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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gélinas, you spoke earlier about the increase in the number of shootings in Montreal and Toronto, among others. I have also heard a number of testimonies that point in the same direction. You only have to listen to the news sporadically to realize that.

Bill C‑5, in its current version, proposes to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for several offences, including one involving firearms trafficking. Not all firearms trafficking offences are included, but some would no longer be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence.

Is this illogical and does it only encourage criminals, as you said earlier?

However, can this be acceptable in certain cases, in terms of firearms trafficking?

[Jacqueline Beckles, Secretary, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers]

Ultimately, the systemic racism we're seeing endemic in Canada has to do with both the level of interactions within the Black community, as well as once individuals are brought before the courts. What we propose with respect to Bill C-5, in particular, as my colleague Mr. Tachie has said, is the absolute repeal of mandatory minimums, because they don't serve the purpose for which they're intended.

Within the Black community, because our communities tend to be over-policed, because we have seen carding in some areas, because we have seen there is almost a circular logic that is applied to criminality within the Black community, our communities are policed and therefore, offences and offenders are located within the communities. They are disproportionately policed and therefore, we are seeing that a disproportionate number of Blacks and indigenous individuals are being brought before the courts.

We have seen that the discretion that is usually exercised by both police or prosecutors is not exercised in favour of the offenders. Where there is discretion to issue warnings, for example, or to divert cases, we are not seeing that being exercised in favour of first-time offenders within the Black community. They are then brought before the courts. When in court, the prosecutor is similarly not exercising the same discretion to divert cases to give individuals the opportunity to experience diversion, or to plead guilty to lesser included offences, for example. They are facing prosecution for the most serious crimes.

The circular logic I spoke of is as a result of this. Let's put a number to it. If you have 100 offenders, of those 100 offenders in the white community, there would be a diversion of 63%, let's say. These numbers are accurate, because our studies have shown that within the Black community, you don't divert as many as in other communities, and the numbers are quite significant. For the Black community, the diversion numbers are around one-third of individuals who are confronted by police, whereas in other communities, it's two-thirds of the individuals who will be diverted. Out of 100 offenders, you might see 60 offenders diverted in other communities. In the Black community, you'll see 30, which means you're bringing the other 70 offenders before the courts.

What that does for judges and other members within the criminal justice system is it brings the perception that Black people are committing more crimes. That is not, in fact, the case. It is simply that they are not being treated in the same way when they're intercepted or when they're interviewed.

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

How do you feel that Bill C-5 is going to have an effect on future crime reduction, or crime prevention even, for the illegal behaviour of gangs and organized crime?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. We especially appreciate the diverse knowledge that's here.

My question is for Mr. Gélinas.

Thank you for helping us focus. Sometimes we get the victims, and we also get the offenders. Sometimes the victims are not as vocal because they've been involved in some heinous crimes and they just don't feel comfortable talking about it. Thanks for bringing that up.

In law enforcement, I know that you're there, right front and centre, having to deal with the victims and dealing with the aftermath of serious and violent crime. It is interesting that you brought up the fact that in organized crime and gang activity, almost always, I believe—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—are illegal guns, yet here we are in the middle of not only this Bill C-5 that we are reviewing, but some other legislation that coming up for the seizure of what some people have called “weapons” or “guns that look like assault weapons”, and they don't specify or actually define that kind of gun.

I know that now in Vancouver, which is an area I'm more familiar with, ghost guns are quite popular. They're 3-D printed and used just one or two times. In your experience in dealing with organized crime and gang activity, do you deal with many people who have PALs or RPALs, who actually have legal guns, or are you almost exclusively dealing with illegal guns?

[Sandra Ka Hon Chu, Co-Executive Director, HIV Legal Network]

Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting us to speak about Bill C-5. I'm the co-executive director of the HIV Legal Network and I'm presenting today on behalf of my organization and the Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation.

Today I'm going to focus my remarks on the section of Bill C-5 that pertains to evidence-based diversion measures. Before I begin I'd like to endorse the recommendations made by the previous speakers calling for the restoration of conditional sentences and the repeal of all mandatory minimum sentences, or, in the alternative, an amendment to Bill C-5 that ensures that judges retain discretion to not apply mandatory minimum sentences if doing so would result in injustice.

