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.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not predict what a court will do, because each case is taken on its merits. I suppose that is the biggest difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. When it comes to the judiciary, we have faith in that institution.

My colleague knows that Bill C-5 was a response to the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly striking down the failed Conservative approach to sentencing. This disproportionately impacted racialized Canadians and indigenous peoples.

Yes, we do need to make sure that we are putting in place the appropriate sentencing for hardened gun traffickers. I believe that by raising maximum sentences, we are sending a clear signal to the courts. This is an expectation that if people terrorize anyone with a gun, they will face stiffer jail sentences. However, we also need to take action at the border. We did that with the Americans. We also need to include prevention. The Conservatives have never supported that, but they should. That is what a comprehensive plan looks like.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is just so much wrong with this presentation. Under the Liberals, violent crime has gone up 32%; gang crime has gone up almost 100%. The minister just spoke about registered firearms, yet the experts who appeared at the justice committee, the police chiefs, said that illegal firearms coming in from the United States are the cause of this problem.

Would the minister acknowledge that his bill, Bill C-5, eliminated mandatory penalties for trafficking in illegal firearms, drive-by shootings and using a firearm in the commission of an offence? While he is talking about increasing sentences for certain crimes, would he also acknowledge that the maximum sentence has never been used for any of these crimes, and it will not be under these changes?

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the Liberal member that, if he is looking to throw me off, he is severely underestimating me, just like many a man before him. I have a lot to say, and I will be here for quite some time, so hopefully he is hydrated and fed because he is going to be waiting a long time.

I have more to say on the announcement last week, which was impacted by Bill C-21. The minister at the same time announced the firearms advisory committee, the so-called new definition, but with the old definition, but sneakier.

He also announced that there is going to be something about a permanent alteration to magazines, which we have already, but the way he worded it would signify to me that there is going to be a change in what that means. When we tried to ask about it at committee, we did not get any answers because apparently it was not technically within Bill C-21, but he announced it at the same time he was talking about the bill. The Liberals and officials would not answer our question, but what was taken from that in the firearms community is that the permanent alteration of magazines would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many a firearm that really is Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle.

For example, the Lee Enfield, is a very popular firearm. It was the British firearm until about the 1950s. It is well made and has been passed down through generations. It is made completely from wood stock and is exactly what we would think of and picture when we think about Grandpa Joe going out to hunt deer. However, one cannot permanently alter the magazine capabilities of that firearm without destroying it. There is no way. Therefore, is the minister now saying that he is going to destroy the Lee Enfield? He will not answer. I have urged people to write to the minister to ask him about that because he will not answer our questions, nor will the Liberals on the public safety committee.

I will also note that the tubular magazine hunting rifle, where the bullet goes right into the tube because there is no magazine, as in the image the Liberals are trying to bring forward, is an old school, 1800s-level technology. For example, the Winchester 1873, I think it is called, is a tubular magazine firearm that holds seven to 14 cartridges or bullets. It cannot be altered in any way, as that would destroy the firearm.

These are heirloom firearms. I am pretty sure my grandfather had one in the closet for when coyotes would try to get into the chicken coop. That is how old school these firearms are. There are hundreds of versions of these in rural Canada. It is owned by collectors, and certainly by hunters and indigenous Canadians. If the SKS is popular in indigenous communities, so too is the Lee Enfield, so why would the Liberals not be clear on what they are talking about with respect to these permanent alterations to magazines? Why are they being so cagey about that? Is it because they do not know? Is it ignorance, or are they hiding something? I do not know.

I have given them the benefit of the doubt before. However, here we are, and they are forcing an end to the democratic discussion and scrutiny that is needed on this bill at committee today, so I really do not trust anything they are about to say on that, if they say anything at all, because they have refused to answer my questions and our questions at the public safety committee about the Lee Enfield and tubular magazine long guns.

While this has been going on, and we have heard so much about this, the Liberals are attacking us, particularly me. I suppose it is because I have been the lead on firearms. They talk about the Conservatives more in their announcements than they talk about the crime that is wreaking havoc in our communities, which they are not doing a lot about.

I want to say that I know this debate is very heated and very personal to people on all sides. I have always done my best to lead this discussion from our perspective, from a professional and authentic standpoint, and what really shocked me was last week, or it might have been the week before, when the minister was announcing phase one of his so-called buyback, which I will get to. He said, in essence, that Conservatives were at fault and bear some of the responsibility for the abuse the Liberals are getting from what they say are gun owners. I have no idea, as I have not seen that.

