findings come from the United States, but I'm not aware of anything outside the United States that would be inconsistent with them.

Let me summarize these research findings in very general terms, and then I'll unpack three aspects that I think are relevant to Bill C-5.

Mandatory minimums are often extremely popular, particularly in the United States, but there is almost no evidence that they deter criminal behaviour. There's also substantial evidence that they cause significant dysfunction in the courts and produce unwarranted disparities.

Let me talk quickly about three findings to consider.

First, “mandatory minimums” is really a misnomer. Mandatory minimums are not truly minimum. Michael Tonry, the international authority on sentencing, makes this argument. What he's getting at is that research findings are very clear that mandatory minimums lead justice system actors, from police to prosecutors and judges, to take actions to evade decisions that they believe would be unfair or unjust.

It's also clear that these kinds of decisions have disparate impacts on particular groups, including racial and ethnic minorities. This really points to one of the structural problems of mandatory minimums: They're based on the assumption that through mandate, you can make discretion go away. This is the assumption, but what research shows is that mandatory minimums actually take away discretion, which is transparent and reviewable, from judges. They invest it into actors and moments that usually lack transparency and are often unreviewable and therefore unaccountable.

This leads to all kinds of system dysfunction. Associated with this, we see an increase in dismissals at the early stages of trials but an increase in sentences for defendants who are convicted. Associated with this outcome, research shows that mandatory minimums increase courtroom work, lengths of trials and also court appeals.

A very common finding in this research is that mandatory minimums produce disparities. Research has consistently shown that mandatory minimums generate unwarranted disparities by region, by courtroom, and as the U.S. Sentencing Commission found, also by race.

Finally, research is pretty clear that mandatory minimums do not produce a meaningful crime reduction benefit. I want to be clear that no one really disputes the fact that criminal penalties in themselves certainly produce some deterrent effect, but research suggests that the certainty of apprehension is what's really important. Increasing severity is not how you get deterrence, and as minimums try to use severity to get to apprehension, they probably undermine one of the core drivers of crime reduction.

While there is some evidence, mainly from economists, that maybe there's a very marginal impact, the overwhelming body of empirical evidence suggests there's no meaningful public safety benefit that comes from mandatory minimums.

That's my brief overview of the findings.

Let me just conclude that I am very honoured to be before you and happy to answer any questions you have.

[Elspeth Kaiser-Derrick, PhD Candidate, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

First, thank you so much for inviting me to appear before this committee. I feel very honoured and grateful to be here with you.

At the second reading stage, Bill C-5 is framed in relation to the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the system, alongside Black people and those from other marginalized communities. I will focus specifically on this issue of indigenous overrepresentation.

For some context, my research draws upon feminist theories to explore how the criminal justice system interprets and characterizes information about women processed through it, and particularly indigenous women.

In my book, I reviewed 175 decisions sentencing indigenous women, spanning from 1999 to 2015, beginning when the Supreme Court of Canada issued R. v. Gladue, which interpreted Criminal Code section 718.2(e) and set out a different methodology for the sentencing of indigenous peoples.

That court affirmed and clarified this in R. v. Ipeelee in 2012. In Gladue, the Supreme Court finds that indigenous peoples are overrepresented throughout the system, cites systemic discrimination and declares that this is a crisis. The court determined section 718.2(e) represents a direction by Parliament to the judiciary to strive to remedy this situation. The court outlines that judges are required on a mandatory basis by section 718.2(e) to consider all options other than imprisonment.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the TRC, in its call to action number 30, directs all levels of government to commit to eliminating the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in custody within what remains now as the next three years. In its call for justice 5.21, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls upon the federal government to fully implement this and other recommendations by the TRC and other bodies pertaining to the overrepresentation of indigenous women in the system.

In both Gladue and Ipeelee, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledges the limits of the sentencing process to remedy the injustice of indigenous overrepresentation in the system. Each decision finds a measure of optimism.