I'll turn to the evidence-based diversion measures. Despite acknowledging in its declaration of principles the need to “protect the health, dignity and human rights” of people who use drugs, the stigma associated with the criminalization, and that “judicial resources are more appropriately used in relation to offences that pose a risk to public safety”, Bill C-5 stops short of repealing section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This failure to eliminate criminal sanctions for drug possession completely undermines the principles underpinning the bill.

From 2014 to 2020, police in Canada made more than 600,000 arrests for drug offences. Two-thirds of those were for simple drug possession, yet more than a century of drug prohibition in Canada has not had an impact on the levels of drug consumption. As the Canadian Mental Health Association has concluded, contrary to the logic of criminalization, incarceration does not result in a cessation of substance use nor does it prevent harm.

As we outline in more detail in our submission, drug prohibition fuels stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs. Criminal records limit employment and housing opportunities. They affect child custody and restrict travel. The frequent contact the police have with people who use drugs leads to syringe sharing, rushed injection and isolation while using drugs. It creates barriers to accessing health services and contributes to epidemics of preventable HIV and hepatitis C infection as well as overdoses, which have resulted in nearly 27,000 deaths in Canada between January 2016 and September 2021.

Considering the ample evidence demonstrating the harms associated with criminalizing simple drug possession, and consistent with Bill C-5's declaration of principles, Bill C-5 should include a full repeal of section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Short of such a repeal, we recommend some amendments to the bill, in particular, in proposed section 10.1 regarding the declaration of principles.

We recommend that this section explicitly centre human rights and not frame drug use as primarily a health issue. It should acknowledge that most cases of drug use do not pose problems for the individual and that pathologizing drug use actually contributes to stigma.

It should reference the harms of criminalizing necessity trafficking. It is common for people to sell drugs to others in their network as a means of livelihood to support their own use and to avoid withdrawal or to provide a safe supply.

Finally, it should acknowledge the disproportionate impact of criminal sanctions for drug possession on Black, indigenous and other racialized communities, given the racist roots of Canada's drug control framework and the fact that Black and indigenous communities in Canada continue to be disproportionately charged, prosecuted and incarcerated for drug offences.

In proposed section 10.2(1), which outlines options for a peace officer who encounters someone in simple possession of drugs, an officer is required to “consider whether whether it be preferable, having regard to the principles set out in [the bill], to take no further action, to warn the individual or, with the consent of the individual, to refer the individual to an agency or service provider in the community”.

Despite this requirement, the subsequent section indicates that subsequent charges are not invalidated if a peace officer fails to consider these options. We recommend deleting this paragraph altogether as, in practice, it will completely undermine the purpose of the bill.

In proposed section 10.3, a prosecutor could, instead of laying criminal charges, opt for “alternative measures as defined in section 716 of the Criminal Code”. In the context of drug offences, this typically includes drug treatment courts, but such courts have been critiqued for being coercive, ineffective and posing numerous human rights concerns. They should not be presented as an alternative to decriminalization.

In proposed section 10.4 regarding a record of warning or referral, the police force “may keep a record of any warnings or referrals relating to individuals alleged to have committed an offence under subsection 4(1)”, which is the section that criminalizes simple drug possession.

This provision is contrary to the spirit of Bill C-5 and the declaration of principles. Police record-keeping would negatively affect the privacy of people who use drugs, could be used as a tool of surveillance and could undermine the potential to improve the quality of drug users' encounters with police. It is imperative that police not engage in monitoring, surveillance and record-keeping under the guise of reform of public safety. Therefore, we suggest replacing “may” with “must not keep records”.

I want to conclude by urging this committee to reject incrementalism and take bolder steps with respect to Bill C-5 that will more meaningfully address systemic racism and the harms of drug prohibition, including a full repeal of section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Thank you.

[Raphael Tachie, President, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers]

Good afternoon, Chair and honourable members. Thank you for inviting the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers to share our views on the bill.

My name is Raphael Tachie. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. I'm here with my colleague Jacqueline Beckles, the secretary of the association. I want to highlight that a lot of the comments I'm about to give have been the result of the impressive work of Ms. Beckles and our criminal justice reform committee. More importantly, they are a reflection of our lived experiences as Black people in Canada. When I hear about removing minimum mandatory sentences, the request to remove those is made by people who are further from the crimes. I'd like to highlight that many victims of crimes tend to be people from the same communities that are faced with overrepresenation in the criminal justice system.

We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. Our comments around Bill C-5 are really structured around three issues.

