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.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand today for the first time in this historic chamber as the member of Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

As I am sure was the case for members on all sides, I was in awe when I first took my seat here, a symbol that is at the core of our democracy. The House has echoed with the debates that have shaped our nation, from the early debates around national policy to the conscription crisis of 1917, and from the debates surrounding pipelines in 1956 to the Canadian flag and free trade. I am sure I am not alone in saying that the feeling of awe is instantly met with an understanding of the responsibility that members have to the constituents in the communities they represent.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge for entrusting me to be their representative in the chamber. This seat in the House belongs to them.

Our community is a vibrant riding, where nearly half our residents proudly claim Italian heritage, making our community one of the largest Italian hubs in the nation. Our riding is also made up of growing populations of Vietnamese, Punjabi, Chinese and many others; it is a truly diverse community. From the thriving small businesses on Woodbridge Avenue and Weston Downs to the quiet streets of Islington Woods, and from the growing neighbourhoods of Vellore to the cultural vibrant festivals that light up our summers, Vaughan—Woodbridge is a testament to the enduring Canadian values of faith, family, community and hard work. I am committed to being their champion and giving life to their hopes inside the chamber.

I would like to recognize the most important person in my life, my wife, Maria. Her love and strength hold our family together, raising our beautiful daughters, Abigail and Hanna, and our newborn son, James. As members of the House are well aware, our spouses play a critical role in our work as parliamentarians. They bear an unseen burden of public life, and Maria does so with grace.

I would like to thank my parents, Debbie and Bruno, for their example of always being the adults in the room and for teaching me the importance of responsibility. I would also like to thank my late grandfather Nico for his hard work and persistence, and for teaching me to always be self-reliant. My grandparents immigrated from Treviso, Italy, in the 1950s. They chose Canada, a land of opportunity where one could dare to dream. They worked hard and made this country their own. I am very proud of my Italian heritage.

To every single volunteer of my campaign team, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for their monumental effort and commitment to the principles of our party, a commitment that helped deliver a very decisive victory. Those principles teach us that government's role is not to burden but to enable, yet for nearly a decade, excessive regulation, wasteful spending and punitive taxes have stifled economic opportunity and freedom.

I am guided by the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and the rule of law. These principles are not abstract but are the foundation of a society where every Canadian can flourish, free from government overreach and empowered to shape their own destiny.

As a former executive in the steel industry, I have seen first-hand how bureaucracy strangles workers and small businesses. I am here to fight for them, cutting red tape, slashing unfair taxes and making government work for people, not against them. The true role of government is to create the conditions to ignite the spark of the Canadian dream, empowering every Canadian to chase after their aspirations, not stifle them with heavy-handed, centralised control of sectors of our economy and with bureaucratic overreach.

My constituents have been clear: They expect their government to deliver results, not rhetoric. On this front, the Speech from the Throne leaves much to be desired. One of the major issues that is top of mind for my constituents is the increase in crime. Vaughan—Woodbridge is a place where families raise their children, neighbours know each other by name and community pride runs deep. The rising crime, fuelled by the government's soft-on-crime policies, is eroding the sense of security that families in Vaughan—Woodbridge and communities across our very country deserve.

In the throne speech, the government could have easily said that it was going to get serious on crime and address the issue by getting rid of failed legislation like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It could have committed to introducing mandatory minimums for serious crimes and prioritizing victims over criminals, but it did not.

In Vaughan—Woodbridge, there have been countless examples of car thefts, home invasions and break-and-enters. Business owners and their staff have been held at gunpoint, and there are women like Sara, whom I met in Sonoma Heights and who told me that her daughter constantly feels uneasy about going out at night alone. Our York Region Police officers do an exceptional job and work tirelessly, but the House must give them the tools to keep criminals behind bars. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so, for safe communities are the foundation of a strong Canada

A key priority for my constituents is the crippling cost of living facing our country. Whether I am chatting with construction workers, visiting Vici Bakery or Sweet Boutique, or am randomly stopped at a local grocery store like Longo's, the message is the same: Life is too expensive, and people, especially our youth, feel they cannot get ahead.

During the campaign, a 17-year-old at Fortinos approached me. He said that he cannot vote but that his future is in my hands. All he wants to do is get married, buy a home and have a family. This not a radical dream; it is the Canadian promise, yet for far too many young people, it feels like a fantasy. The aspirational ideals of home ownership and raising a family should not invoke feelings of frustration and hopelessness, for they are foundational to the social contract in a great country like Canada.

Our youth are our future, and for far too long they have been ignored. Canada must have their back or we risk continuing our brain drain, where young talent leaves our lands for jurisdictions around the world where their money goes farther and where they can have the type of life they wish to have. We must address this issue with haste or we will all suffer in the long run.

The Speech from the Throne proposes implementing a brand new bureaucracy instead of cutting the red tape that has driven up the cost of homes. Despite a new prime minister and cabinet, the plan mirrors Trudeau's $90-billion housing strategy, which doubled prices over a decade and left young Canadians priced out.

Last week, it was revealed that the Prime Minister had overseen the introduction of half a trillion dollars in new government spending without a formal budget, a move not seen for decades outside the COVID period. This represents an 8% increase in federal spending, with a significant portion allocated to bureaucracy, consultants and contractors.

As parliamentarians, our role is to serve Canadians. The government's proposal for a new housing bureaucracy, coupled with half a trillion dollars in new spending without a formal budget, shifts focus away from the needs of Canadians and towards expanding an already massive government. With the current parliamentary session set to break for the summer in less than three weeks, there is little time left to thoroughly debate and scrutinize each significant proposal, leaving critical issues like housing and fiscal responsibility unresolved.

Canadians deserve better. Conservatives are committed to putting Canadians first and would be willing to sit through the summer to ensure that these matters are properly addressed, prioritizing accountability over a rushed agenda. The time for bold action is now.

