Bill C-5 (Historical)

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

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is what the problem with the whole bill is. There is a lot of subjectivity of how the bill can be interpreted. That is the problem. The Liberals are trying to address a problem by not actually addressing the problem. It is a lot more sensationalism and symbolism according to our court of law. They are trying to say they know there is overrepresentation of certain minorities, but the problem is the bill is not addressing any of that. There is leeway in the bill for judges to make that discretion on whether they consider an offence serious or not, whether it is a first-time offence and potentially give house arrest for such serious crimes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I do agree on one thing, which is that the government needs to go back to the drawing board with this bill.

We would like to split the bill and separate the diversion measures, which are most important, from the provisions regarding mandatory minimum penalties. It is awkward timing to be debating those mandatory minimums, given all of the gun incidents we have been seeing in Montreal.

The member said that mandatory minimums should be sustained, but studies show that they do not work and do not have much of an impact. Would the member tell the organizations in Quebec that are working hard on rehabilitation and alternative justice that the work they are doing is pointless and ineffective?

I would like to hear his thoughts on that, because there are some organizations in Quebec that are working very hard on this and proving that these methods do actually work.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, no, I am not saying that at all. Actually in my speech I spoke several times about how we really need to invest more money in rehabilitation, in making sure criminals are getting drug treatment programs and making sure they actually take them. If we are not trying to address their drug addiction, then how are they actually going to break that cycle?

Definitely we need to work more on rehabilitation, on managing the drug problem and on making sure they get the care that they deserve. If they do not break this continual cycle, they are never going to change their lives. Definitely, let us create organizations to work on breaking the drug addiction crisis.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but if there is anyone sensationalizing this issue, it is the Conservative Party.

It has taken the position of being tough on crime with mandatory minimums even though every study has proven that they do not work. They are not a deterrent and have many unwanted side effects.

Just because we want to repeal mandatory minimum sentences does not mean that there will be no sentence at all. The person will go to jail, but the judge will decide for how long. Why do the Conservatives not want to let judges do their job and judge the criminals?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the point of all this is that we are trying to deal with systemic racism and we are doing it in a judicial system. That is exactly what we have been saying. The judges should have the ability to make that determination, but at the same time, we want to make sure that criminals are getting their drug addiction treatment and rehabilitation properly.

We are not asking to change the whole world instantly. We have to make sure we get a handle on their mental state. Usually their mental state derives from the fact that they have a drug addiction or some other type of addiction. They need to have proper adherence and proper treatment, more so than just getting a slap on the wrist and house arrest.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am in the chamber often and I certainly hear from members on the other side of the House this constant refrain: “We listen to the experts.” When Conservatives talk about vaccine mandates, the Liberals say, “We listen to the experts.” When we ask where those experts are or to produce that expert report, of course, it never gets produced. “We listen to the experts” would be the Liberals' mantra, so let us talk about some experts.

The first thing we should talk about is that gun crimes in Canada have almost tripled over the last decade. We have an epidemic of gun violence. What do some of the experts have to say about the gun violence that is happening in Canada?

At the public safety committee, Toronto's deputy police chief said that 86% of gun crimes come from illegal guns and it is on the increase. He then went on to say, “Our problem in Toronto is handguns from the United States.” There is the expert and the expert's position on what is happening with gun crimes.

What does the government do in response to listening to the experts? It is going to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for weapons trafficking. Yes, that is going to solve the problem of illegal guns coming into the country from the United States. We are going to eliminate a mandatory minimum sentence for gun trafficking. That will solve it.

When we eliminate a mandatory minimum sentence, the judge now has the discretion to give a lower sentence. We can bet dollars to doughnuts that is exactly what is going to happen. The government wraps itself in the shroud of experts and says that it listens to the experts, but where is it listening to the experts here?

If anything, we should be increasing penalties for weapons trafficking. The weapons traffickers are the ones who are directly responsible for the carnage that goes on in our streets, in cities like Toronto. It is getting worse. It is not just the fact of an increased number of guns. The chief also testified it is the increased number of rounds being discharged. Police recovered 2,405 shell casings in 2021. It is up 50% from 2020. Again, what is the response? Let us lower sentences for that.

