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.

Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I would like to thank the Chair for giving me time to talk about Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Canadians want a criminal justice system that makes them safer and reacts quickly and effectively to crime. They expect the criminal justice system to produce equitable outcomes for all.

Unfortunately, we know this is not the case for all Canadians. There are many reasons for this, including the way our criminal laws are drafted and how they are applied.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has demonstrated the courage to acknowledge that our criminal justice system and our laws do not always produce the most appropriate outcomes for everyone, and that has taken decisive action to correct this. In so doing, we are providing our courts and decision-makers within the criminal justice system with the flexibility they need to make better decisions for everyone.

Bill C-5 proposes needed law reform in three areas. First, it would give sentencing courts greater discretion to impose fit sentences by repealing mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for some offences in the Criminal Code and all offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Second, it would provide sentencing courts with greater discretion to impose fit sentences by repealing unnecessary restrictions on the granting of conditional sentences of imprisonment. Third, it would require police and prosecutors to consider diverting simple possession cases away from the criminal justice system and to a health treatment program.

Traditional criminal justice system approaches to offences in simple drug possession cases are not working. This new approach would produce better outcomes for the accused and for society more generally.

At the heart of this bill is a recognition that those responsible for administering our criminal justice system need to have discretion in responding to crime. This is completely appropriate because the ability of our criminal justice system to produce appropriate outcomes is based on the proper exercise of discretion.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said on many occasions that the proper exercise of discretion is essential to the effective operation of our criminal justice system. I am in perfect agreement.

Bill C-5 would repeal all mandatory minimum penalties for six offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and for 14 offences in the Criminal Code. In so doing, it would restore judicial discretion to sentencing courts.

Some people may say that this means that the sentences for these offences will now be shorter and that, by doing away with these rigid sentencing rules, we are sending the message that these offences are not serious.

I would respond by saying that judges would impose appropriate penalties based on facts before them. A fit sentence is just that: one that is appropriate in all circumstances. If a particular trial judge's decision is inappropriate, our system enables this to be corrected through an appeal.

I also have complete confidence that the courts will continue to view these offences with the seriousness that is warranted. Repealing MMPs for certain offences involving firearms does not mean these offences are not serious or that courts will not recognize their level of severity. On the contrary, courts across Canada consistently comment on the fact that firearms-related crimes are particularly serious and should be addressed in correspondingly serious ways. That will not cease to be the case because of this bill, and offenders who deserve to go to jail will still go to jail.

What will be different, however, is the following. There would be fewer charter challenges, prosecutions would be faster and sentencing decisions would be better tailored to the circumstances of individual offenders. When courts are sentencing indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities, they will have the ability to meaningfully consider the circumstances of the offender before them to make a sentencing decision that properly takes circumstances into account. I urge all members to support these changes.

In our platform, our government committed to continuing to combat gender-based violence and fight gun smuggling with measures that we have previously introduced, such as lifetime background checks to prevent those with a history of abuse against their spouses or partners from obtaining firearms licences; red-flag laws that would allow immediate removal of firearms if people are threats to themselves or others, particularly to their spouses or partners; increased maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment; and enhancing the capacity of the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to combat the illegal importation of firearms.

Bill C-5 also proposes to restore judicial discretion for sentencing courts through amendments to the conditional sentence regime. Conditional sentences were created in 1996 to provide an innovative way for courts to sentence offenders by allowing them to serve their sentences in the community under strict punitive conditions, but also rehabilitative ones. These changes recognized that imprisonment at correctional facilities is not always necessary. These changes also responded to the fact that indigenous people were disproportionately being sent to prison and that this had to change.

The conditional sentencing regime has always disallowed the use of conditions sentences for offences punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty. Sentencing courts also have always had to be satisfied that serving a sentence in the community would not pose a public safety risk, and a sentence had to be less than two years. However, over time, additional restrictions placed on this tool have diminished its effectiveness and made it unavailable in a wider range of cases. This has taken away judicial discretion by removing an important tool for addressing over-incarceration.

With the changes proposed by Bill C-5, the government is correcting course from the previous Conservative government's limiting of CSOs so that courts can better respond to the specific facts before them. They will still only be available in cases where public safety would not be impacted. These are welcomed evidence-based changes that are broadly supported and that will make an important difference in our criminal justice system.

Lastly, I would like to briefly address the changes relating to simple drug possession.

The opioid crisis affecting many Canadian communities has focused the spotlight on the harms of drug addiction. It has forced communities to find innovative solutions, but it has also helped demonstrate that a response to addiction based on health measures and social action is far more effective than other means, namely criminal justice measures that stigmatize users and create barriers to their rehabilitation.

The government has long recognized the importance of making greater linkages between the justice system and other social systems, including health care. The proposed measures in this bill would do just that. This bill would encourage police and prosecutors to move away from charging and prosecuting for simple drug possession in appropriate cases and, instead, direct people into other appropriate systems that are better able to respond to the root causes that contribute to their interaction with the justice system in the first place.

If we think about it, instead of being charged and prosecuted, which can result in job loss, separation from family and community and increase the possibility of reoffending, the system would facilitate the supports needed, keep the offenders working and keep them in their communities. This is smart criminal justice policy that has been proven to work, and I strongly support these changes.

The reforms contained in the bill are long overdue and have garnered wide support. I know that many people would have preferred that the bill go even further, but I also know that the Minister of Justice said that this is only one major step in a broader effort to make our criminal justice system more equitable for all. It is essential that we take this step now.

I am asking all members to support this important legislative measure.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Based on what I hear from my colleagues, rural areas in Alberta and Saskatchewan are experiencing serious problems with people breaking into isolated homes while the owners are present. These people show up drunk, high and armed. These offences happen often and are a huge problem. This type of breaking and entering in rural areas is a problem that we are trying to stop.

However, by introducing a bill to reduce penalties, the government is sending the message that criminals can continue to commit crimes because even if they are caught, nothing will happen. That is the problem with Bill C‑5.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, it brings me no great joy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑5.