In Gladue, that optimism rests in that judges determine most directly whether an indigenous person goes to prison. In Ipeelee, there is some residual optimism in its clarification of how judges should apply section 718.2(e). However, Gladue was decided over 20 years ago, and Ipeelee was decided a decade ago. In the most recent annual report, from 2020-2021, the Office of the Correctional Investigator indicates that the population of indigenous women who are federally sentenced has increased by 73.8% over 30 years, representing 43% of all federally sentenced women. I also note that because CSOs, conditional sentence orders, are only available for provincial sentences of under two years, that particular element of Bill C-5 will not apply to indigenous overrepresentation at the federal level.

In my book, I explore the sentencing of indigenous women through the lens of a feminist theory called the victimization-criminalization continuum. This theory provides a way to understand women’s trajectories into the criminal justice system as connected to their experiences of victimization and constrained options arising from that context. I use this framework broadly, including to encompass colonial harms within the concept of victimization.

Among many other cases, my research includes cases in which indigenous women’s criminalization or incarceration led to the apprehension of their children by the child welfare system, and also the inverse situation, in which indigenous women did not contact police or medical authorities when necessary because they feared that their children would be apprehended, and then became criminalized as a result. I believe that these and related junctures where colonial systems and institutions intersect contribute to the entrenchment of indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.

I also note that approximately 80% of the women in my research are mothers, and indigenous children and youth remain highly overrepresented in child welfare systems. I offer these examples of some indigenous women’s criminalization because any legislative amendments to mandatory minimums and CSOs that are positioned to respond to systemic overrepresentation must provide judges with flexibility to account for these and other colonial complexities.

Over 30 years ago, the aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba examined indigenous over-incarceration in that province, recommending that trial judges must be more creative and flexible in sentencing and that appellate courts must encourage this. The Supreme Court of Canada in Ipeelee also points to the need for innovative sentencing. However, greater judicial discretion is necessary to fulfill this need, to craft just sentences generally, and specifically per section 718.2(e). In my research, some judges explicitly stated that they could not order the community sentences that would otherwise be fit due to legislative restrictions, and other judges made comments signalling a need and desire for more creative sentencing reasoning and practices for the indigenous women before them.

In my work, I argued for an expansion of the availability of CSOs and suggested a legislative way forward through this through judicial discretion, such as to decline to impose mandatory minimum sentences when appropriate. Indeed, the TRC's call to action number 32 directs this.

I have a bit left, but I've run out of time.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start by asking the same question that my colleague Rob Moore asked Ms. Samson.

Ms. Samson, the question again, to refresh your memory, was this: Can you share with the committee what message Bill C-5 sends to communities who are grieving due to gun violence?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you. That is powerful testimony indeed.

As you know as a former mayor, it's not only the individual who is sometimes victimized, but communities are also put at risk. What do you think is the message to our communities, both urban and rural, if we pass Bill C-5 when so many of these communities are struggling with gun violence?

[Raymond Cotonnec, Executive Director, C.R.C. Curé-Labelle Inc.]

Good afternoon.

My name is Raymond Cotonnec. I have a bachelor's degree in social sciences with a concentration in criminology and a bachelor's degree in social sciences with a concentration in sociology from the University of Ottawa, and I am the Executive Director of C.R.C. Curé-Labelle Inc., a federal and provincial halfway house located in Saint-Jérôme, in the Laurentians, that has been in existence since April 1993.

The changes proposed in Bill C‑5 will give judges more discretion for imposing penalties or sentences on individuals convicted of certain firearms, weapons or substances offences by removing mandatory minimums for incarceration in those situations. Some individuals did not have criminal intent at the time of the offence or were not aware of the severity of their actions in relation to the potential legal consequences and impact on society.

The Criminal Code must not further restrict judges’ sovereignty in sentencing. The federal government must trust that judges possess the requisite judgment and experience when determining the appropriate sentence. The justice system can no longer afford to convict people who do not deserve the harsh sentences imposed by mandatory minimums, especially when there is no real or direct victim. In these cases, there is no need for minimum sentences. We must consider the harm done to victims and the community.