I close with the words of John Stuart Mill: “The worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it.” Let us build the Canada where Sara's daughter feels safe, where that young man at Fortinos can afford a home and where every family in Vaughan—Woodbridge and across this country can thrive. I am here to fight for them and for all Canadians.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you in the Speaker's seat. As I said to you off camera, it has been a long time coming.

First and foremost, I want to send a huge thanks to the hard-working people of Cariboo—Prince George for once again placing their trust in me to represent them, now for the fourth time.

My time is short today, so I rise not only to respond to the Speech from the Throne but also to address and confront a national tragedy that is shattering lives and communities, Canada's opioid crisis. Since 2016, over 51,000 Canadians have died from opioid overdose. These are not just numbers; they are our loved ones who were stolen by a crisis fuelled by the proliferation of fentanyl, coupled with horrendous policies by both federal and provincial governments.

In British Columbia, overdose is now the leading cause of death for youths aged 10 to 18. This is unacceptable, yet in the Liberal Speech from the Throne there was not a single mention of this catastrophe. In 2,500 words, there was not a single reference to the opioid crisis killing thousands of Canadians every year. On average, 17 Canadians lose their life every day due to overdose, and those are just the numbers we know. Perhaps that is by design. After all, during his recent leadership race, our new Prime Minister stood before Canadians and said publicly that the overdose issue was a challenge, but not a crisis. As a matter of fact, he repeated it.

The opioid crisis has been exacerbated by the Liberal government's misguided drug policies and catch-and-release criminal justice reforms. These policies must be ended immediately. They have left our streets less safe and our communities more vulnerable. They are not saving any lives; they are just perpetuating addiction, with no end in sight.

The opioid epidemic is a public safety disaster. British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario account for 83% of all opioid deaths, but no community is spared, large or small. The opioid crisis knows no social boundaries. In fact, just this week, in my hometown of Williams Lake, the city council passed a motion to explore declaring a state of emergency in response to the rising incidents of vandalism, open drug use, fires in front of businesses, theft, public indecency, defecation and more. City councillor Scott Nelson said the following with respect to the crisis: “Things have gotten so crazy, [so bad,] so out of control. Our resources [as a community] are depleted in terms of what’s taken place”.

In the last two days, there have been on average 10 to 20, possibly even 30, overdoses each day. That is astonishing. It is not Vancouver or Toronto but a small community of 10,000 people. Look at what it is experiencing and what it has been forced to do after 10 years of failed Liberal policies. Addiction fuels crime, homelessness and social disorder, yet the Liberals have prioritized harm reduction at the expense of prevention and recovery.

The Liberal government's failure to address the opioid crisis in its Speech from the Throne, despite very briefly mentioning border security and fentanyl trafficking in an attempt to appease President Trump, ignores the economic and human toll of the opioid crisis and sends a clear signal to Canadians struggling with addiction that their new federal government could not care less about them.

Over the last 10 years, the Liberal government's failed drug policies have done nothing to curb deaths. British Columbia's 2023 decriminalization experiment, fully supported by the Liberal government, allows possession and public use of hard drugs like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine. Despite decriminalization's being marketed as a solution, B.C.'s overdose death rate is the highest in Canada. Public drug use has surged, straining communities and first responders.

We hear reports of needles scattered around parks, playgrounds and sidewalks. Kids playing soccer in the Lower Mainland have to dodge contaminated needles on the field. Safe consumption sites are allowed to operate right beside high schools, and in doing so are promoting open drug use to young and vulnerable Canadians and falsely marketing it as safe.

So-called safe supply programs are an absolute, abject disaster. Diversion of these drugs into the black market fuels the illegal drug trade, many experts have admitted, but the Liberal government has tried to cover it up for years, demeaning anyone for speaking their uncomfortable truths.

In November 2024, retired Prince George RCMP superintendent Shaun Wright testified on the opioid crisis at our parliamentary health committee. Mr. Wright, who has decades of experience in frontline policing, has said that the decriminalization experiment was “the most horrific failure of public policy” in the history of B.C.

This is the side of the decriminalization experiment that the Liberal politicians in the Ottawa bubble will not see, do not see and do not want us to understand or see. Our communities are unsafe, and our constituents feel unwelcome in their own neighbourhoods. The government must commit to not expanding the failed decriminalization experiment to anywhere else in Canada and to halting all attempts to bring forward legalization of deadly hard drugs, as some Liberals have suggested.

Furthermore, the $1 billion spent by the Liberals, as mentioned earlier by one of our colleagues, has solved nothing. What do we have to show for it? We have more deaths, more families torn apart, more communities on the brink of extinction and no hope in sight. I ask the member to take a look around their community. Does it look the same way as it did 10 years ago, before the first Liberal reign in 2015? It does not.

Treatment access remains severely limited, and supervised consumption sites simply do not address addiction's root causes. The throne speech was silent on the crisis. It missed a critical opportunity to prioritize treatment and recovery.

This baffles me a little, because we have had a plan to fight for recovery. In our Conservative platform, we highlighted how we would create 50,000 new beds for recovery to honour the 50,000 Canadians who have died from the crisis. The Liberals stole so many ideas from our plan: the GST cut on housing, income tax cuts, etc. I strongly encourage them to steal this plan as well and to get to work creating those 50,000 beds.

There is another side to the drug crisis as well. The Liberal government's criminal justice reforms, most notably Bill C-5, have made things many times worse. By eliminating mandatory minimum penalties for certain drug-related offences, Bill C-5 is a catch-and-release policy that lets traffickers off with nothing but a slap on the wrist.

In our communities, 98% of crime is committed by five or six prolific offenders in one of my communities, and by 30 in my largest community, Prince George. When they are in jail, the crime rate goes down. When they are out of jail, the crime rate goes up.