The first thing I want to point out is that this bill is an exact copy of Bill C‑22, which was introduced and debated in the previous Parliament. Then there was an election, so now we have to start over. On second thought, maybe starting over is not such a bad thing, because if Bill C‑22 had been adopted in its entirety a few months ago, the mandatory minimum sentences for a number of important offences would have been reduced. At least now we have a chance to change things.

The main reasons that led me to become a Conservative MP have to do with public order, national defence, public safety and sound economic management. More than anything else, it was the Conservative approach to public order that really prompted me to become a Conservative MP. I was elected for the first time in 2015, but, unfortunately for my party, the Liberals won that time around and have been in power ever since.

Since 2015, we have witnessed drastic and tragic changes to how public safety issues are addressed. Victim protection has changed, and criminals have been given more rights. That really worries me.

Personally, I blame the Liberals, of course, but also the New Democrats, who, unfortunately, systematically support the Liberal approach. The Bloc Québécois tends to do that as well. As a Quebecker, I often have a hard time understanding how my Bloc colleagues can be so far to the left on these issues, but that is another debate. As I see it, the approach in Bill C‑5 is totally ideological and utterly incomprehensible.

Here are some examples of crimes for which Bill C-5 will reduce minimum sentences: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited firearm; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; possession for the purposes of weapons trafficking; and discharging a firearm.

If Canadians and Quebeckers were listening carefully to that list of the various crimes involving firearms, most people would say that that does not make sense and that reducing the penalties for such offences is out of the question. If people had a clear understanding of what is being debated today, if people were polled, the vast majority would say that this makes no sense and that there is no reason to reduce the sentences of criminals who commit these kinds of offences. That is what the average person on the street would say.

Of course, each member has a duty to represent their constituents, about 100,000 people on average. The Liberals are going to say that this is what people want, and the NDP will support them. Unfortunately, we Conservatives are in a minority. However, I can guarantee that if we asked Canadians about this, the majority, over 50% of them, would surely say they are against this type of measure.

We also must remember that the Liberals have had a change of heart. The offences I just listed were included in the Criminal Code in 1976 under the Liberal government at the time, which was led by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the current Prime Minister's father. Back then, the left and right saw crime very differently, and we can all agree that these were important measures that did the trick.

Today, over 40 years later, we are trying to understand why Pierre Elliott Trudeau's son has a totally different perspective on this issue and is taking his government in a direction that puts public safety in jeopardy.

What is more, Bill C‑5 deals on one hand with firearms and on the other hand with drugs. Let us be clear: We are talking about sentences for traffickers, not addicts or drug users. This is not at all about managing people who use drugs for various reasons and all the risks that entails. This is truly about traffickers, those who sell, produce and traffic in drugs such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

On that, I would like to read what my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton said in the House yesterday. I find it very relevant when we are talking about fentanyl. He said the following:

We have an opioid crisis in Canada today. Every day, approximately 20 Canadians lose their lives to an opioid overdose. It has increased by 88% since the onset of COVID, 7,000 Canadians a year. The Liberal government's solution is to roll back mandatory sentencing for the very people who are putting this poison on our streets, endangering lives and killing 20 Canadians a day.

That is the main issue, that ideological and philosophical approach to criminals.

As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton so wisely pointed out yesterday, how are Canadians supposed to agree with eliminating harsh sentences for drug traffickers, the people who are responsible for the fentanyl that kills 20 Canadians a day? Where is the logic there? I cannot wrap my head around it, and neither can most of my colleagues.

I would like to hear my colleagues from other parties, like the Bloc Québécois members and even some from the Liberal Party, acknowledge that the Conservatives are right and that the government is going too far with Bill C‑5.

This is not the right way to tackle the problem. As I was saying, this has nothing to do with addicts. When speaking about people who use for various reasons, a Bloc member said earlier that we should be proactive in tackling this problem. To be proactive, to help drug users, we would have to go after the traffickers who get those drugs onto the streets and whose actions lead to the death of 20 Canadians every day.

What is worse, the Prime Minister appears to think all of this is okay. He does not seem to grasp the problem, and the government does not seem to be able to find the right approach. If this were based on facts or on some logic that people could get on board with, it would be fine, but no, the government seems to think its ideology is perfect. This is unacceptable.

I remind members that Bill C‑5 would reduce minimum penalties for crimes that involve the use of a firearm. There has been talk in Montreal about firearms and the trafficking of guns through the United States for several weeks now. People are bringing in weapons from all over the place and selling them on the black market. There are 14- 15- or 16-year-old kids using these weapons on Montreal streets. Toronto has had the same problem for many years. Quebec is now grappling with this issue, as firearms are becoming increasingly prevalent in Montreal.

While police, judges and the justice system try to find a way to control this problem, here in Ottawa we are debating a bill that, ultimately, tells gun traffickers that they need not worry, and that if they are arrested, they will not be sentenced and that everything will be fine; that it is no big deal if they sell guns; and that there is nothing to worry about if they buy and use guns. Bill C‑5 sends the message that traffickers should not worry, they can do what they want, they will only get a little slap on the wrist and it will not really be that bad.

The same goes for drugs. Usually, in a society where the rule of law, law and order, is important, people who are considering selling drugs should say to themselves that they will be put in jail for some time if they are caught, so they should perhaps reconsider.

Instead, the government is telling them that there is no need to worry, that they can sell drugs to young people and that it is not serious if 20 people die every day. In my view, it defies logic.

The bill also refers to conditional sentences and house arrest. It is as though the Liberals want to empty jails completely by sending inmates to serve their sentences at home.

The bill contains a long list of crimes for which sentences will be decreased, including criminal harassment, sexual assault, abduction of a person under 14, trafficking in persons, motor vehicle theft, and breaking and entering, all of which are not minor crimes. Instead of being jailed, offenders who commit these crimes will be told to stay home and celebrate. That means a person who has committed a sexual assault could be under house arrest in a neighbourhood close to the victim. That is just ridiculous.

Let us get back to firearms. Last month, the media reported that the integrated RCMP Cornwall border integrity team had commenced a firearms smuggling investigation after a boat crossed the St. Lawrence River and made landfall near Cornwall, Ontario. The criminals unloaded three large bags from the boat into a vehicle and departed the area. The RCMP conducted a roadside stop of the vehicle and seized a large number of firearms, including prohibited and restricted weapons and high-capacity magazines. Inti Falero-Delgado, a 25-year-old man from Laval, Quebec, and Vladimir Souffrant, a 49-year-old Montrealer, were placed under arrest.