Generally our comments focus on the request that when considering criminal justice reform, we encourage the government to look at the status prior to sentencing. At the sentencing stage, the competing priorities need to be balanced, including community safety. There are significant strides that can be made much earlier, such as in diversion, which lead to the ultimate over-incarceration of members of the Black community in the criminal justice system.

Our comments are focused in three areas: mandatory minimum sentences, conditional sentence orders and evidence-based diversion.

With respect to mandatory minimums, Bill C-5 proposes to repeal a number of mandatory minimum sentences, especially the four-year mandatory minimums. While those are really laudable goals and we are encouraged by them, the five-year minimum sentences will remain where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used or where the offence is committed in connection with a criminal organization. This includes cases in which an offender is the subject of party liability, whether or not the weapon was in that particular offender's possession. As a result of that, the only avenue available to an offender in order to avoid a minimum sentence is that a prosecutor will act with their prosecutorial discretion and agree to resolve the charges by accepting a plea of a lesser offence. What this really means is that a Black person who is accused has to plead guilty in order to avail themselves of the opportunity to avoid a minimum sentence.

In order to address this possibility and in order to uphold judiciary discretion, CABL recommends eliminating all mandatory minimums for drug and weapons offences.

I heard Chief Arcand and the other panellists earlier speak about how mandatory minimum sentences restrict judges from imposing appropriate sentences on individuals and can prevent judges from really taking relevant factors, like systemic anti-Black racism, into consideration. Judges have been elevated to perform an essential function within the criminal justice system and they should be afforded the full discretion to perform that function, especially as we work really hard to make sure that the judiciary reflects the community in which they serve.

Mandatory minimum sentences often hamper real justice from being done. When they're included in legislation, the justification is usually that they are a deterrent, but much research has shown that these sentences do not often achieve that result and do not impact crime rates.

The second issue I would like to talk about is conditional sentencing orders. They are essential tools for combatting recidivism as they can allow for offenders to maintain familial ties, employment and school commitments. Chief Arcand spoke about being holistic in our approach. We agree entirely with that, and with the focus on keeping these ties really as a focus to promote the social determinants of justice, making sure that offenders have the ability to recover from what might be a one-time mistake. Removing the limit formerly found at paragraph 742.1(c) and expanding the application of conditional sentence orders are very good steps in the right direction.

However, we are mindful that, given the historical application of CSOs, it is important to reinforce that a CSO can be imposed where the court is satisfied that service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Including and enforcing this language with respect to the bill will reduce the arbitrary limits on their use, such as requiring an offender to have an employment in order to be considered suitable for a CSO.

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

Again, thank you very much for your testimony.

I want to take the last minute I have here with Mr. Spratt.

Mr. Spratt, I think you told us at the beginning that Bill C-5 is not a real response to the opioid crisis and that you're looking to see the government do something more comprehensive when it comes to addressing that. Is that correct?

[Jennifer Dunn]

I think that Bill C-5 needs to be broken down a little bit more.

I do believe that changing the conditional sentencing does put women at greater risk. It puts them in harm's way. It puts them in the communities where the offenders are going to be. Just because somebody is convicted of a crime doesn't mean it's going to stop the violence from happening.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do want to thank all the witnesses for being with us this morning—my time.

The government says that one of the purposes of Bill C-5 is to address the problem of systemic racism in the justice system, so I want to extend particular thanks to Chief Arcand for being with us to stress the importance of indigenous voices and hearing indigenous voices in our considerations.

I want to thank you for bringing our attention to the facts about over-incarceration and the very shocking figures that you've cited from your community. Obviously it's an injustice, but could you tell us a bit more about the impacts of over-incarceration in terms of the connections to family, connections to community and connections to culture that result from this over-incarceration?

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

Mr. Spratt, at present, mothers are afraid to send their children to school because there are guns around. Bill C‑5 provides for the removal of mandatory minimum sentences even for armed robberies.

I understand what you are telling me. Between lawyers, we can discuss many things. However, you, I, and everyone else here works for the population. You are telling the public that it has been decided that a robbery committed with a firearm is now less serious than it used to be and that we are removing the minimum sentences for these kinds of crimes.

You can explain that there are problems with minimum sentences and that the sentence would be the same anyway, but the message may not be the one we want to send.

Don't you think the timing is wrong?