As a matter of fact, when one of my constituents, Bob Hubbard, returned home last fall, he found his house being looted by a group of drug addicts. He tried to stop them. While he was in the process, they ran him over with his own vehicle and left him for dead on the road. The perpetrators were caught the very same day, but within 24 hours after leaving Mr. Hubbard for dead on the road, they were out committing more crimes in our community. That is the reality we live in.

Businesses have also been broken into. Their windows are smashed and their doorways are set on fire so many times that owners cannot get the necessary insurance to operate their business, so they choose not to report these incidents or they close shop altogether, leaving the downtown core a ghost town. That is the reality after 10 years of Liberal government.

If the Speaker will indulge me, I have to leave with this. Canada's opioid crisis, with over 50,000 lives lost since 2016, is a tragedy ignored by the government's Speech from the Throne. In B.C., drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for youth aged 10 to 18. This is a tragedy that hits home when I think of 13-year-old Brianna MacDonald, who died alone from an overdose in a homeless encampment in Abbotsford late last August. Her story is a stark reminder of our failure to protect the most vulnerable.

As leaders, we must do better and be better.

This is not just a challenge; it is a crisis. It demands urgent action, not silence. The Prime Minister's policies have failed Canadians, and Canadians demand a system that supports recovery, punishes traffickers and restores safety.

Let us honour Brianna and the thousands lost in this city by fighting for a future where no more lives are lost.

Public Safety

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, knocking on thousands of doors in my community this past spring, I heard the same concern: People are worried about the rise in crime. In Winnipeg, violent crimes like assaults, threats and extortion are increasing. Homicide Canada reported that in 2024, Winnipeg had over 40 homicides for the sixth year in a row. Because of Liberal bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, repeat violent offenders are treated with kid gloves and get released.

When will the Liberals finally put the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of their soft-on-crime, hug-a-thug agenda?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal government, many Canadians no longer feel safe in their own communities. Violent crime is up 50%. Gang homicides are up 78%. Gun crime is up 116%. This is the direct result of the revolving-door Liberal justice system, or injustice system as I should say, and weak Liberal laws that serve the interests of criminals and not Canadians.

If this really is a new government, will the Prime Minister repeal Trudeau's old soft-on-crime policies, including Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have news from my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Yesterday, a Hamilton city bus was caught in the crossfire of a shooting. This comes just weeks after an innocent young lady tragically lost her life by a stray bullet on Upper James simply by waiting for the bus.

Crime is out of control, and this status quo is unacceptable. When will the Prime Minister repeal Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so we can bring back safety to the streets of Hamilton and Canada?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to rise in the chamber today. Let me begin by congratulating you on your new role and congratulating all members who got elected or re-elected to the 45th Parliament.

Today, I rise in the chamber to thank the residents of the great riding of Brampton West for giving me the honour and the incredible privilege to serve as their member of Parliament. I recognize and greatly appreciate that I am here today because of the efforts of countless individuals, from family and friends to mentors and neighbours, who have supported me, guided me and inspired me along my journey.

I would like to thank the wonderful team that ran my campaign and committed countless hours of their time and efforts: the volunteers, the supporters, the donors and the staff. Running in the election also required a lot of sacrifices from our families. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my wife, Amandeep Gill, and my son, Rajvir Gill, who sacrificed a lot of time and gave me the unconditional support and encouragement to run in the election and serve the residents of Brampton West.

I am thankful to the Brampton West residents for the faith and trust they have put in me to serve them. I am committed to discussing the priorities that matter to them and hold the government accountable not only to the residents of my riding, but to the whole city of Brampton. With humbleness, I carry the great responsibility of representing Brampton West and representing their values, concerns, hopes and dreams of a bright and uplifting future for themselves and their children in this beautiful country of ours that we all feel proud to call our home.

After completing my post-secondary education in engineering and political science and an MBA, I immigrated to Canada in 1998. I am personally very grateful to be able to call Canada my home. Like many of the Brampton West residents, I come from humble beginnings. I come from a family of service, as my grandfather and father both served in the armed forces during World War I and World War II, respectively. Because of their sacrifices, I experienced first-hand that freedom and opportunities are gifts of dedication and selfless service passed from one generation to the next. Their legacy of duty and courage reminds me that I must also work diligently out of these values of hard work, determination and perseverance to contribute toward a life of freedom and opportunities for the next generation.

While my father gave me the discipline and commitment to duty and service, my mother gave me the values of care and compassion. Through her example, she taught me the importance of taking care of each other with patience and understanding and nurturing growth and togetherness in our families and our communities. It is with these values of service, hard work, dedication and commitment toward excellence for the benefit of all that I stand here today on behalf of the residents of Brampton West.

Brampton has been my home for over 20 years. I am grateful that, as a newcomer, my efforts and hard work were rewarded by the Canadian promise, and I received opportunities that allowed me to advance my professional career with diverse experiences: from quality assurance in the automotive, industrial and aerospace sectors to a distinguished tenure as an adjudicator at Tribunals Ontario, all while raising a family in a safe and prosperous city.

Today, I rise not just as the member of Parliament for Brampton West to express my gratitude, but as the voice of a community that has been promised much and delivered far too little.

The Speech from the Throne spoke of ambition, inclusivity and recovery, but for my constituents, those words ring hollow. They ring hollow to families that can no longer afford groceries, residents afraid to walk down their streets, and young people watching their dreams of home ownership slip away. The throne speech does not reflect the reality faced daily by the people of Brampton.

Let me paint a picture of what the reality is for Brampton residents regarding the key issues of safety, cost of living, employment, housing, immigration and business opportunities, or lack thereof.