Under Bill C‑5, the two individuals involved in this arms trafficking and smuggling incident would not receive minimum sentences. It is unlikely either of them would go to prison. They would probably get a conditional sentence or, at worst, serve their sentence at home. That is how it works in real life because, in real life, criminals always think about the possible consequences of their crimes.

Criminals are aware that the government keeps reducing the penalties. That is why there has been a 20% increase in violent crime in Canada since the change of government in 2015. Criminals who want to commit a crime or live a life of crime will benefit from the measures the government is proposing. The hardened criminals will influence the younger ones and tell them not to worry because the Prime Minister's government made sure that things would not be so bad for them.

The other point I would like to raise has to do with systemic racism, which the government claims this bill will help to combat. It is not relevant to say that this will have an impact on Black and indigenous communities and other racialized groups. These groups may be proportionally overrepresented in prisons, but the notion of crime should not be related to race because that does not change anything. A crime is a crime, regardless of the skin colour of the person committing it, whether they are Caucasian, Black or indigenous. As soon as a crime is committed with a weapon, then race should no longer be a factor. The government is pulling the wool over people's eyes by saying that this bill will combat systemic racism. It is a false debate. There is no connection there.

We need to consider other solutions when it comes to incarceration and overrepresentation. Reducing sentences will not solve this problem. On the contrary, it will give just about any group more leeway to commit crimes, since they will be less concerned about the fear of incarceration.

I have a very concrete example of this. Three or four years ago, Bill C-71 was introduced to enhance gun controls. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security at the time, and I was the one who asked representatives from indigenous groups to come and share their thoughts on the bill. I would remind the House that it is because of Bill C‑71 that gun owners are now required to apply for a number from Ottawa to sell a gun or transfer it to someone else.

That approach to public safety is debatable, but that is what we have, so that is fine. I asked indigenous people to appear before the committee to tell us what they thought. They were very clear that they felt it was irrelevant. The indigenous representative from Saskatchewan made it clear that there was no way a father wanting to follow tradition and pass his gun on to his son would contact Ottawa and ask for an authorization number. No one would do that.

My first reaction was this: Any time someone has two hands and picks up a gun, it is a public safety issue, regardless of whether the person is indigenous, White or Black. In my view, race has nothing to do with public safety. The fact remains that, until we hear otherwise, Bill C-71 does not apply to indigenous people. I had asked the former minister of public safety, but he did not have an answer.

They want to play with these ideas to get a message of openness across in the media. However, when I am talking about public safety, I prefer to have the facts: When someone picks up a gun and shoots, race becomes irrelevant. These are very sensitive issues, and I hate when the Liberals use them to try to score political points and make themselves out to be the best and most open of the parties. In reality, that is just not true.

I will finish by saying that Bill C‑5 is a bad bill because it is trying to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes and make them believe that it will solve systemic racism. In fact, all it will do is help criminals commit more crimes, and it will do nothing to help Canadians.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary noted, minimum mandatory provisions somehow seemed to have become the ceiling rather than the bottom of the spectrum.

Any suggestion that Bill C-5 would remove sentencing or make serious crimes less punishable is simply wrong. What it really does is to allow judges to exercise what their name implies. They judge things. They have the discretion to apply justice appropriately to the specific situation. In a serious situation such as the one the member was alluding to, I have no doubt they will do their job effectively.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill proposes sentencing and other amendments that would provide greater flexibility to the criminal justice system and support appropriate and proportionate responses to crime. In doing so, the proposed changes would help to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in the criminal justice system, including by repealing sentencing laws that have been shown to disproportionately impact these groups.

I applaud the government for showing leadership on important issues like this. Recent events remind us that systemic racism and discrimination are real problems in the criminal justice system, and the consequences of leaving these problems unaddressed are significant. We know that many systemic factors contribute to the seriousness of this problem. These systemic factors can be addressed only through deliberate and sustained action by all those responsible for aspects of the justice system and other social systems that interact with it. That said, our criminal laws and the responses they dictate significantly impact what can and cannot be done by those in the criminal justice system. These laws affect those who engage with the criminal justice system as accused, as offenders, as witnesses or as victims.

Conservatives' sentencing reforms have resulted in the increased use of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment, or MMPs, and additional restrictions on the availability of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. These changes have limited judges' ability to impose proportionate sentences. They also affect judges' ability to meaningfully consider the background or systemic factors that impact indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized people, and they play a part in bringing them into contact with the criminal justice system.

Unsurprisingly, we have seen significant increases in incarceration rates for members of these communities in the last two decades. For example, in 1999, indigenous people represented about 2% of the Canadian adult population but accounted for about 17% of admissions to provincial, territorial and federal custody. As of 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 5% of the Canadian adult population but represented 30% of federally incarcerated individuals, with indigenous women accounting for 42% of all federally incarcerated women.

Similarly, in 2018, Black individuals represented 7.2% of the federally incarcerated population but only 3% of the Canadian population. We know that Black people are also more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP than are other Canadians. Data from the Correctional Service of Canada from 2007-17 reveal that 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people who were federally incarcerated between those years were there for offences carrying an MMP. That is why repealing those MMPs is expected to reduce the overall rates of incarceration of indigenous people and Black Canadians.

Bill C-5's proposed reforms are informed by extensive consultations with a broad range of justice system and other partners across Canada, including Crown prosecutors, defence lawyers, indigenous leaders and communities, academics, victim advocates, restorative justice proponents, representatives of frontline community support systems, and representatives from such areas as health and mental health, housing and other support programs in the social system.

The bill also responds to calls for reform from various commissions of inquiry, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario criminal justice system.

Parliamentarians have also noted the detrimental effects of MMPs. For instance, the August 2016 interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice”, found that MMPs have negatively impacted indigenous persons and members of marginalized communities, including those with mental health challenges. Similarly, the Parliamentary Black Caucus in its June 2020 statement called for the review and repeal of MMPs and the removal of limitations on CSOs.