The consequences of a criminal record are significant for offenders, and, in some cases, they become cruel and disproportionate to the real consequences to the potential victims of that same offence. Some individuals who have committed a crime pay for their actions for the rest of their lives, even if there was no actual victim. Having a criminal record can prevent them from getting a good job, a promotion, a loan and reasonably priced insurance, or being able to travel—in short, from becoming a citizen again. Where an offender re-offends, the sentences imposed by judges can be harsher, obviously.

On the question of diversion when an individual is arrested for simple possession of drugs, it would be appropriate to modify the current procedure so the offender is referred to a therapeutic resource, such as addiction treatment, rather than receiving a punitive sentence like prison. Otherwise, recidivism is almost inevitable.

Thank you for your attention.

[David Henry, Executive Director, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having me here today.

I am a criminologist and the Executive Director of the ASRSQ, the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec, an umbrella group of over 70 community organizations that offer rehabilitation services to more than 35,000 people with criminal records a year, throughout Quebec.

I believe that the main problem with Bill C‑5 is that it is aimed only at certain mandatory minimum sentences and not all of them that need to be abolished. It leaves in place the harshest mandatory minimum sentences, including the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, which is contrary to a sentencing policy based in part on the principle of rehabilitation.

For most of Canada's history, there were ten mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. As we speak, there are now 73. Only 20 mandatory minimum sentences are identified by Bill C‑5 for repeal, in whole or in part. I would also note that 28 mandatory minimum sentences have been found to be unconstitutional by at least one court over the years. I think it is absolutely necessary for judges to impose fair sentences based on the sentencing principles set out in the Criminal Code.

Abolishing mandatory minimum sentences doesn't mean making sentences lighter. It simply means giving judges back the discretion to impose an appropriate sentence based on the circumstances of the offence and the person who committed it. Mandatory minimum sentences are unfairly harsh, particularly for marginalized individuals, women, and indigenous people.

Personally, I find it hard to explain why elected members don't trust judges to impose an appropriate sentence. To my knowledge, there are no studies that would connect mandatory minimum sentences and crime rates. So mandatory minimum sentences don't protect our communities. A number of criminological studies have even shown the reverse: that when a sentence or parole conditions are too harsh, they may have a tendency, in some cases, to cause the recidivism rate to rise.

To summarize, I would say that the Association supports Bill C‑5, but it should be amended so that judges have discretion not to apply the mandatory minimum sentences that are not repealed in the bill, if they might cause an injustice.

Thank you for your attention.

I am available to answer your questions.

[Anie Samson, Municipal Affairs Strategic Advisor and Political Analyst, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me today to testify before this committee.

I am addressing you as a former municipal councillor for almost 25 years. I represented the most multicultural neighbourhood in Montreal, where there is a relatively high crime rate. It is the birthplace of street gangs and one of the 10 poorest neighbourhoods in Canada. So you will understand that I know a bit about the problem of street gangs, and it is from that perspective that I want to talk to you about firearms.

I was also co-chair of the executive committee of the City of Montreal and responsible for public safety, and it is mainly in that capacity that I want to speak today.

Why do these changes need to be made to mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs?

We are told: "These reforms would target MMPs that are associated with the overincarceration of Indigenous peoples as well as Black and marginalized Canadians."

I would first like to address this subject from a perspective that we don't talk about much: the perspective of victims. Big cities like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg have experienced a significant increase in crimes committed with a firearm in the last two years. In Winnipeg, there were 850 in the last year, making Winnipeg the city with the worst crime rate in 2021.

Young adolescents have lost their lives simply because young people had access to illegal firearms. Those weapons have destroyed families, friendships and lives. It is too easy today to obtain illegal weapons to commit crimes. The problem isn't limited to legally registered handguns. It involves firearms bought on the black market, including on the street. Knowing the source of the problem and where it gets into the country, it would be appropriate to legislate to improve controls at the borders and around indigenous reserves, because we know that's the source of the problem. We believe this is part of the solution.