On public safety, while the government claims it is strengthening public safety, the people of Brampton are living in fear. Violent crime is up 50%; auto theft is up 50%; extortion is up 400%. Soft-on-crime Liberal policies, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have unleashed the crime waves in Brampton. This is part of the worst crime wave this country has ever seen. The Peel Regional Police even had to launch Project Warlock, recovering vehicles and solving violent home invasions. It is for these reasons that the Peel Regional Police Association endorsed the Conservative Party, including my candidacy. I look forward to working closely with those police officers.

The throne speech mentioned more tools for law enforcement, but after eight years of inaction, communities like mine know the truth: There is no safety in a press release. What is needed is real funding, tougher bail reform and support for local police, not recycled announcements.

On affordability and the cost of living, the throne speech spoke about affordability, yet in Brampton the average home price in April 2025 stood at just under $950,000, a dream slipping further out of reach for working families. The cost of living is almost $2,900 per person per month. Grocery prices have surged. Rents are up. Interest rates are punishing mortgage holders, and still the government added more carbon taxes and deeper deficits. There is no clear plan to cut wasteful spending or to put money back in Canadians' pockets.

On jobs and the economy, the throne speech promised economic growth, but the numbers tell the truth. Brampton's unemployment rate is up. Canada's unemployment rate is up. Small businesses are struggling, choked by red tape and high taxes. We need policies that lower taxes, encourage investments and get Canadians better paycheques.

On immigration, I am an immigrant and I know first-hand the value that newcomers bring to this country, but I also know that growth without planning leads to strain. In Brampton, over 52% of the population are immigrants, a testament to our multicultural strength, but this rapid growth has outpaced housing, transit and health care.

Housing was mentioned in the throne speech, but the crisis has worsened under the Liberal government. Brampton has one of the fastest-growing populations in Canada, but building permits and completion lag far behind demand. Promises to work with municipalities have not delivered enough shovels in the ground. Where is the federal leadership on zoning reform, infrastructure investment and rental construction? We need action now to build homes fast and to put the dream of home ownership back within the reach of Canadians.

On small businesses and opportunities, the throne speech says that Canada is open for business, but for entrepreneurs in Brampton the reality is burdensome paperwork, rising costs and policy uncertainty. Business owners in general are begging for tax relief and streamlined licensing. Instead, they get more red tape and rising payroll costs. The Conservative vision is clear: cut the red tape, incentivize innovation and support the backbone of our economy that is small businesses.

Brampton West elected me because they are tired of promises and now they want to see the results. They are tired of headlines without substance, slogans without strategy, and speeches that speak of ambition without any road map to achievement.

Brampton West residents resonated with the values of the Conservative Party: fiscal responsibility, public safety, economic opportunity, and respect for families and businesses. While the government celebrates headlines, I will fight for families, seniors and young Canadians trying to build a life.

I hear the people of Brampton West, and I stand with them. I will continue holding the Liberal government to account until their voices are truly reflected in the decisions made in this House.

Public Safety

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, soft-on-crime Liberal bills, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, have unleashed crime waves in Brampton and across our country. Violent crime is up 50%. Auto theft is up 50%, and extortion is up 400%. The out-of-touch public safety minister said, during his campaign, that there was nothing wrong with the bail system. Repeat offenders should be in jail, not out on bail.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the minister, or does he stand with frontline officers, like Peel police officers, to bring in bail reforms?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a serious issue is the will of Canadians to live in peace, which they once did. Now they live in fear because of Liberal soft-on-crime policies. Liberal policies like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 put repeat violent offenders back on the streets, contributing to the suffering of communities across Canada. Premiers, police, legal experts and civil liberties advocates all demand change.

I ask the question one more time: Will the Prime Minister restore safe streets and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, yes or no?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies like Bill C-5 have led to a crime wave across Canada. Violent crime is up 50%, and gun violence is up 116%. Just yesterday, a drive-by shooting shook our small rural community of Cayuga. This crime wave is no accident. It is a direct result of Liberal policies like Bill C-5, which has ended mandatory jail time for serious gun offences and drug crimes.

Will the Prime Minister end this crime wave by repealing Trudeau's Bill C-5?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was probably the longest petitions segment we have had in a long time, but I am glad everybody had a chance to deliver petitions signed by their constituents, or signed by their EDAs. Some of our friends across the way probably put them together, but nonetheless, who am I to judge?

Why are we here? We are here once again talking about SDTC, the Liberal green slush fund. I think this is the third time I have had a chance to speak to this. Every time we get a chance to speak to this, we go back into our ridings and we hear more anger and frustration from our constituents regarding the NDP-Liberal government. I will just warn the Speaker that he is probably going to get a lot of points of order from our friends down along the way. I see my friend, another B.C. counterpart from the NDP down there, who likes to filibuster. He likes to take up a lot of the Conservatives' time and protest all the time about all the bad stuff that us Conservatives do, yet he has propped up the government for four years now.

The NDP-Liberal government has now frozen the business of the House for weeks because of its green slush fund scandal. We have been unable to deal with any of the pressing issues facing Canadians, because it refuses to release the documents, the unredacted documents, detailing over $400 million of taxpayer funds that were handed to Liberal insiders. That is the honest to goodness truth. There were over 186 conflicts of interest. A senior civil servant slammed the Liberal government's outright incompetence. The Auditor General said that the industry minister did not sufficiently monitor contracts given to Liberal insiders.

As a matter of fact, the chair of SDTC directed funds right to her own organization. That is what we are talking about today. That is what we have been talking about for the last weeks, or months, really. It is shocking. I have been a member of Parliament for nine years, and I was elected during the sunny ways campaign, where the member for Papineau stood before Canadians and said that when he was Prime Minister, his government would follow the law and be the most open government in the history of our country.