The common theme in all of these calls for reform is the recognition that the broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs and the Criminal Code's current restrictions on the use of CSOs have had numerous negative impacts, and that those impacts have been disproportionately felt by indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

They have also made our criminal justice system less effective and less efficient. I believe this bill would help to restore the public's confidence in the criminal justice system by providing much-needed discretion to sentencing judges, who are aware of all the facts of a case. It would allow them to impose sentences that respond to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the individual before the court.

The bill would achieve this important goal by repealing 20 MMPs, including MMPs for all drug-related offences and for some, not all, firearm-related offences. The bill would also lift many of the restrictions on the availability of CSOs in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety, allowing them to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest or curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family, community and health-related support systems.

Most Canadians would agree that conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool and should be available for judges for appropriate cases. I would expect that they would be used in less serious cases, and I am confident that judges could make the appropriate assessments as to their use.

Lastly, this bill would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to criminal charges for the simple possession of drugs, such as issuing a warning or diversion to addiction treatment programs. These measures are consistent with the government's approach to treating substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada as a health issue rather than a criminal justice one.

I would like to conclude by noting that I am aware that Bill C-5 has already been met with widespread support by communities and those responsible for the justice system in Canada. Some have gone so far as noting that it is among the most progressive criminal law reform bills introduced in many years. Like many others, I believe the government is on the right track with this bill, and I urge Parliament to support its swift passage. I look forward to hearing the views of other members.

The House resumed from December 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member from Kingston and the Islands, who said earlier that the debate was philosophical in nature. I would say that that is absolutely the case and that I am ready to participate in it since my background is in philosophy.

Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

After spending 25 years as an ethicist, I simply cannot leave ethics at the door just because I have become a politician. People associate ethics with its notions of obligation and punishment, but I would to suggest that being ethically minded requires that we be flexible in our thinking so we can try to imagine a more just future. Indeed, ethics is the search for what is just.

That is really what we have to do here as legislators. We need to know that being just is an elusive target. Doing what is just is not a given. We must nonetheless attempt, with what is being proposed in Bill C-5, to find what is just knowing that it may be changed by those who come after us. Any law, any bill has an ultimate goal. Ultimately, a law or bill is the means to an end, it is a means to an ideal that transcends it.

During my career, I had the chance to see two different sides of crime. I worked with the police force, but also with correctional institutions. I will start with the latter.

I was at the Bordeaux jail as an invited guest as part of a rehabilitation program called Souverains anonymes, which gives a voice to inmates on radio shows. My last meeting was last December, for Christmas, and we celebrated the fact that we were in lockdown both inside and outside the walls.

Among the inmates I met addicts, hardened criminals, people who did not get it. I also met many unintentional criminals, people who might have gone down the wrong path because of tough life circumstances, but I cannot second-guess the judge.

I met a lot of people who were not where they should be; they knew it and they felt it. Of course, this was in the context of a rehabilitation program. I also saw how overrepresented some groups were, including racialized populations. We talked a lot about indigenous peoples today, but what I saw more was the racialized populations. It was shocking for me to see them with my own eyes. It was not a statistic, a simple number on a page. I could see that there was prejudice at play and we have to question that.

I also served as an advisor to the police chief of the Montreal police force. In that capacity, I had to advise him on the difficult choice of whether to go to court or not. Some cases were easier than others. However, when it comes to petty crime, when we want to promote neighbourhood policing and community living, it is tough to take legal action every time. During that period, I saw the best and the worst, including punishment, conciliation and community policing.

When we are talking about diversion and deregulation, we must bear in mind that these are powerful words. Ethics seeks to give meaning to conduct, and meaning is the direction we need to go in.

Decriminalization means removing a given offence from the Criminal Code, whereas diversion sets criminal justice proceedings aside in favour of a more restorative approach to justice. The reason we are talking about these terms today is that the world is changing, as is our understanding of what is just.

Scare tactics and a tough-on-drugs approach did not work. Public policy must strike a balance between three imperatives. The first imperative is moral order, because losing one's freedom is a big deal. It means losing one's dignity. The second is the public health imperative, because drug use is often a public health issue. The third is the public order imperative because, when it comes right down to it, this is about protecting the public. What are the values underpinning these imperatives?

Obviously, if we want to foster reconciliation and community living, I believe we must look beyond the offence itself. Drug use is a public health issue that must be treated as such, without ruling out criminal prosecution when it is warranted.

Diversion is one solution that Quebec has chosen to address a public health issue. I believe in rehabilitation. I have seen inmates turn over a new leaf and move forward, reducing the number of people in prison and the costs associated with their incarceration, and most of all the social costs that come with the stigma. Mandatory minimum sentences are costly and, as everyone has said today, there is no guarantee they will work.

In the Bloc Québécois, we support eliminating certain sentences. However, no one can ignore what is happening in Montreal and in a number of Canada's major urban centres, where readily available firearms have become a scourge. For this reason, we believe that this is not the time to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to firearms.

Rather, we believe that, in this area, the Trudeau government has failed in its duties. It should be exercising its powers rather than delegating them to the municipalities or provinces.

To sum up, Bill C‑5 has noble objectives, but I nonetheless believe that it should be sent to committee to iron out its kinks. While I do not believe that mandatory minimum sentences are a deterrent to criminals, we must move beyond partisanship and take a serious look at this bill.

In conclusion, the federal government must ensure that people feel safe or safer. Police officers often say that people do not fear being unsafe; they fear feeling unsafe. We must therefore do everything we can to ensure that people do not feel unsafe.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

She emphasized her previous professional experience in community-based services. As I was listening to her speech, I thought of my own previous experience as Quebec public safety minister. She said that Bill C‑5 sends a somewhat contradictory message and then she also pointed out that minimum penalties do not guarantee that violence will be reduced.

It is easy for the Conservatives to staunchly support law and order when they are not the ones paying to build prisons, since the provinces and Quebec are responsible for paying the bill for these decisions.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the always-on-point member for Trois-Rivières.

I feel a sense of bewilderment today as I rise to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I have many questions and concerns.