It is interesting that they talk about it as if we have not received any abuse from people who do not agree with our position. I can tell members that I have certainly received very threatening abuse for the position we have taken. I am the lead on this file. I have received many threats and have been concerned for my safety in this debate, so I was very offended when I heard them trying to blame Conservatives, particularly me because I am the lead in this regard, when I have not been spared or kept from any of that abuse myself.

I am undeterred. I will continue on. I will not be bullied into silence on this. However, just to be clear, the rhetoric from the Liberals is trumping up a lot of hate toward me and others on this side of the House as well. I do not like talking about it. We do not want copycats. We do not want any heroes from these evil, sadistic people, but when I heard something like that, I thought that I had to say something.

I have kept quiet, but I will not stand idly by while the Minister of Public Safety blames me for the abuse he has gotten for his underhanded policies, when I too have suffered abuse because of his rhetoric. I just wanted to put that on the record. I hope to speak to the minister personally about that.

We are talking a lot about firearms. Of course, exclusively, Bill C-21 only impacts, with the so-called handgun freeze or ban, which is really not any of that, people who follow the law. They are the trained, tested and vetted Canadian citizens who are approved by the RCMP to own firearms. Those are really the only people who are impacted by all of these measures since the May 2020 OIC and Bill C-71 before it. It only impacts regular, everyday Canadians who are legally allowed to own firearms. They are heavily vetted Canadians, who are legally allowed to own firearms.

However, the government continues to bring forward measure after measure to attack this group of people. Meanwhile, criminals are running rampant on our streets. I have talked at length about the crime issues. Canadians know full well what has been going on, on public transit and on the streets of Toronto. Everywhere we go in Canada there seems to be horrific headlines of innocent people being attacked by complete strangers who are deranged.

We are facing very serious issues, yet the Liberal budget 2023 really failed to address those violent crime issues. In fact, violent crime was not mentioned once, zero times, in that budget.

Do members know what else was not mentioned once in that budget? Bail reform was not mentioned once in the budget and has not been mentioned in the priorities of that budget from the Minister of Public Safety, despite the fact that every premier of every province and territory in Canada has written two letters to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform because of what is happening in their provinces and territories with crime and repeat violent offenders continuing to get bail and getting back on our streets, hurting Canadians.

When have we ever heard every premier in the country agreeing on a letter? It is very rare. Maybe when they are asking for health care funding, but aside from that, it is a very rare occurrence. There have now been two letters sent to the Prime Minister.

There are also municipal police forces. I just spoke at the big ten police conference, which included every major police association, municipal police forces across the country. I just flew to Calgary last week to speak to them. They are demanding bail reform. Every big city mayor in Ontario is demanding bail reform. While everyone seems to agree on bail reform, there has been no meaningful action or change taken by the Minister of Public Safety on bail reform. I will remind those watching of violent crime in this country, which is up 32% from 2015 to 2021.

When we get to 2022 stats, it will be deeply concerning, I am going to guess that they are going to be way up, just based on the headlines, but they are up 32% between 2015 and 2021. It equates to 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year, which is an insane amount of additional crime that the police are having to deal with, despite police numbers really suffering, which I will talk more about in a minute. We are seeing that crime wave steadily increase, year by year, under the Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety's watch. That is all happening.

On that, bail reform is a huge issue. If we look at Vancouver, there were 6,000 crime incidents, interactions with police, for crime. Of these, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police. Those 40 people are sure keeping police busy in Vancouver. These are violent repeat offenders causing havoc on transit, when we walk down the street with one's family and when we are trying to enjoy the parks. There are 40 people causing 6,000 interactions with police in one year, yet there are crickets about bail reform. They say, “Oh, we are meeting and talking about it”, but that is all we hear. It has been months.