What will be the consequences for offenders of reducing MMPs?

Street gangs, like criminals, are well aware of how to get around the current law. The older ones use the younger ones, often barely 12 or 13 years old, and pay them to do the dirty work. That may be shooting at houses, to send a message, or at young people, as a warning, something that happens regularly, or selling drugs. They know very well that they will get a light sentence if they're caught.

What does Bill C‑5 do to protect our young people and deter them from taking this path?

It does absolutely nothing to deter them, in fact. Abolishing certain MMPs simply exacerbates impunity for these kinds of acts.

How do we tackle the rate of overincarceration?

In the summary of the amendments made by Bill C‑5, it uses statistics to show that the population that is overrepresented in prisons, indigenous communities and black and marginalized Canadians, should be treated differently. But the fact is that a criminal who uses an illegal firearm, regardless of their origin, is still a criminal. It would be incomprehensible to let criminals use firearms to kill, rob or threaten people without worrying about having to face the same consequences as other criminals for the same crime.

Is that the solution proposed in Bill C‑5 for reducing the prison population composed of those communities in order to balance the statistics?

Did you know that the victims of street gangs are also overrepresented and often, in a majority, come from the same communities?

I think the solution lies in working upstream. Is it reasonable that in 2022, our 12- and 13-year-olds have to pay for protection from older children in their school so they don't get beat up during the day?

Today, again, a young person was stabbed by a young criminal at lunchtime in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood.

Prevention programs have to be put in place targeting the problems that exist in the poorest neighbourhoods. By knowing the problem, we are able to put programs in place. I can tell you more during the question period, if you like.

This bill will decide what type of society we want to leave our children. Prevention and enforcement are solutions, and I am concerned about the consequences that these changes might make for reducing crime. There is concern about the fate of our criminals in prison, when at the same time there are hundreds of families mourning the loss of a loved one. Should the law not stand up for the interests of the public rather than the rights of criminals?

No one is born a criminal; they become one. Violence knows no colour, nor does death.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 14 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 by using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. Before I do, I just want to say that I use some really simple cue cards so that I won't have to rudely interrupt you. When you have 30 seconds left, either in your opening statement or in the questions, I'll raise this yellow card, and when you're out of time I'll raise the red card. Please be mindful of that and adjust your time accordingly.

Today, in our first round of witnesses, we have, as an individual, Dr. Julie Desrosiers, full professor of law at Université Laval; Anie Samson, a municipal affairs strategic adviser for the CBC; David Henry, executive director of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec; and Raymond Contonnec, executive director of C.R.C. Curé-Labelle Inc.

I will begin with Dr. Julie Desrosiers, as an individual. Please go ahead for five minutes.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here this evening as we enter week two of the four weeks in this part of our sittings. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to the government's proposal to extend the proceedings in the House of Commons for the remainder of the session.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

This Parliament was elected to get things done. As we have seen over the previous months, our government has an ambitious legislative agenda and we have a lot to accomplish in the weeks ahead.

In the last election, the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge elected me for the third time because I ran on a platform that promised to grow the economy, fight climate change, make housing more affordable and protect our country's most vulnerable. Now that we are here today, Canadians expect their parliamentarians to deliver on those promises. This means the House of Commons needs to find a way to continue its important work and drive legislation in a timely and judicious manner. That is what the proposal we are discussing today sets out to do.

Over the last few months, we have seen an ambitious legislative agenda put forward by our government, but we have also seen a concerted effort by the Conservatives to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have shown a pattern of obstruction of legislation, including on Bill C-8. They have debated it for 10 days in the House of Commons and continue to block it, denying Canadians the support they need as our economy continues to recover as we exit the COVID pandemic and as we continue to fight to create good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast, which we are doing. We need to get Bill C-8 across the finish line and get it done.

Bill C-8 implements critical components of the fall economic and fiscal update tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on December 14, 2021. The bill includes critical supports for workers and businesses needed to help tackle COVID-19, and support for territorial and provincial health care systems on vaccines, ventilation in schools and rapid tests. It also implements several tax measures, including tax credits for businesses purchasing ventilation supplies and for teachers who purchase school supplies to assist with virtual learning.