As my party's status of women critic, and having observed an increase in cases of femicide and gender-based violence, I feel confused about the strange message the government is sending with this bill. I am going to broach the sensitive issue of mandatory minimum penalties by talking a little about my proud history working with community-based services.

I will then speak to the flaws in the bill and will conclude by talking about what I would like to see in terms of combatting violence and sending a strong message against hate and discrimination. I know that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has addressed the bill from a legal standpoint and that my colleague from Trois-Rivières, as a renowned ethicist, will certainly bring an ethical perspective into this debate.

I want to mention again that I worked in community-based services, more specifically for an organization focused on alternative justice and mediation. I truly believe in alternative and restorative justice, which is why I am in complete agreement with the Bloc Québécois's traditional position. With respect to mandatory minimum sentences, my party is in favour of an approach to justice that fosters rehabilitation and crime reduction.

Considering that mandatory minimums have few benefits and introduce many problems, such as the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons, in addition to increasing system costs and failing to deter crime, the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, the problem is that the Bloc Québécois believes this is a bad time to abolish mandatory minimums for firearms offences, because many Quebec and Canadian cities are seeing an influx of firearms, due in particular to the Liberal government's failure to implement border controls.

Several women's groups are very concerned about this issue and would like to see better gun control, because this can even impact femicides. Abolishing mandatory minimums without strong action by the federal government to counter the illegal importation of firearms at the border sends a contradictory message. My colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, the public safety critic, has asked many questions about this.

Although abolishing mandatory minimum sentences for possession of firearms is something we can get behind, abolishing them for certain gun crimes such as the discharge of a firearm with intent, robbery or extortion with a firearm, as proposed in this bill, seems inconsistent with the government's claim of maintaining mandatory minimums for certain categories of serious crime. We will need to take a serious look at this aspect of the bill, as I am sure committee members will do.

I want to point out that the Bloc Québécois spoke in favour of introducing the principle of diversion for simple possession of drugs in the last election campaign and in debates on Bill C‑236. Community groups that work with the homeless and do excellent work with street outreach workers reached out to me on this subject during the last election campaign.

We in the Bloc Québécois want to point out that such a measure will only be effective and truly efficient if investments are made in health care to support health systems and community organizations. They need funding to support people with addiction and mental health problems. I was also reminded of this during the last election campaign. This does not happen by itself.

On that note, we in the Bloc want to point out that the Liberal government refuses to give an answer on the issue of funding health care to cover 35% of health care system costs, despite the unanimous call from Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, without these investments, it is difficult for community organizations to respond to the growing needs resulting from rising homelessness in municipalities, even back home in Granby.

The pandemic has not helped matters, but rather has exacerbated the problem. Once again, the Bloc Québécois is speaking up for Quebec, where diversion is a principle that is fully recognized and integrated into many areas of the justice system. For instance, when it comes to children's rights, extrajudicial measures have been available to young offenders since the 1970s, thanks to Claude Castonguay's reform of the Youth Protection Act. Having worked at an organization that worked with that legislation and with young people, I was able to see the concrete impacts of alternative work, which leads young people to question their actions, to prevent them from ending up in the criminal justice system.

There is also the Programme de mesures de rechange pour les adultes en milieu autochtone, a program that makes options other than criminal prosecution available to individuals from indigenous communities.

There is also the Programme d'accompagnement justice et santé mentale, which gives individuals who have committed a crime and are fit to stand trial a chance to get a reduced sentence or possibly even enter a diversion program, which is very good for them.

More recently, the Programme de mesures de rechange général pour adultes, which is currently being rolled out, gives adults charged with certain offences the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and make amends for their crimes without going through the usual judicial process set out in the Criminal Code. The organization I worked with helped to implement the program, and I think it might be a success.

Lastly, there is the Court of Quebec's drug addiction treatment program, which allows for delayed sentencing so drug offenders can get clean through court-supervised treatment. It also facilitates close collaboration between the court and addiction resources to develop a treatment plan that includes crucial therapeutic, rehabilitation and reintegration components. The program is currently available only in Montreal and Puvirnituq. How can we expand it?

As the previous examples show, the principle of diversion is not new in Quebec's judicial ecosystem.

Quebec's Bill 32 is all about diversion as well. Minister LeBel's office pushed the government to focus on adopting Bill 32, which sought to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system. The bill introduced the concept of adapting enforcement to give municipalities more leeway when it comes to ticketing marginalized individuals, such as people experiencing homelessness and those with mental health issues or addiction.

Quebec has already committed to diversion programs in several areas, including youth, indigenous affairs and petty crime, and it is currently exploring this avenue through Bill 32.

As the critic for status of women, I have to note that year after year, we see an overrepresentation of indigenous women in the prison system. People have been sharing statistics throughout this debate. My Liberal colleagues have cited some, but I want to reiterate that indigenous women accounted for 38% of women admitted to provincial and territorial sentenced custody, and for indigenous men, that figure was 26%.

In the federal correctional services, indigenous women accounted for 31% of female admissions to sentenced custody, while indigenous men accounted for 2%.

Are mandatory minimum sentences contributing to increasing the overrepresentation of Black or indigenous people in the prison system? By all indications, they are. What is more, as critic for status of women, I have unfortunately observed that indigenous women are disproportionately affected.

I would like to add that diversion is beneficial for individuals, because the stigma attached to drugs and the barriers that come with a criminal record are sometimes disproportionate to a simple possession offence, and this can lead to a lifetime of consequences.

In closing, as someone who worked in community-based services, I am sensitive to a number of considerations connected with this bill. One thing is certain: This bill should not absolve us, as parliamentarians, of any responsibility, especially given that firearms crimes are a major concern in light of recent events, in which innocent victims have been killed with firearms.

While we agree with the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, we must not minimize gun crime or the importance of ensuring the public's sense of safety and looking at better gun control measures. The Bloc Québécois is asking for this. It is high time that action was taken.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech, in which she mentioned the low risk of recidivism.