In fact, the Victoria police recently put out a news release about a vile rapist who committed 10 sexual assaults with a weapon. Why was he released? The police wanted to make sure the public knew why it was not their fault he was released. At the bottom of the news release, there is a question that asks, “Why was this person released?” I think this is consistent on their news releases, when it is relevant. It was because of Bill C-75. That is a Liberal bill from a few years ago that made bail, in essence, the default for violent repeat offenders. They got bail by default.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. We are seeing a massive crime surge, and this is one of the reasons police are underlining this and making this heard by MPs over and over again. That is all going on. We are hearing through Toronto police statistics that of the 44 murders, I think it was either last year or in 2021, in over half, 24 or 26 of the 44 murders, the murderers were out on bail at the time. Over half of 44 murders could have been prevented if the Liberals had not brought in such a weak bail regime. They are getting up at the mike and talking about how this so-called new definition, old definition, no list, sneaky list given to the firearms advisory council is going to solve crime, or is one of the things that are going to solve crime.

It is not going to do anything about the people in Toronto who are getting out on bail and murdering people. Toronto police will remind us that about nine out of 10 firearms used in crime in Toronto, mostly handguns, are smuggled in from the U.S. We could outlaw, and I am sure the Liberals are working on it, every single handgun legally owned in this country, and the situation will get worse in cities. The statistics will continue to go up because these criminals are not legally owning the guns. Most of them are prohibited from ever going near a firearm.

Most repeat violent offenders should be in jail, because they smuggle the firearms in quite easily through the Prime Minister's very porous border, through which he has allowed all these drugs and guns to come into the country. That includes human trafficking and all kinds of other things he has allowed under his watch. They are flowing into Toronto and other big cities, such as Montreal and Winnipeg. I have seen the firearms myself, as the Winnipeg police have shown me smuggled ones. There are 3-D-printed guns as well. People are using 3-D printers and printing plastic handguns that are going for $7,000 a pop on the streets of Winnipeg. Bill C-21 would really not do a lot about that.

We worked together on an amendment to perhaps give police a teeny extra tool, which I supported, but going after lawful firearms owners is not going to do anything about the problems in Toronto. Nothing in Bill C-21 would really have stopped the murders of those 20-odd people who were murdered by those on bail who smuggled guns in or printed them. The Liberals say they are increasing maximum sentencing on gun smugglers. That is technically true, but in reality it is baloney. One of my Conservative colleagues, who did great work, made an information request to the government asking how many people have received the maximum sentence, up to right now, for gun smuggling. Do members know, for the eight years that the Prime Minister has ruled the country, how many people got the maximum 10-year sentence for gun smuggling activities? Zero people have gotten the maximum, so to increase it to 14 years is really not going to do a whole heck of a lot.

Perhaps what they should have done is to bring in mandatory minimums for gun smuggling. That would have taken criminals off the street. That would have actually done something, maybe. Conservatives were looking at maybe doing that with an amendment, but we were told it was out of scope so we could not bring forward mandatory maximums. Maybe that is something the member for Carleton, as prime minister of the country, will look at, because that would make a real, actual difference in cracking down on gun smuggling.

I will remind the House that, at the same time as the Liberals were going after lawful firearms owners to such a degree, with so many taxpayer dollars and so much effort by the Minister of Public Safety, in the fall, the Minister of Justice brought forward a bill, which he apparently celebrated quite excitedly when it was passed, to remove mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes and violent crimes. Does everyone want to know what the list of those crimes is? On the list is robbery with a gun. Someone can rob a store with a gun, and it is no longer guaranteed that they will go to jail. That is the Liberal Prime Minister's vision of what we should do about crime: People can rob someone at gunpoint, and there is no longer a mandatory minimum for them.

The list continues with extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings. There is no longer mandatory prison time for the people who commit these offences. Also on the list, there is using a firearm in the commission of an offence, or breaking the law with a gun; there is no longer a mandatory prison time for this. For possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized, or illegally possessing a firearm, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For all those criminals in Toronto, it was a good day when Bill C-5 passed.

There is also possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. A person could have a prohibited gun with a whole bunch of ammunition, and there is no longer mandatory prison time for them. Again, gangs are celebrating every time the Liberal Prime Minister is elected. For possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, stealing one, in essence, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, excluding firearms ammunition, there is no mandatory prison time.