Some minimum sentences can be abolished now without a problem, but in the case of serious crimes, for example robbery with a firearm, don't you think we should keep mandatory minimum sentences?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you. I appreciate that statistic you mentioned. I referenced a report published by Statistics Canada, which said “women were violently victimized at a rate nearly double that of men in 2019”. The report goes on to say that the discrepancy between male and female victims was largely due to the fact that “women were five times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual assault”.

I know that you deal in your organization with the fallout of these statistics, and you are able to to put a name to the stat. Sometimes when we're in these committees, I think we hear stats, but we forget that there's a person behind them.

Could you tell us, in the consultations you've had with the people who you work with, how Bill C‑5 could, in fact, fail Canadian women? What should we do instead to make a community safer rather than eliminating the inability of offenders to get conditional sentences and now being able to serve their sentence from home for some of these various serious offences against women?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for taking part in the study of Bill C-5, formerly Bill C-22.

Many good points have been raised. I will encourage you, Mr. Spratt, since you mentioned Conservatives, to take the time to research the origins of most of the mandatory minimum penalties that are being repealed here. You'll find direct links back to previous Liberal governments, including the government of the current Prime Minister's father.

By no means are the mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code there just by virtue of Conservative governments, although having been part of the former Conservative government, I'm very proud of the measures we took when it came to conditional sentencing. One of the key responsibilities for us as parliamentarians is to put in place legislation that creates balance and has a justice system that's balanced and protects rights, not only of the accused but protects society, protects victims and respects victims and their families.

What we were finding with conditional sentences in the past was that too often, for something very serious in the community, the punishment being meted out to offenders was to serve their time in the community. There are times when that's appropriate, but there are times when that is certainly not appropriate.

My question is for you, Ms. Dunn. I appreciated your testimony. Section 718 of the Criminal Code cites that one of the main objectives of sentencing is to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

You mentioned victims in your testimony. Bill C-5 expands conditional sentencing, like house arrest, to individuals who are found to have benefited financially from human trafficking. We have spoken a lot about human trafficking. It's a scourge on our nation and internationally. We've heard very compelling testimony at this committee of the tragedy that is human trafficking. What message do you feel it sends to Canadians, particularly to the women and girls that you mentioned, that people benefiting from human trafficking would be allowed to serve their sentences home in their community?

[Chief Mark Arcand, Tribal Chief, Saskatoon Tribal Council]

Tansi. Nanaskomin, kâhkîyaw.

My name is Mark Arcand. I'm the tribal chief of the Saskatoon Tribal Council. I'm taking this call on Treaty 6 territory in the city of Saskatoon.

With regard to Bill C-5, I want to be very clear—mass incarceration of indigenous peoples, period. It's a strong statement, but it's an accurate statement. As of December 2021, 32% of people incarcerated in federal prisons were indigenous, a new historic high. Over the last decade, the number of federally sentenced indigenous women increased by 60%, rising from 168 in March 2009 to 270 in March 2018. Indigenous women account for nearly half of the women in federal prisons yet represent fewer than 4% of Canadian women. Those numbers are astonishing. They are repulsive and unacceptable.

Then we can look at youth incarceration. In the city of Saskatoon, 98% of the female youth in one youth facility are indigenous. That leads to the correctional system, the provincial correctional system and then the federal penitentiary.

When you talk about Bill C-5, I agree with your previous speakers who talked about the violence against women. That's never taken into consideration in the MMPs. When we look at all of these things, Bill C-5 fully repeals only 13 out of 73 MMPs. That's less than one in five MMPs. It fully or partially repeals only 20 out of 73 MMPs. That's less than one in three MMPs. It addresses only 10 out of 28 MMPs that courts have found unconstitutional. That's only about one in three MMPs found unconstitutional.

This is not in line with the call of the federal government to repeal all restrictions on the use of conditional sentences and MMPs in line with the TRC calls to action 30 and 32, calls for justice 5.14 and 5.21 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and countless other sentencing and law commission reports. In particular, paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code mandatorily requires judges to consider an individual's indigenous history and consider all reasonable alternatives to prison when determining a sentence, including options for treatment in the community. MMPs can prevent judges from carrying out this duty to acknowledge and redress racism and colonialism.

When we talk about all of these things, it's very important that we also look at the fact that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls stressed that mandatory minimum sentences are especially harsh for indigenous women and girls. The TRC said that the failure to provide sufficient and stable resources for the community and treatment programs that are necessary to implement Gladue and Ipeelee helps explain why those decisions have not slowed increasing aboriginal overrepresentation in prisons.