What have we seen is scandal after scandal after scandal. What is shocking to me is how the NDP just fell in line with the Liberals and have really carried the water for them many times. It is always funny when pieces of legislation come before the House and we hear, “Just get it to committee. We will do good work at committee and everybody can have a say in it.” What we have seen over the last four years, whether it is with the WE scandal, SDTC or so many more, is that the NDP has carried the water for the corrupt Liberal government.

New Democrats stand up and like to be holier than thou and very sanctimonious in their deliberations and interventions. They say, “How dare they?” Their leader puffs up his chest and says, “I'm right here, bro” and is on social media talking tough. He did a press conference before QP today, where he was all tough talk and what have we.

The leader of the NDP stood before Canadians and ripped up the agreement between the two parties, and then quickly taped it up and said, “I'm sorry, dear. I didn't mean to do that. I love you.” Every step of the way, he has propped up these guys. Just recently, he once again chose the Prime Minister over Canadians. It is shocking time and time again. He says that he is against the carbon tax, yet he has voted 24 times, maybe even more, in favour of it.

Liberals could end this right now by handing over the documents Parliament requested so that we can allow the RCMP to do its job and investigate the Liberal cronies at SDTC, but they will not do that.

Instead, Liberals stand before the cameras and say, “If only the Conservatives would stop doing what they are doing.” We are the only ones doing our job and making sure that the government is held to account for $400 million. I see the gallery is filling up again. It is Wednesday afternoon after question period and we have a semi-full gallery. I want to let the people in the gallery know that it is $400 million.

What do the Liberals want us to do? They want us to send it to committee, to let the committee study it and see if there was any malfeasance or bad stuff going on. I have said before that, if somebody steals from you, Mr. Speaker, do you go to a committee or do you go to the RCMP? That is why we are here today.

Another thing I want to talk about today, one that is near and dear to me, is another crisis that is taking place, and that is the opioid crisis. The reason I bring that up is for us to imagine how far that $400 million could have gone to help the opioid crisis. How many beds could that $400 million have built?

The Liberals stand and say it was the Conservatives who cut all the jobs at CBSA, but in 2014-15, one of the highest amounts of funding went to the CBSA. Once the Liberal government and the Prime Minister were in place, in 2016-17, over 1,000 jobs were cut. Over $440 million were cut. It is in the Liberals' own public accounts. No one has to believe me. Canadians can bring up the public accounts and see for themselves.

Let us get back to what I was talking about: the opioid crisis. We are powerless to stop illicit drugs from coming into our country. Over 47,000 Canadians have tragically lost their lives to the opioid crisis since 2016, and that situation continues to worsen. In British Columbia, the decriminalization of hard drugs was touted as a solution to reduce stigma and save lives, yet the policy failed. It failed to deliver the intended results. Instead, communities have seen increased drug use in public spaces, needles outside of schools and in playgrounds, public disorder, diversion to youth and organized crime, and no meaningful reductions in overdose deaths.

I am going to say this again because I believe it bears repeating. Overdose is the leading cause of death for youth aged 10 to 18 in the province of British Columbia. That is staggering. I ask Canadians listening in and those in the gallery to look around their neighbourhoods and communities. Do their communities look the same as they did nine years ago? They do not.

I can say that it was not that way before the Prime Minister, and it will not be that way when we elect a strong Conservative prime minister who will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. The sole focus of the next Conservative government is cleaning up the mess that the Liberal government has made.

We cannot talk about the opioid crisis without talking about safe supply programs, where these government-funded drugs are being diverted and sold illegally, undermining their purpose and fuelling addiction in vulnerable populations, including our youth. The situation is further exacerbated by the flow of deadly substances like fentanyl across our porous borders.

I talked about this earlier. Liberals like to blame Stephen Harper and the former Conservative government, yet it is the government that has been in power for nine years that cut funds and jobs at the CBSA for consecutive years when it took power. The Liberals like to blame everybody but themselves.

Despite clear evidence of dangers posed by these substances, enforcement and border controls remain insufficient to stem the tide. Clearly, stopping fentanyl from entering our country and destroying our communities is not a priority for the government. The government has spent billions on policies that perpetuate addiction, without addressing the root causes or providing support for treatment and recovery.

I will bring it back to the topic we are talking about today: the SDTC fund, where over $440 million of Canadian taxpayer funds was stolen and divvied out by a Liberal-appointed committee to the chair, to other friends and to families and colleagues of the Liberals. Canadians should be outraged at this. How can the Liberals continue to ignore the pleas of families and communities devastated by this crisis? They have had nine years, and all they have been doing is making it worse.

Bill C-5 is a classic example of the Prime Minister's hug-a-thug, revolving-door criminal justice policy that is making our communities unsafe. Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for certain violent offenders. We want jail, not bail, for criminals who will endanger Canadians. This is why we introduced a motion in the House this week calling on the NDP-Liberal government to reverse Bill C-5, bring in harsher jail sentences for drug kingpins, ban precursor chemicals that organized crime groups use to make deadly fentanyl, scan the containers at our ports and put more boots on the ground at our borders. Ninety-nine per cent of the containers that come through our borders are not scanned. It is unbelievable.

Unfortunately, to Canadians' shock and awe, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition voted against it. It voted against the safety of our communities and of Canadians. I ask this of any Canadian who is watching right now: Is this the government they elected in 2015? Is this what they expected? Many Canadians took the bait, hook, line and sinker. The Prime Minister likes to stand before Canadians, put his hand on his heart and dab away a fake tear. He has lied, misled Canadians all along the way.