It is for weapons trafficking and eliminating the mandatory minimum penalty. It is for importing and exporting knowing it is unauthorized. On both sides of the weapons trafficking, people are now getting a reduced sentence. How is that for an incentive to stop doing what someone is doing? I do not think that is going to work.

Where is the conversation about victims? When we stand here and talk about gun crimes, there is always a victim. Victims want to see justice done. There has to be an appearance of justice. When a weapons trafficker is going to get a lower sentence, the victims of crimes from these weapons certainly are not going to think that justice has been done.

We can talk about all kinds of ways to deal with sentencing for indigenous people and for people from racialized communities. Those can be actual factors that judges consider for reduced sentences when sentencing. We can put those in the sentencing guidelines. However, what we do not do is make broad changes to the sentencing for serious offences. Not everyone is going to be from an indigenous community or from a racialized community. This change will apply to everyone. Everyone will then get that reduced sentence.

I sat on the justice committee from 2011 to 2015, when we brought in increased sentences for trafficking in persons. This is a very serious crime, and the damage done to victims is extensive. They came to committee to tell horrifying stories that stick with people for the rest of their lives. This is an extraordinarily serious crime that has long-lasting impacts on victims, so why would the expansion of conditional sentencing be allowed for trafficking in persons?

I just heard the member opposite say that they would have to get a sentence of less than two years. Yes, that is true, but why let the option be there? Why let someone convicted of trafficking in persons have the possibility of getting a conditional sentence? If it has happened once, it has happened too much.

That is why this bill makes no sense. There might be some good aspects to the bill, but I am not here to talk about those. What I am going to talk about is the dangerous precedent being set here.

It is the same thing with sex assault. This is an incredibly serious crime, but there is a conditional sentence including house arrest for sex assault. Yes, someone would have to get sentenced to less than two years, but if they commit a sex assault and get house arrest, what is the victim going to think of the justice system? When we talk about the justice system, we have to think about the integrity of the system within the view of the public. If the public loses faith in the justice system because they see that it does not deliver justice, then we have a very serious problem.

The bill would allow conditional sentences to be brought in for crimes such as sexual assault, trafficking in persons and kidnapping, and that is just three. Imagine the victims of any of those crimes. They have to show up at court to testify. It is not an easy process for victims to testify in court. They often describe it as retraumatizing.

Then they have to do a victim impact statement. I have been in court to listen to victim impact statements. They can be absolutely devastating, because we know that the effect of crime on a victim's life is long term, long lasting and devastating. Then imagine they hear a verdict of house arrest for any of the things I just listed. That is the sentence. A person who committed a sex assault gets a conditional sentence with house arrest.

I think the government may have good intentions with this bill, but it is missing the mark in so many ways. This is going to have serious consequences. In its gun buyback program, it is making certain guns illegal, but that does not work. The Toronto deputy police chief just said at committee that 86% of guns used in the city of Toronto are illegal guns coming from the United States.

I can tell members that gun traffickers can see that the mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking in weapons is gone. Do members not think that will have an effect? Do members not think that is going to say to them that this is now even more advantageous for them? It is financially advantageous, of course, but now they do not have to worry about a mandatory minimum penalty.

These are the kinds of things the government thinks are going to make a difference. Maybe they sound good, but the practical reality of the bill is this. It is not going to reduce crime. It is not going to protect victims. It is going to have victims once again feel like the justice system has done them wrong.

I hope the government will study this bill in great detail and will bring in victims to talk about it. This bill should not proceed.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member, and he spoke at length repeating the same lines we continue to hear from the Conservative Party of Canada. He said we are reducing sentences. We are not reducing sentences. What we are doing is removing the mandatory minimum penalties that are attached to them. We are giving discretion to judges, so to say that we are reducing sentences is simply wrong. Judges continue to have that discretion.