Since the start of the pandemic, our government has put in place unprecedented measures to support people and businesses across the country, to support our friends, our neighbours and our family members. Since day one, our government has had the backs of Canadians.

In Bill C-8, our government has outlined our plan to procure millions of rapid tests free to provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Bill C-8 includes support for workers and businesses, with changes to CEBA and El. We have proposed to create a host of tax credits, which would benefit Canadians, including a ventilation improvement tax credit for small businesses, tax deductions for residents of northern Canada, supporting our rural communities from coast to coast to coast, and support for farmers by returning fuel charges in involuntary backstop jurisdictions. Bill C-8 also proposes to implement a national tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underutilized.

Here is the thing: Our plan is working. We have now surpassed our target of creating a million jobs. By delivering significant fiscal support to the economy and avoiding the harmful Conservative austerity policies that followed 2008, our Liberal government has supported a rapid and resilient recovery. We know that there are challenges ahead and the future remains uncertain, but we also know that we need to reinforce the importance of passing this legislation so that we can focus our attention on the future.

As we finish the fight against COVID-19, we will turn our resolve toward fighting climate change, addressing housing affordability, advancing reconciliation with indigenous people and building an economy that is stronger, fairer, more competitive and more prosperous for all Canadians. If the Conservatives are opposed to those measures to support Canadians, that is their prerogative; that is their choice. However, one party should not get to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons.

That is not the only bill that I would like to see moved forward before the end of the session. We know that the budget implementation act will be debated soon. On April 7, 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced “Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. It is a plan that invests in Canadians and a plan that will help build a Canada where no one is left behind. The BIA will put those priorities into action.

Budget 2022 invests in three main things: people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone. Through targeted and responsible investments, our government will help make life more affordable, create jobs and prosperity today, and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians tomorrow.

We know from the budget that we are making it easier for Canadians to buy a home. We are moving forward on dental care. We are investing to help businesses scale up and grow. In the budget, we are making wealthy corporations pay their fair share. We are investing in a clean future and helping Canada become a world leader in producing electric vehicles. I know that everyone in the House and all Canadians are very happy to see the $3.6-billion investment that was made by Stellantis, in partnership and collaboration with the federal government and the provincial government. It means, here in Ontario, thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of jobs indirectly. It is a great day for the auto sector, a great day for this province and a great day for hard-working middle-class Canadians.

We have all seen the recent statistics. Canada has the strongest jobs recovery in the G7, having recouped 112%, and I think up to 150%, of jobs lost since the peak of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is down to just 5.5%, close to the 5.4% low in 2019, the lowest rate on record for five decades. Also, throughout the pandemic, we maintained a strong fiscal anchor and fiscal footprint, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio relative to our G7 peers.

Now, as we emerge from the pandemic, our government is focused on the priorities that Canadians expect us to deliver on: making life more affordable, creating jobs, growing the economy and ensuring a clean future for everyone. We need a healthy environment.

We will also need to move forward with Bill C-11, on online streaming. For decades, our system has guaranteed the creation of Canadian movies, TV shows and music that make us proud to be Canadian. Today, streaming platforms benefit from access to the Canadian market but have zero responsibility toward Canadian artists and creators. With our online streaming bill, we are asking online streamers to showcase and contribute to the creation of Canadian culture. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. We have been clear since the beginning: Those who benefit from the system should contribute to it. That is exactly what we need to see, so we need Bill C-11 to move forward.

To come back to our discussion about the motion for a moment, the motion would allow for extended time to debate bills, which is a good thing. We have heard from members of the opposition that they want more time to debate significant legislation. This motion allows for that to happen in the evenings when the government and one other party, which represent a majority in the House, request it. We believe that it is important for MPs to have the opportunity to debate legislation, and the motion facilitates this.

Let us think of the other pieces of legislation that could benefit from the additional time for debate.