I cannot talk about the opioid crisis without talking about young Brianna MacDonald. For those who might be just tuning in and those in the gallery, Brianna MacDonald was a 12-year-old. She was on the streets of Abbotsford. She turned 13 on July 15. That is my son's birthday. She died on August 23 in a homeless encampment from overdose. That is my daughter's birthday. Lance Charles, her dad, and Sarah MacDonald were here. Over 30 times, they took Brianna to the hospital to plead for help, for health care, for the doctors or somebody to intervene and help Brianna. What were they given? They were told that if Brianna wanted to kill herself, it was her prerogative. Instead of help, Brianna was given needles and instructions on how to do the drugs better. She was 13 years of age.

I cannot talk about the Liberal government and its failed soft-on-crime, hug-a-thug policies, without talking about Mr. Hubbard in my community. Mr. Hubbard is a senior. He was out in the morning and returned home in the afternoon to find his place being looted by criminals to fuel their drug addiction. He tried stopping them. What happened was that they drove over him, dragged him down the road and left him for dead.

We are tough in northern B.C., in our region. Mr. Hubbard lived, but he has had reconstructive surgery on his face, and he almost lost his arm. He has to endure more operations down the road. However, the same day this incident took place, the RCMP caught a couple of the perpetrators. Within 24 hours, they were back out on the street. It is crazy, but that is what we are seeing time and again from this hug-a-thug Liberal Prime Minister and his friends in the NDP. They talk a big game; they always talk about doing the right thing, yet they fail Canadians every time they get a chance.

We talked about the $400 million of taxpayer funds taken out of the pockets of Canadians and handed to Liberal insiders. We talked about the 186 conflicts of interest that were found by the Auditor General. Again, this debate could end right now if the Liberals just turned over the documents, unredacted, so that the RCMP could have a look at them and see what went on. Instead, they continue to try to cover their tracks and defend their corrupt friends. Meanwhile, Canada is broken. Time and again, we receive messages from our constituents, who are frustrated: “Can't you do anything about the government? Can't you call an election? Can't you force an election?” We are trying.

Canadians are struggling just to get by while the Liberals are focused on enriching their corrupt friends. However, it should not surprise anyone. The legacy of the Prime Minister is one of chaos, scandal, corruption and cover-up, and it did not start today with the green slush fund. It has been a nine-year pattern of dodging accountability and transparency. Did he not say that his was going to be the most transparent government in the history of the country? Somehow, the NDP and the Bloc are still supporting the Prime Minister.

I could go on for hours about the scandals and conflicts of interest that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been caught in: the Aga Khan, WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin, blackface, clam scam, arrive scam, GC Strategies, cash for access, gropegate, elbowgate, surf is up in Tofino, the Emergencies Act, sole-sourced contracts, foreign interference and the condo on Billionaires' Row with his media buddy.

The latest scandal to rock the government is, of course, the other Randy. First, he found himself in hot water when texts emerged of a Randy texting the business partners of a shady, fraudulent company. If anybody has seen these text messages, they know that it is an actual shakedown of $500,000. It is a strict no-no for Crown ministers to be caught bidding on federal contracts, so the former minister explained that it was the actions of another Randy, an individual who, as far as we know now, does not exist. His partner said that it was autocorrect nine times. What a farce.

Honestly, the excuses we get from the Liberal front bench on their misgivings is really farcical. I am sure they are going to write a movie about it at some point; all of these scandals and the corruption that take place are really out of a Hollywood script.

All I have to say is that it was not this way before the current Prime Minister. It will not be this way when Canadians elect a strong Conservative prime minister who will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Mental Health and Addictions

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the weak Prime Minister has lost control of our borders. He started by teaming up with the British Columbia NDP to decriminalize fentanyl. He has kept 80% of fentanyl precursor ingredients legal. He allows 99% of shipping containers to come into our country uninspected. He passed Bill C-5, which gives house arrest to the kingpins who produce that poison.

Will the Prime Minister reverse his radical liberalization of drugs so that not one more mother will have the heartbreak of losing a child to an overdose?

Opposition Motion—Repeal of Bill C-5

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to begin my speech by talking about the only part of the Conservative motion that I agree with: the government's lax approach at our borders. However, after hearing my Conservative colleagues talk about the opioid crisis the way they did, I decided to start on a different vein, because I found what they said to be completely mind-boggling. I may come back to how the government is managing our borders, if I have enough time.

As is often the case when it comes to the opioid crisis, the Conservative motion is inaccurate, if not downright misleading. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' speeches were full of misinformation. At no time was the government ever involved in the radical liberalization of drugs, as the Conservative Party is suggesting. We do not even know whether that means anything. Are they talking about the decriminalization of marijuana? Are they talking about the diversion measures set out in the Criminal Code via Bill C-5? Are they talking about the pilot project in British Columbia? If so, none of those measures deserve to be described as a radical liberalization of drugs.

While the borders are indeed lax and more must be done to secure them, the part of the motion that mentions reduced sentences for drug kingpins has zero basis in fact. Is it actually about Bill C‑5, which eliminated certain minimum sentences? If so, are the Conservatives insinuating that eliminating minimum sentences caused thousands of people to die, as a member said earlier? That is an absurd idea for sure.

We know that the causes of the opioid crisis are far more complex and far-reaching than the Conservative Party's motion suggests. They range from mental health and poverty to the housing shortage, legal opioid prescriptions and more. Crime and the contamination of drugs with opioids is certainly a big part of the problem, but the Conservatives' magical solution of putting everyone in jail, be they victim or criminal, is not a sustainable solution. It is actually no solution at all. That is why it would be impossible for us to vote in favour of the Conservatives' motion. The Conservatives are offering up simplistic solutions to complex problems. That is something we see too often in the House, unfortunately.

My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord spoke at length about Bill C-5 and the fact that we had proposed splitting it in two because it dealt with two elements that are both extremely important but different, so I will not go into that again. I will talk more about diversion measures rather than mandatory minimums.