Has the hon. member actually read the bill? Does he know the impact these mandatory minimum penalties have on indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized people, whose populations in our prisons continue to grow as a direct result of the mandatory minimum penalties brought in by the previous government?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, for the parliamentary secretary to have such little knowledge of the justice system makes sense given this bill. That question displays a stunning amount of ignorance. By eliminating mandatory minimums, the judge has discretion to go lower. The judge always had discretion to go higher. A mandatory minimum is not a maximum. The member should look that up.

When we say that this would lead to lower sentences, it is because the floor is gone. Judges would have the discretion to say, if the minimum was five years, that they do not have to give five years and can give three years. That is a lowered sentence, and that is what will happen for weapons traffickers, human traffickers and a whole of host of other offenders. I do not know how the Liberals do not see it.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is very amusing to listen to the major parties criticize one another. However, to change things up I would like to ask a substantive question.

Can my colleague talk about his vision for drug and opioid use? In the case of the possession of small quantities of drugs, would it be possible to take an approach that focuses more on public health than criminalization? Does he not believe that, in many cases, repealing minimum mandatory penalties could be a good thing?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have to look at certain ways of reducing harm with respect to drugs and drug addictions. This is a great way of doing things, but eliminating mandatory minimum sentences is, perhaps, one tiny aspect of it. Where is the funding to help people transition off of a life of addiction and other things? There can be ways to deal with that, but where is the real hard work that needs to be done through funding programs and other things? I think that is what should be done. I do not think tampering with the criminal justice system is always the sole answer.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were dozens of mandatory minimum sentences added to the Criminal Code under the Harper government, and now there are even jurisdictions in the U.S., such as Texas, that have declared mandatory minimums expensive failures. Canadian courts have been striking them down as unconstitutional, yet we see the Conservative Party digging in further and further.

The hon. member said that the parliamentary secretary did not know what she was talking about, yet the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Police Federation appeared at committee and supported Bill C-5. I assume they know what they are talking about. Could the member explain why he does not believe they know what they are talking about?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the first problem with that question is that it compares the mandatory minimums in the United States with the ones here. The ones in Canada are significantly lower. Yes, some may have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but that does not mean we should strike all of them down. Does the member actually believe we should strike down—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to stop the hon. member, as there is no interpretation.

It is working now, so the hon. member can start his answer again.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the problem with the question is that it compares American justice with Canadian justice and compares American mandatory minimums, which are extraordinarily high, with Canadian mandatory minimums, which are quite low in most cases. That is a false narrative and a false comparator.

Mandatory minimums can serve a whole bunch of purposes, including showing society's denunciation of what is happening. When we look at the context of the gun crime going on in this country, the fact is that almost all of the guns are coming from the United States. Does the member agree that we should be reducing mandatory minimum penalties for gun traffickers? These are the people who are bringing the weapons in that are used to commit all these terrible crimes. That is just one example of why I believe this should not happen.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about our Bill C-5 and, especially, about the need to reform our justice system so that we can learn from the mistakes of the past and put an end to misguided policies, such as mandatory minimums.

Mandatory minimums do not help make our communities safer and have disproportionate and prejudicial consequences on racialized and marginalized communities. With Bill C‑5, our government is taking a new approach that turns the page on Harper-era policies.

I am pleased today to rise to discuss Bill C-5 and particularly why it is important, in my view, that we respond as a government to the many ways in which mandatory minimum sentencing in Canada has hindered rather than supported the administration of justice in Canada, and why it is so critical now, in light of the data, to do away with the policies introduced by the Harper government to expand mandatory minimums. Instead, let us allow our judicial system to do its job and allow our judges to assess the facts before them so they can apply the appropriate sentences in the circumstances.

The practice of imposing mandatory minimums has clearly resulted in the over-incarceration of marginalized and racialized Canadians. To give members just one example, indigenous women represent over half of the female prison population in federal prisons. That is absolutely egregious. The legislation would help reduce the overrepresentation of Black people, members of marginalized communities and indigenous people in our justice system and would afford more opportunities for rehabilitation, which is very much needed in our fight against the opioid crisis.