I think of, for example, Bill C-18. We all know that a free and independent press is essential to Canadian democracy, and the work of our journalists has value. That is why we introduced Bill C-18, the online news act. It would require the tech giants to fairly compensate publishers and journalists for the content shared on their platforms. We are creating a framework to ensure that Canadian publishers, big and small, can negotiate fair deals on more equal terms with the tech giants, the most powerful companies in the world. The Europeans are doing it. We are going to do it as well. We will always support quality, fact-based and local Canadian journalism in a fair digital marketplace. I think all members of the House would agree with that, and that is why we should see this bill passed.

We also have Bill C-5, which deals with mandatory minimum sentences. A justice system that jails too many indigenous people, Black people and marginalized Canadians is not effective. That does not keep us safe and it must be changed.

With Bill C-5, we are turning the page on the failed policies of the Harper Conservatives. We are removing mandatory minimum penalties that target lower-risk and first-time offenders that have been shown to increase the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups. We will also provide police and prosecutors with the tools and guidance they need to treat addiction and simple drug possession as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. My brother is a first responder in the police force so I know he appreciates this.

Bill C-5 represents an important step forward. These changes will ensure that our criminal justice system is fair and effective and will keep Canadians from all communities safe.

To finish, these extended sittings will allow us to debate these bills and will provide more time for MPs to share their thoughts with constituents back home, be their strong local voice here in Ottawa and represent their constituents' views.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ka Hon Chu, I would like to ask you two brief questions.

During your testimony, I saw you reading notes. There were references to certain provisions of the Criminal Code or to other legislation. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of your notes or the brief you used to testify?

I'll ask you my second question right away.

You've talked a lot about decriminalization, whereas Bill C‑5 is more about a diversionary process. In other words, drug offences are still criminal offences, but they can be treated alongside the judicial system as a health issue.

Can you tell me if you support diversion, or would you like to see decriminalization altogether?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Well, unfortunately, we're not done, because we never agreed we would only hear six days of witness testimony. There had been some proposal, I think by Mr. Fortin, that we have eight days of committee testimony on Bill C-5. I certainly supported that and spoke to that last time.

We did not come to a conclusion on how many meetings we would have. I would propose that we have eight, but this is something I would hope we would set aside time for as committee business, and we are at the end of our meeting.

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

Thank you for that.

You're quite right that Parliament, not judges, makes laws. You cited victims at the end of your last comments. At the end of your testimony you noted that nowhere in Bill C-5 is the word “victim” mentioned. Nowhere in the Bill C-5 backgrounder on the Department of Justice website is the word “victim” mentioned. Indeed, it's [Technical difficulty—Editor] that we ever hear members on that side utter the word “victim”. In the six and a half years that I've been a member of Parliament I've talked to many victims. Almost all of them have been very disappointed with the approach that this government has taken in terms of their disregard for the rights of victims.

Do you have any comments on that? Would you wish to expand upon the comment you made at the close of your opening statement?

[André Gélinas]

As you mentioned earlier, you only have to listen to the news to see that the number of shootings is increasing in Montreal and Toronto. The danger is increasing. More and more innocent people are being shot and killed.

Some very serious offences are indeed covered by the provision repealing mandatory minimum sentences, such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and discharging a firearm with intent. As for the rest, one thing must be understood: it is a whole. Someone who recklessly discharges a firearm may not have been aiming at a person. However, this brings me to the notion of public safety and the feeling of public safety.

People who live in neighbourhoods where gangs and organized groups are very active feel totally abandoned by Bill C‑5. They feel that, even if you didn't intend to hit someone with your gun, the result is the same. Fear sets in. Afterwards, people want to leave their neighbourhoods at all costs. In some neighbourhoods there is an exodus. Unfortunately, people who cannot afford to move become captives and cannot escape the hold that these criminals have on these neighbourhoods.

I repeat that the use of a firearm is not a selfless act. When a criminal is in possession of an illegal weapon, it is not just for fun. There is an intention behind it. The person intends to use it and is very likely to do so.