The diversion measures included in Bill C-5 were aimed at only one provision of the Criminal Code and that was simple drug possession. I do not think this has been said enough so far, but the goal of this approach is to divert people with drug problems who do not necessarily pose a threat to public safety away from the justice system. The idea behind diversion is to relieve the courts of the burden of dealing with drug users so that resources can be dedicated to the real threat posed by drug traffickers. Diversion is not the same as legalizing all drugs. A person who systematically refuses to abide by the alternatives proposed by the justice system and who uses drugs in a way that is dangerous to others can still be prosecuted.

The Bloc Québécois supported this change of approach because the war on drugs, as waged in the U.S. by President Nixon, for example, is simply not working. People with substance use problems need health care and social services. Putting them in prison will certainly not improve their fate. It is better to focus our resources on helping as many people as possible so that they can become productive members of society again and to ensure that our courts can focus on prosecuting the real criminals who sell harmful drugs, cut with synthetic drugs.

Our approach to substance abuse is to see drug use as a public health issue, not a strictly criminal one. While the diversion approach is a step in the right direction, the fact remains that the federal government has, in a way, done only half the job. Diversion is modelled on Portugal's highly successful approach. However, their success is also due to the fact that they have invested heavily in social services and in services directly on the ground.

If the federal government were sincere about taking this approach, it would increase health transfers to the provinces and provide more funding to community organizations working on the ground.

The Bloc Québécois's approach is also consistent with the Quebec government's 2022-25 national strategy for preventing overdoses involving psychoactive substances. The strategy proposes actions based on a harm reduction model and promotes the idea of seeing users as voluntary participants, rather than criminalizing them. The strategy addresses not only opioids, but other psychoactive substances as well, given the evolving epidemiological situation. It includes 15 measures divided among seven clearly defined areas of action. I will name a few. Without reviewing everything, it is fascinating to see what the Quebec government is doing.

For starters, there is education and awareness, which involves disseminating relevant information and raising awareness among the general public about the risk of overdose from psychoactive substances. We need to raise awareness among various communities about user stigma. Then there is overdose prevention and harm reduction, which involves strengthening and improving access to naloxone, a fast-acting drug that temporarily reverses the effects of an opioid overdose, and strengthening and expanding the availability of supervised consumption services.

Let us not forget that the Conservative Party, under Stephen Harper, did everything it could to undermine the supervised injection site programs of Quebec and the provinces by refusing to grant the sites an exemption so that they could store the drugs that they were providing. The Supreme Court put the then Canadian government in its place. That is why I am so surprised today to see the leader of the Conservative Party denouncing these initiatives and safe supply programs.

The Conservatives seem to forget that their ideologically driven approach to problems is often inconsistent with fundamental rights. Not only was their opposition to drug-related health care ruled incompatible with our rights, but some of the mandatory minimum sentences they introduced to the Criminal Code were also struck down.

The programs that supply drugs to patients are justified by the fact that they save lives. These programs allow people with an addiction to consume a substance whose content is known, which helps prevent overdoses. What is more, thanks to these programs, the individuals receive social services and health care and come in contact with social workers and nurses. This creates a range of benefits, such as detecting and treating STIs, which can become the first step on the long road to ending addiction.

Getting back to the measures in the Quebec government's national strategy, the next one is public policies and regulations. The aim is to develop safer supply practices. Unlike supervised injection sites, where people use drugs under supervision, safer supply programs provide prescription drugs to prevent overdoses. These programs target individuals who would otherwise purchase drugs on the black market, which is highly risky.

The strategy also talks about monitoring and surveillance; evaluation, research and training; addiction treatment; and pain treatment. I think these measures work much better than putting victims of drug addiction behind bars, as it were.

This strategy is based on pragmatism and compassion, two values that are antithetical to the Conservatives' ideological approach.

I know that I only have a little time left, but I want to come back to border management. The past few years have not been easy. We had to repeatedly remind the government to take action at the border. It was reactive, not proactive. We saw the same thing recently with new President-elect Trump, who made campaign threats to deport millions of people. We thought it seemed likely that these people would try to come to Canada, so we needed to secure the border. When I asked the Minister of Public Safety about it the day after the U.S. election, he told me that everything was fine at the borders and that there was really nothing to stress about there.

Today, we learn that the government is going to spend $1 billion on a plan to secure the border. The government is talking about buying helicopters and drones. I mentioned one solution earlier, which is to allow border services officers to patrol between border crossings. Right now, an order in council prevents that from happening. There are all sorts of solutions. We definitely need to improve border security. That is one of the solutions that would work better than what the Conservative Party is proposing in this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I still believe that Bill C‑5 is a good bill with a good foundation. Unfortunately, the amendments we proposed were rejected, leaving us with provisions that are far from perfect.

The point that my colleague raised is worrisome. However, I think we need to be careful when we look at justice statistics. We need to consider each case individually. When a court is seized with issue X in the case of Mr. Y or Ms. W, it gives one decision. Another judge in a different case involving the same provisions will give another decision, because the circumstances are different and the accused is different. All sorts of factors need to be taken into account.

My colleague is right. What he is telling us is serious. However, I would like to look at those statistics and cases individually. I still believe that we have to trust our justice system and our courts to make the most appropriate decisions based on the circumstances.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to quote Marc Bellemare, who has represented victims of crime in Quebec since 1979. He was Quebec's justice minister from 2003 to 2004. Here is what he had to say about Bill C‑5: “It is repugnant that this law applies to violent criminals. Last year, 112 of the 569 offenders convicted of sex assault in Quebec were sentenced to house arrest, a generous gift made possible by [this Prime Minister 's] government's Bill C‑5, which has been in effect since November 17, 2022.” He then went on to cite a long list of cases.

How can the member support the substance of a bill like this?