I would also like to discuss important amendments that were made to this bill at the justice committee. I think it is very relevant to note that in the spirit of collaboration, our government accepted amendments from all parties. Four amendments have been made to enhance the underlying objectives of this bill.

The first amendment would clarify the kind of information to be kept in the police record on warnings or referrals, the use of such records and to whom they may be disclosed.

The amendment responds to concerns expressed by many of the witnesses who testified before the justice committee. They were worried that records of previous warnings or referrals would somehow negatively impact persons who came into contact with the Canadian judicial system after they had been diverted in the past.

The proposed amendment is based on the existing alternative measures regime set out in section 717(4) of the Criminal Code. It sets out the circumstances under which police records or warnings and referrals can be disclosed in order to limit the negative impact that a prior warning can have on an individual who is charged with simple drug possession.

This amendment would ensure that a record of a warning or referral could be made available to a department or agency of the Government of Canada that is engaged in the evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative measures, but would not permit the disclosure of the identity of the person. What is more, the information could be shared with a judge, a court or a peace officer for any purpose relating to the offence of simple possession or the administration of the case, but only for the offence to which the record relates.

The amendment would also limit the potential for improper use of such records, which could have lasting impacts on individuals who are trying to fight problematic substance use and may require more than one chance to achieve successful rehabilitation. Police officers have legal and ethical obligations to take notes, and this amendment would ensure that they will continue to support the operational needs of the Canadian judicial system without frustrating the objectives of the bill.

The second amendment would provide a mechanism to reduce the stigma associated with convictions for simple possession of drugs by specifying that past and future convictions must be kept separate and apart from other criminal convictions after a certain period of time.

Again, this subsequent amendment is consistent with the underlying objective of the bill to address the negative consequences associated with simple possession. The amendment acknowledges the calls from public health organizations and those who work with individuals with addictions. It helps address barriers to successful reintegration into society and also helps address a contributing cause of the ongoing opioid crisis, namely the stigmatization of people who use drugs.

As we all know, when people apply for a job or an apartment or have to have a background check done for any reason, any criminal record will surface. Criminal records have a lasting impact on the ability of rehabilitated individuals to successfully reintegrate into society after overcoming personal challenges in their lives. Treating simple possession of drugs as a health and social issue means eliminating the stigma associated with convictions for simple possession.

A third amendment in Bill C‑5 would codify the innocent possession common law defence under specific circumstances. Social workers, medical professionals and service providers would not be subject to charges if they come into possession of drugs in the course of their duties, when they have the intent to lawfully dispose of them within a reasonable period, of course.

Lastly, Bill C‑5 includes a new clause 21 requiring a comprehensive review of the act on the fourth anniversary of its coming into force.

This four-year review period is consistent with our government's evidence-based policy-making and will provide us with an opportunity to evaluate the effect of the legislation in practice on the ground.

Finally, we know that Canada, like many countries around the world, is experiencing an overdose crisis and that this problem has been exacerbated and worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As Bill C‑5 recognizes, psychoactive substance use is a public health issue rooted in complex social factors. Bill C‑5 is just one part of our plan to reduce the number of drug-related deaths. Our government is also looking at every other option for preventing overdoses, improving health outcomes and saving lives.

To this end, I would like to draw everyone's attention to our government's announcement on May 31 of this year, just a few weeks ago, granting a time-limited exemption under section 56(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that adults 18 years of age and older will not be subject to criminal charges for personal possession in British Columbia. This exemption will take effect from 2023 to 2026. This drug decriminalization pilot project in British Columbia is absolutely a step forward in the right direction to treating addiction for what it is: a health issue. It is also another step forward in allowing us to collect data and real-time information that will allow our government to better develop policies to address the opioid pandemic.

There is much more work to do, and I look forward to one day reaching a point where a national decriminalization framework could be developed and implemented and we would have the tools to provide this health-based response to the issue of drug addiction right across our country. The legislation before us, Bill C-5, which changes our approach to sentencing, improves our judicial system, encourages rehabilitation and critically moves us forward in the fight against the overdose crisis in Canada, is of critical importance. I therefore urge all members of this House to support this important legislation, because we simply cannot wait any longer.