Bill C‑5 introduces the concept of diversion for simple possession of drugs, which we support. Does my colleague feel that this measure will be effective only if health care investments are made to help health care institutions and community organizations? They really do need resources to help those who are struggling with these addictions and mental health issues.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

The Conservative Party is wrong, and it is really sad that the Conservatives would actually say “hear, hear” to the fact that politicians know more about it than judges do.

The Conservatives implemented these reforms to be “tough on crime”, but what they really did was mean-spirited, further marginalizing indigenous peoples and Black and racialized Canadians. Their tough-on-crime measures have led to the explosion of the indigenous and Black prison population with no evidence that these measures actually reduce crime. It is past time to end these discriminatory sentencing provisions. Despite what the opposition says, we are not getting rid of these sentences but rather giving back to judges the discretion in sentencing. Where warranted, judges may even impose greater sentences than the mandatory minimum would have prescribed.

In 1999, indigenous peoples represented approximately 2% of the Canadian population but accounted for approximately 17% of admissions to provincial, territorial and federal custody. As of 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 5% of the Canadian population but represent 30% of federally incarcerated individuals, with indigenous women accounting for over 42% of all federally incarcerated women, with these numbers approaching 70% to 80% in some western provinces. Indigenous women are the fastest-growing prison population in Canada. They are now being transferred to Ontario because we are running out of room in women's prisons out west. I recently visited Grand Valley Institution for Women, where I met indigenous women who were separated from their families and communities. The solution is not to build more prisons but rather to prevent these women from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.

Black individuals represent 7.2% of the federally incarcerated population but only 3% of the Canadian population. We also know that Black people are also more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence than other Canadians. In fact, 43% of all federally incarcerated offenders convicted of a drug offence punishable by mandatory minimum penalties were Black adults.

Thirty-nine per cent of Black people and 20% of indigenous peoples were federally incarcerated for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Repealing these penalties is expected to reduce the overall rates of incarceration of indigenous peoples and of Black Canadians.

Bill C-5's proposed reforms are informed by extensive consultations with a broad range of justice system stakeholders from across Canada. Prior to the introduction of the former Bill C-22, I held a round table with the Minister of Justice regarding mandatory minimum penalties and the impact on Black Canadians and indigenous peoples.

Organizations in my community, like the Canadian Caribbean Association of Halton and Advancement of Women Halton, made it clear that mandatory minimum sentences do not act as a deterrent for crime and cause many Black and indigenous peoples to be incarcerated. These consultations made a difference in the creation of the legislation. The president of the Canadian Caribbean Association of Halton, Andrew Tyrrell, let me know how important passing this bill would be for Black Canadians and was proud of his contribution.

The bill also responds to the calls for reform from various commissions and inquiries, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System.

In the 42nd Parliament, when I was vice-chair of the status of women committee, we tabled a report on indigenous women in the criminal justice system and called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences. Many indigenous women enter the criminal justice system because of minor drug offences that come with mandatory minimum sentences. I visited the Edmonton Institution for Women and met two indigenous women who were in prison for drug offences that were subject to mandatory minimums. They had been living in poverty, and each had a partner who exerted coercive control that led them to crime. This bill would prevent indigenous women from being criminalized for poverty and abuse.

Now more than ever we need to implement the TRC's calls to action. We need to focus on restorative justice, affordable housing and social supports for indigenous women instead of criminalizing them. Bill C-5 is a step in that direction. The all-party Parliamentary Black Caucus, in its June 2020 statement, called for the review and repeal of mandatory minimums and the removal of limitations on conditional sentence orders.

The common theme in all these calls for reform is the recognition that the broad and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimums, and the Criminal Code's current restrictions on the use of conditional sentence orders, have had numerous negative impacts that have been disproportionately felt by indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. They have also made our criminal justice system less effective and less efficient, which ultimately makes Canadians less safe.

I believe this bill would help to restore the public's confidence in the criminal justice system by providing much needed discretion to sentencing judges to impose sentences that respond to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the individual before the court. I want to highlight the story of my friend, Emily O'Brien. Emily was sent to federal prison after her partner coerced her to smuggle narcotics across the Canadian border. She was sentenced to Grand Valley Institution for Women on a mandatory minimum sentence. During her sentence, she noticed that prison did not prepare women for integrating back into society. Once she was released, she created her own business: a deluxe popcorn company called Comeback Snacks that not only makes delicious popcorn but has a mission to hire women who have been sentenced to prison so they will not re-enter the criminal justice system.

Emily's story is the exception to the rule. Most women who come out of the criminal justice system because of mandatory minimums come out worse. It should not be the sole responsibility of people such as Emily to tear down the stigma and provide women with opportunities after prison.

I have talked a lot about mandatory minimum penalties, but the bill would also lift many of the restrictions on the availability of conditional sentence orders in cases in which offenders do not pose a risk to the public safety. This would allow them to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest or curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family, community and health-related support systems. I think most Canadians would agree that conditional sentences are appropriate sentencing tools and should be available to judges for appropriate cases. I would expect that they would be used in less serious cases, and I am confident that judges could make appropriate assessments as to their use.

Lastly, the bill would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to criminal charges for simple possession of drugs, such as a warning or diversion to an addiction treatment program. These measures are consistent with the government's approach to treating substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada as health issues rather than criminal justice issues. I believe the government is on the right track with this bill, and I urge Parliament to support its swift passage.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on assuming the chair. I think you are quite enjoying yourself there.

Bill C-5 is important legislation to provide greater flexibility to the criminal justice system and support appropriate and proportionate responses to crime. In doing so, the proposed changes would help to reduce the overall representation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in the criminal justice system, including by repealing mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have shown to disproportionately impact these groups. The proposed reforms represent an important step in the government's continuing efforts to make our criminal justice system more equitable, accessible and effective.

Of course, law reform is only one way that we can do this but it is an important way and I applaud the Minister of Justice for his leadership. Systemic racism and discrimination are real problems in the criminal justice system and the consequences of leaving these problems unaddressed are significant.

The Conservative Party's sentencing reforms have posed the unconstitutional use of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment and additional restrictions on the availability of conditional sentence orders. These changes have limited judges' ability to impose proportionate sentences and to meaningfully consider the background or systemic factors. Everyone in this place believes Canada has one of the best judicial systems in the world.