Bill C-5 is a baby step in the right direction, but it must be amended to be a good step forward. For any MMPs that are not repealed by Bill C-5, an amendment could be added to the bill to ensure that judges have the discretion to not apply MMPs if doing so would result in injustice. In appropriate exceptional cases, judges would have to be able to consider lesser sentences, including such alternatives to prison as community-based and culturally appropriate treatment options.

I apologize for not wearing a shirt and tie for the House of Commons, but I had to make a statement about residential schools, with the orange shirt that I'm wearing, and about all the harms that have been done to indigenous people. When we talk about MMPs, these are things that have to be really considered in regard to the sentencing of individuals for minor crimes to major crimes like murder. A lot of our indigenous women who were in self-defence mode will end up serving a life sentence because of the abuse they endured in their relationship. It's unacceptable. Judges have to have the ability to make those decisions by hearing the evidence, not by following MMPs all the time. Moving forward, it's not acceptable.

Even when we look at simple drug charges, we should be asking that our people be sent to treatment based on the residential school system and the intergenerational trauma that has led to all the negative impacts on people. I've talked about the young women, but in the city of Saskatoon, where I work, out of 450 men in one correctional system, 80% are indigenous. That's a high number.

They then graduate to the federal penitentiary, where we have a higher number. This is just in the province of Saskatchewan. Imagine those numbers across Canada. We have the lowest percentage.

Thank you very much.

Nanaskomowin.

[Jennifer Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting me here today. It is nice to see you all again.

My name is Jennifer Dunn. I am the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, or LAWC, here in London, Ontario.

LAWC is a feminist organization that supports and advocates for personal, social and systemic change directed at ending male violence against women and girls. Our centre is non-residential. We are an agency that provides women and girls over the age of 12 who have been abused, assaulted, exploited, trafficked or experienced non-state torture with immediate access to long-term woman-centred counselling, advocacy and support.

On April 8, the Honourable David Lametti said, “Community safety is what we want. These reforms will...make [it] happen.” We do partially agree with the honourable minister. Community safety is what we want. However, we do not believe Bill C-5 is what will make it happen, the way it is. There are two issues that I want to address today. One is conditional sentencing. The other is mandatory minimum penalties. I'll start with conditional sentencing.

With Bill C-5, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender's behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community. Some of the offences listed in Bill C-5 are sexual assault, criminal harassment, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, material benefit and abduction of a person under 14. Women and girls are five times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault, and sexual assault is a violent crime on the rise in Canada. With conditional sentencing, many women will be stuck in the community with the offender, which places them at even higher risk.

A conditional sentence does nothing to stop an offender from continuing to commit violence. Women need the courts to see this. A conditional sentence for these offences undermines the seriousness of these crimes.

I have a quote here from a woman I am proud to work with. Her name is Caroline. She is a peer support worker and a survivor. She said:

I know a case where two men got 4 years and for trafficking, that’s nothing when women face a lifetime sentence after being trafficked, many women will never get over it and at minimum those women face years and years of counselling and constantly watching their back.

We know from our work that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Victims and perpetrators live in the same communities. An offender being placed back into the community with a conditional sentence is not always the answer.

The second issue I want to address with you today is the repeal of mandatory minimum penalties for some offences in the Criminal Code. I urge the committee to think about the most marginalized individuals when considering if this is good enough. Repealing some mandatory minimum penalties over others does not help with public safety. Women are not protected by the law unless all mandatory minimum penalties are considered.

For example, a mandatory life sentence for women who end up convicted of murder in situations where they were reacting to male violence is inappropriate. Each year 40% to 50% of women sentenced to life in prison are indigenous, and 91% of them have histories of physical and sexual abuse.

Canada's longest mandatory minimum penalty, the mandatory life sentence for murder, has resulted in countless miscarriages of justice for women. It has been proven time and time again that there is not a full understanding of the impact of violence against women in the criminal justice system.

When listening to the previous sessions of the study, I also heard more than once that there are cost savings with Bill C-5. I would ask if cost savings should actually be a point of concern when we are discussing the lives of women. We need systemic change. We need to protect women. Women deserve to live free from violence. The courts need to see that women are easily placed at more risk.