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

What our Conservative colleagues are essentially proposing is to turn back the clock and basically cancel Bill C-5, which already passed. They are doing so for all sorts of reasons that could be called fallacious, false or unfounded. First, Bill C-5 sought to do two things: repeal mandatory minimum penalties in many situations and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. We were among those who, at the time, asked for Bill C-5 to be split. We felt that these were indeed two separate issues and that it would have been more effective to deal with them one at a time. However, as it is so often the case with these things, the government tried to get us to swallow a bitter pill with a bit of honey. We had to vote on both at the same time, even though we had reservations about some aspects of both issues. Still, we agreed on the spirit of the bill.

I will start with mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, which do not work at all. That has been demonstrated many times. MMPs are useful for someone who wants to decide for the judge what sentence should be handed down. However, commentators, criminologists, lawyers and others who have studied this issue have all said that MMPs do not work and do not reduce crime. Professor Tonry, an American criminologist who researched and wrote about this subject, stated the following:

Evaluated in terms of their stated substantive objectives, mandatory penalties do not work. The record is clear…that mandatory penalty laws shift power from judges to prosecutors, meet with widespread circumvention, produce dislocations in case processing....

In fact, when Crown prosecutors find themself with a case that they may or may not have to litigate, they will often be less enthusiastic about negotiating a deal with the defence attorney if there is already a mandatory minimum sentence in place. The case will end up going to trial because the Crown knows there is a minimum sentence. They are guaranteed that minimum if the individual is found guilty. If there is no mandatory minimum sentence, there is no knowing what the judge will decide. Not knowing in advance encourages discussions between the lawyers, who often come to an agreement.

This is between two experienced lawyers who come to a compromise by realizing that there is a good chance that the court, if it were hearing the case, would come to a similar conclusion. Then comes an agreement where everyone is satisfied with the sentence that will be applied. The courts do not get bogged down with an extra case, which would be a very good outcome these days. In our view, and in the view of Professor Tonry and many other observers, this is a substantial argument.

Another argument against mandatory minimum sentences is that they are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada said as much before Bill C‑5 was passed. That was the inspiration for it. The Supreme Court told us that it was unconstitutional. Mandatory minimum sentences violate section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects people from “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. Key decisions in this area include Nur in 2015, Lloyd in 2016 and Boudreault in 2018. These may be the most seminal cases on this subject, but many other court decisions have always been along the same lines: mandatory minimums hurt more than they help.

In Lloyd, the Supreme Court addressed another aspect when it said:

Another solution would be for Parliament to build a safety valve that would allow judges to exempt outliers for whom the mandatory minimum will constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Residual judicial discretion for exceptional cases is a technique widely used to avoid injustice and constitutional infirmity in other countries....

What we are being told is that mandatory minimum sentences go against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that if we want to keep them, there needs to be a safety valve to exempt outliers. That is what the Bloc Québécois proposed. I sat on the Standing Committee on Justice during the discussions on Bill C-5, and I moved a series of amendments to the bill. First there was a general amendment.

We proposed adding section 718.11 to the Criminal Code, which would say:

718.11 The court may waive any minimum punishment of imprisonment under this Act if it considers that exceptional circumstances warrant it and that the imposition of a minimum punishment would be unfair.

That is exactly what the Supreme Court said. To be clear, I did not take my cue from the Supreme Court. The idea came from a criminologist during the study of Bill C‑5. I moved that amendment, but it was ruled inadmissible. I challenged the chair's ruling, but every single member of the committee, all the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives, voted against me. I said I understood that my proposal exceeded the scope of Bill C‑5, and so we began the clause-by-clause study.

In clause 10, I proposed the following:

(2.1) The court may waive the minimum term of imprisonment under paragraph (2)(b) if it considers that exceptional circumstances warrant it.

What was the result? The Liberals, Conservatives and NDP opposed it. So be it; clause 11 also mentioned a minimum sentence. Once again, I suggested the same provision so that the court could use it to waive the minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances. Once again, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP opposed my proposal.

The same thing happened with clause 12. In fact, clauses 12 and 13 dealt with crimes involving the use of a firearm. We in the Bloc Québécois felt that this was serious enough to send a clear message to the courts that the minimum sentence should be applied, but with the possibility of waiving it in exceptional circumstances. I proposed the same provision in clauses 12 and 13, specifically exceptions for exceptional circumstances. I got the same result. The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats all opposed my proposal.

That is why I am a little surprised today to see the Conservatives proposing to repeal Bill C-5 or to backtrack on the provisions of Bill C‑5 by adding mandatory minimum sentences, when they know full well that the Supreme Court has ruled that this is unconstitutional.

What is more, the Conservatives rejected my amendments, which would have allowed mandatory minimum sentences to be introduced for the most serious crimes, but with a safety valve that would be acceptable to the Supreme Court according to the decisions I cited earlier, including the Lloyd decision. Furthermore, this provision met the objectives and responded to the concerns of all the experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice during the meetings on Bill C‑5. No, they rejected all that, but now they want to go back in time. This is an incomprehensible decision that I would describe as illogical and irrational.

Furthermore, as I was saying, MMPs are ineffective and unconstitutional. They are also costly, because more people are sent to prison. MMPs cost a lot of money and they are ineffective. That is what experts are saying. A potential criminal is not going to think twice about committing a certain crime because there is an MMP. As far as I know, or as far as the experts know, no one wonders what the MMP is before robbing a bank or killing someone. That just does not happen.

There is also the diversion aspect. That was the second part of Bill C‑5. We were in favour of diversion. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation, but, of course, diversion might not be the best idea for serious crimes. At the very least, more thought would need to go into that.

However, in the case of simple drug possession, we are talking about a health problem. We are talking about people who are addicted to drugs and, for medical and health reasons, they have to inject themselves with dangerous substances. We think that those individuals need treatment, not jail time.

I would have liked to talk about our proposals—