We trust that our judges are best placed to interpret and administer the law. However, what the previous Conservative government did, by passing the number of mandatory minimum sentencing laws that it did, was take away a judge's discretion. The Conservatives' opposition to this bill today only further illustrates the belief that politicians know better than judges when it comes to administering the law.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington. It is a great opportunity to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that the Conservatives would have us believe is making the sky fall.

In reality, Bill C-5 would remove mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for only 14 of the 67 offences that currently have them. Of course, we have not heard that figure from the other side yet today. Those 14 that would be adjusted are based on data, facts and science, and an understanding that we trust our judges to make sentencing decisions and use their discretion in certain circumstances. I say there are only 14 because Conservatives would have us believe we are completely eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing, when in fact this would have an effect on 14 of those related to firearms and six with respect to drug offences.

I have said this before in questions and comments, and I will say it again now. This really comes down to a fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives. I understand and know this from the experiences I have had in the riding that I come from. In the immediate area of Kingston, we used to have seven penitentiaries before the Conservatives closed Kingston Penitentiary Now we have six. We have a great understanding of and community support for the role prisons can play in the rehabilitative process.

The basic premises, the ideas and the philosophies could not be any more starkly different between Conservatives and Liberals than they are on this particular issue. When it comes to Conservatives, the answer to people who break the law is very simple. They lock them up and throw away the key. That is the end of it. On this side of the House, we believe that there is a role for government to play in making sure individuals can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, so they can be productive members of that society.

I brought this up after the speech by the member for Portage—Lisgar. She took great exception, saying that Conservatives believe wholeheartedly in the idea of making sure that criminals, or potential criminals in this case, do not get to the place of breaking the law before we have to start dealing with them.

I would ask her to explain to me why Conservatives spent more money on building megaprisons during their time in power than they did on housing. That should say something. Conservatives built megaprisons at various locations, all the while claiming that they really wanted to ensure people had the opportunity to become rehabilitated. Then why were they focusing so much on building more capacity to house individuals than they were on such a fundamental need as housing? That is what this really comes down to.

It is a philosophical difference of opinion on the role corrections plays in our society. We know exactly where the Conservatives stand on this. I know it is frustrating and hard to hear this, which is why some of them have been heckling me, but it is the truth. Sometimes the truth does hurt. It is the reality of the situation. There is nothing wrong with having that philosophical ideal, but they need to stand by it and say that it is what they believe in. All of their actions have only ever been to support that.

Again, I know this from my time in municipal politics in Kingston. There was a great program that helped rehabilitate individuals in prisons, and these programs were the prison farms. We had those throughout the country. However, the Conservatives came along and decided to get rid of them.

This one is even better. The main rationale of the Conservatives for getting rid of the prison farms was that inmates were not becoming farmers once they were out of prison. The Conservatives were completely unable to realize the value of what inmates were receiving through these programs, which were able to rehabilitate people. There were stories of inmates who had been in and out of prison their whole lives and then got into the prison farming program, and it completely changed who they were. They would then get out of prison and, yes, they may not have decided to become farmers, but they were completely changed individuals in how they approached life.

The fact that Conservatives chose to get rid of the prison farm program was so offensive, not only to those who had been through the program, or the guards who had seen how effective it was, but also to the general community. We had people protesting in Kingston for five years in a row. Every Monday, there would be protests on Bath Road right in front of Collins Bay Institution, protesting what the previous Conservative government had done when it closed prison farms.

The protesters knew that those programs offered meaningful opportunity for people to become rehabilitated, which brings me back to my point about the philosophical differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals. It comes down to whether we believe we have an opportunity and, more importantly, an obligation to help rehabilitate people so they can become productive members of society or whether we just lock them up and throw away the key, which is exactly what the Conservatives would like to do.

I want to talk very briefly about one last point, and that is the issue around the percentages of people who are being incarcerated, which has been brought up a number of times today.

We have to agree that when Black people represent only 3% of people in our country but 7% of people in our prisons or, even more staggering, when indigenous people represent only 5% of people in our country but 30% of people in prisons, we have a really big problem with systemic racism, and we need to address that. We need to look for opportunities.

We need to empower people who have the ability to impact lives, such as judges, to have the ability to set people off on a different course, one that could be beneficial to their life experiences and influence who they ultimately become. That is what this bill is, in my opinion. This bill is about empowering individuals, specifically the judges, to whom we have given the authority to cast judgment on those who break the law. We need to give them the ability to make sure that, if there is an opportunity to change a life, they can actually do that.

This is something that has been brought up by previous speakers today. It was also a call to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. As was indicated so eloquently by one of my NDP colleagues, this is something that has not had the impact Conservatives, and possibly Liberals back in the day, had intended when they brought mandatory minimum sentencing legislation in at the time. We have an opportunity now to correct that, fix it and to put ourselves on the right path in terms of genuinely looking for ways to rehabilitate people so that they can be reintroduced into society and become productive members of that society.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-5 is implemented as currently written and applied evenly regardless of race, how would this help marginalized felons? Who do the lower penalties for illicit drug possession and crimes involving firearms really benefit?

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In the six years that I have been a member of Parliament, I have never seen a greater disconnect between how a bill has been advertised and what is in the substance of the bill. The Liberals today have been doing a good job of patting themselves on the back, touting Bill C-5 as landmark progressive legislation. The bill has been advertised as legislation that addresses systemic racism. The Liberals claim that it would help address Black, indigenous and marginalized groups that are caught up in Canada's criminal justice system. They claim that the bill would help persons who are suffering from drug addictions to stay out of jail and get the help they need. If, in fact, the substance of the bill did what the the Liberals have advertised the bill to be, it would be a supportable bill and it would be a laudable bill. The problem is that the bill would do none of those things. Simply put, Bill C-5 is not as advertised.

Let us unpack that for a moment and in that regard, let us look at the issue and the claim that the bill supposedly would help persons suffering from addictions.

I could not agree more that it is important to help persons suffering from addictions to get treatment, to rehabilitate so they can become happy and contributing members of society again. I certainly agree that when it comes to minor possession, it is not appropriate in most circumstances to prosecute. Indeed, it historically has been rare for persons found with minor possession of drugs to be prosecuted solely on that minor possession.