On Wednesday in the Senate, while speaking about a different bill, Bill S-205, Senator Pate said the following:

...let’s ensure that we address the issues, attitudes and ideas that fuel misogynist violence in society and our criminal, legal and penal systems, while simultaneously implementing the sorts of robust social, health and economic support systems that can truly assist women to avoid and escape violence.

This could not be more true for Bill C-5 as well.

In conclusion, we know that Bill C-5 is an attempt to tackle systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system, but the committee must remember that many of the victims of these offences are also part of the most marginalized and vulnerable. The government has a responsibility to make decisions based on the best interests of all.

Thank you.

[Michael Spratt, Partner, AGP LLP Criminal Trial and Appeal Lawyers, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the invitation. It's a pleasure to be back before the committee.

My name is Michael Spratt. I'm a lawyer. I'm certified as a criminal law specialist by the Law Society of Ontario, and I'm a partner at the criminal law firm of AGP LLP here in Ottawa. I've served on the board of the Criminal Lawyers' Association. I've acted as vice-president of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa, and I've been practising in the trenches of our courts for about 15 years now.

I'd like to touch briefly on the three main features of the bill. I'll start with minimum sentences. In criminal justice policy, the embrace of mandatory minimum penalties is a sentencing tool that is the hobgoblin of small minds. The evidence is clear. MMPs are an ineffective and dangerous tool. They don't deter crime. They don't increase public safety. They disproportionately impact indigenous and other racialized Canadians, and they're incredibly expensive.

In 2005, the Department of Justice found evidence that minimum sentences are not effective at deterring crime. In 2007, the parliamentary information and research service cited numerous studies that came to the same conclusion. In 2017, a federal government report concluded:

Research in Canada and the United States has found no evidence that MMPs have deterred crime; rather, some studies suggest that MMPs can result in overly harsh penalties and disparities, that they increase costs to the criminal justice system as a result of higher levels of incarceration, and that lengthier sentencing may actually increase recidivism.

Expensive, racist, ineffective, unfair and cruel: that's why time and time again, minimum sentences have been declared unconstitutional by our courts.

It is a very positive step that Bill C-5 removes this corrosive sentencing policy from the Criminal Code, but of course, Bill C-5 does not remove all minimum sentences. We need to eliminate every single minimum sentence in the Criminal Code. I'll answer the question in advance: yes, including for murder, which is a particular concern for women who have killed their abusers.

Here's your history lesson. The only reason the minimum sentence for murder was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Luxton was that there was a possibility of review through the faint hope clause, which of course has now been repealed.

At the very least, this bill should be amended to allow an escape valve for the rest of the MMPs that aren't explicitly eliminated, and there should be a requirement that all reasonable sentencing alternatives be explored and considered before mandatory minimum penalties are imposed.

I'll move on to conditional sentences. This is one of the best parts of the bill. The amendment to the conditional sentence regime here is desperately needed. The amendment is going to bring consistency in the application of the criminal law across Canada. Different provinces now have different conditional sentence rules because of different court findings. On the ground, we see that conditional sentences bring efficiency and fairness to the justice system.

Some people—and I'll be blunt because I normally am, members of the Conservative Party—have said that conditional sentences are too lax. Now, just because a conditional sentence is available doesn't mean it is going to be imposed. Conditional sentences can be imposed only for sentences that fall under two years and only when there's no danger to the safety of the community. Conditional sentences provide significant restrictions, denunciation and deterrence.

If you thought that mask mandates were an oppressive restriction that deserved and called out for massive protests, wait until you hear about conditional sentences, because they can be more restrictive and more punitive, but they can also be rehabilitative. Unlike traditional jail, conditional sentences come with strings attached, such as house arrest. Offenders can be required to take counselling, seek employment, perform community service and make reparations to the victims of their offences. This is one of the best parts of the bill.

Very briefly, in the time that I have left, I'm going to deal with the drug amendments. Canada is in the grip of a deadly overdose epidemic. In 2020, more people died in British Columbia of drug overdoses than car crashes, homicides and suicides all combined. Since 2016, more than 20,000 Canadians have died of opioid overdoses. Incrementalism is not enough here. People do not lead incremental lives, and they're not dying incremental deaths. The harms of continued criminalization are real.

This legislation as it pertains to this drug issue is window dressing. It's the same type of window dressing we saw in 2018, with legislation that sought to divert administration of justice defences through police diversion. That power has been used four times by the police in Ottawa.

The real solution here is not to give more power to the police but to take it back. We need decriminalization and safe supply legislation.