Today, those prosecutions do not happen because of a directive issued by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which provides that in cases of minor possession, prosecutions shall not proceed except where there are public safety concerns. This bill would not change that. It is true that the bill would codify that in law, and that is fine. It is probably the only reasonable aspect of the bill. However, it would not change the status quo, namely that today in Canada persons are not charged and are not prosecuted for minor possession. The question then becomes this. What exactly would the bill do for persons who are suffering from issues of addictions?

When one actually reads the text of the bill, one would be surprised that the Liberal solution to helping persons suffering with addictions is to help criminals who prey on persons suffering from addictions. The bill would roll back sentences for some very serious drug offences. It would roll back mandatory sentencing for drug trafficking and it would roll back sentencing for the serious crime of importing and exporting drugs.

Any reasonable person can distinguish, very clearly, between drug trafficking and importing and exporting drugs compared to that of a vulnerable person who might be suffering from mental health issues or other issues who happens to be caught with a small amount of drugs. There is a world of difference, and yet for such marginalized people, the bill would do nothing to help them, but it would help drug dealers and drug pushers. Remarkably, one of the offences that is rolled back in the bill is with respect to producers, manufacturers of schedule 1 drugs, including hard drugs, such as cocaine and heroin as well as fentanyl and crystal meth.

We have an opioid crisis in Canada today. Every day, approximately 20 Canadians lose their lives to an opioid overdose. It has increased by 88% since the onset of COVID, 7,000 Canadians a year. The Liberal government's solution is to roll back mandatory sentencing for the very people who are putting this poison on our streets, endangering lives and killing 20 Canadians a day.

If I were someone who was suffering with a drug addiction issue and that was a solution the Liberal government had to help me, I would tell it that I did not need its help, that I did not want its help because it would be completely counterproductive. It is completely the opposite of what the government claims the bill is about. When it comes to supporting persons who are suffering from drug addictions, simply put, Bill C-5 is not as advertised.

What about the claim that the bill would tackle systemic racism, that it would really help Black, indigenous and marginalized groups of Canadians? I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spent some time on that topic this morning. There is absolutely nothing concrete in the bill to tackle systemic racism. There is absolutely nothing in the bill for Black, indigenous and other marginalized groups of Canadians.

What there is in this bill is the rolling back of some very serious firearms offences. What kinds of offences? We are talking about robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, using a firearm in the commission of a crime and many other serious offences that the bill would roll back. How does that help address systemic racism? How does that help Black, indigenous and other marginalized Canadians? The answer is that it would do nothing.

It is outrageous, beyond shameful, that the government has used vulnerable Canadians, marginalized Canadians, as cover for the real objective of the bill, which is to pursue a Liberal ideological agenda of going soft on criminals. It is also ironic because we heard, during the very recent federal election campaign, a lot of rhetoric from the Liberals about how firearms posed a significant threat to public safety and the security of our communities. Then, within three and a half weeks of the House reconvening following the election, what does the government do? It introduces legislation not to get tough on firearms offences, but to help people who use firearms and put the lives of people at risk to stay out of jail and in the community.

It is hardly a surprise given the record of the government. In the last Parliament, my former Conservative colleague, Bob Saroya, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-238. That bill would have increased penalties for persons who were convicted of knowingly being in possession of a smuggled firearm. Why was that an important bill? If the government were serious about tackling firearms crime, it would recognize that 80% of firearms offences in Canada are committed with a smuggled firearm. It would logically follow that a bill like Bill C-238 would be welcome, but instead, one by one, the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, voted to defeat that bill.

It shows that when it comes to actually coming up with solutions to tackle firearms crime, the government is just simply AWOL. However, when it comes to firearms, I have to give it some credit, perhaps backhanded credit, for being consistent. The Liberals have been consistently tough on firearms, tough on law-abiding firearms owners. That is when they really get tough. However, when it comes to people who commit crimes with firearms, it is a whole different story. The Liberals in that case are more interested in giving criminals a free pass. It really highlights what a misplaced set of priorities the government has.

We hear a lot of rhetoric over there about evidence-based decision-making. Going after law-abiding firearms owners while at the same time rolling back sentences for people who commit crimes with firearms is ideological decision-making, not evidence-based decision-making.

Again, when it comes to helping marginalized and disadvantaged Canadians, Bill C-5 is simply not as advertised.

The Minister of Justice, in the press release he issued announcing the introduction of Bill C-5, was noted as saying that serious criminals should face serious punishment and be separated from our communities. I could not agree more with the Minister of Justice with respect to his comment. However, consistent with a bill that is not as advertised, when one opens up Bill C-5, one learns that it does exactly the opposite of what the minister claims to be concerned about. He says that we should keep serious criminals out of our communities, but the bill drastically opens up conditional sentencing orders for serious crimes, including kidnapping, kidnapping a minor, human trafficking, arson for a fraudulent purpose and aggravated assault with a weapon. What this bill means is that those convicted of these serious offences may not have to spend a single day in jail. Instead, they will have an opportunity to serve their sentence in the community and maybe even next door to their victim.

The minister talks about the fact that serious criminals should face serious punishment, but does he not consider arsonists, kidnappers and persons convicted of sexual assault to be serious criminals? I challenge him to say that, because I think any reasonable person would say that such criminals are serious criminals. They pose a threat to public safety and they should be doing time behind bars, not out on the streets.

Despite all the ways the government has tried to sell this bill, what is completely lacking is any support for marginalized Canadians. This bill does nothing to provide training, counselling or other supports. We on this side of the House strongly believe in reducing recidivism. It was, in fact, a Conservative member of Parliament, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, who introduced Bill C-228 in the last Parliament, a framework to reduce recidivism. Bill C-5 offers nothing in that regard.

In closing, Bill C-5 puts the rights of criminals first and the rights of victims last. It endangers public safety while doing nothing to help marginalized and vulnerable Canadians. If the Liberals were honest and advertised this bill truthfully, they would advertise it as the soft-on-crime, do-no-time bill. This bill needs to be defeated.