For discharging a firearm recklessly, there is no longer mandatory prison time. People die in cities because there are gangsters discharging firearms recklessly all the time, firearms they have smuggled in or 3D-printed. There is no longer mandatory prison time for them. In fact, in that same bill, Bill C-5, the Liberals brought forward a supposedly improved option for people who commit sexual assault. Now the law ensures that people who commit sexual assault, rape, do not have to go to prison. They can actually serve house arrest in the comfort of their homes. Rapists can serve their sentence playing video games, with their feet up, in their own homes. It is unreal. I should not be laughing about it, but it is so outrageous and ridiculous that it is hard for me, as a woman, to wrap my head around a so-called feminist government saying that rapists can serve house arrest for their sentence. This just happened in Quebec, where a vile rapist violently raped a woman and got zero days in prison and only 20 months under house arrest.

This is all in the scope of what the Liberals view as their crime priorities. They are getting up at the mike every other day, announcing new gun control measures to go after folks who are lawfully allowed to own firearms, and saying that that is going to make a difference. What would make a difference is repealing Bill C-5 and making sure violent criminals and rapists go to jail. That would make a difference in public safety.

It is not just about firearms. In fact, a lot of the crime we are seeing involves knives. Where is the conversation about knives? We just had what I believe was the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history, and we barely heard a peep about that, certainly not from the Liberals. We tried to study it at committee, and they would not let us. It was in the fall, the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. A man who got out on parole despite—

Red Dress Day

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chair, I represent nine indigenous communities, first nations and Métis settlements across the 35,000 square kilometres of Lakeland, among 52 municipalities of different sizes, mostly small communities in rural areas.

Near St. Paul, Canada's first indigenous-owned and directed Blue Quills University, once a residential school, stands as a reminder of successive government policies that interfered in families, broke the bonds between children and parents, extended relatives and communities, involved barbaric abuse and led to children becoming adults cut off from their cultural identity and belonging. My own family background is one with a social services-caused family gap from Ojibway relatives. That, among other government policies and laws that prevented indigenous people from being in control of their own lives, caused trauma that has impacted generations and the reality of disproportionate socio-economic, domestic violence and crime-related challenges experienced by indigenous people in Canada.

Local indigenous people turned more than four decades of hurt into hope, and Blue Quills now offers jobs training and degrees in first nations languages, focuses on restoring indigenous languages and cultures to contribute to intergenerational healing, and offers all Canadians information about residential schools.

Today, Blue Quills, like on the grounds of so many other former residential schools across the country, is also identifying the remains of children who died there and were never returned to their families.

Indigenous women and girls are still being taken. They are going missing from their families and communities in Canada.

The facts are brutal. Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately affected by all forms of violence. At a parliamentary committee, experts testified that 52% of human trafficking victims are indigenous. Horrifyingly, the average age of exploitation of an indigenous girl is just 12 years old.

Many reports show that indigenous women are more likely to experience intimate partner violence and more severe harm than non-indigenous women. Indigenous youth under the age of 14 comprise fewer than 8% of all Canadian children but represent 52% of children in foster and adoptive care. Having a child in the welfare system is also the most common feature among women and girls trapped in prostitution.

In 2019, the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls made 231 recommendations. Two years went by and we waited for the Liberal government's action plan. This is the same government that claims to prioritize the relationship with indigenous people above all else. It is a lengthy process that has not yet delivered better outcomes and has resulted in many participants calling it toxic, flawed and unsafe.

The government failed to address one of the core elements that any plan has, which is an obligation to the victims and survivors, their families and all indigenous women and girls to ensure their voices are reflected so that indigenous women and girls today and future generations can live safely and freely.

Communities in and around Lakeland mark Red Dress Day in many ways. Last year in Cold Lake at Joe Hefner Park, Fawn Wood and the Kehewin Native Dance Theatre performed a tribute while family members of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls shared their tragedy and grief.

The Mannawanis Native Friendship Centre in St. Paul helped amplify voices of victims and their loved ones through a red dress runway, along with a traditional pipe ceremony, feast and round dance.

The Bonnyville Friendship Centre created a window display that embraces those who are still missing and victims of murder. For two weeks, the red sand project in front of Bonnyville's town hall raises awareness of human trafficking victims through grains of red sand that fill sidewalk cracks and symbolize people who have fallen through them.

People of all backgrounds in Lakeland want to see transformative change to paternalistic government policies that hold indigenous people back and cost a lot of tax dollars in a lot of bloated bureaucracies and lobby groups. However, they often do not actually get to local communities and do not seem to make actual differences in the outcomes, well-being and self-sufficiency of indigenous communities so indigenous people everywhere can live safely and peacefully with opportunities and hope for their future.

Indigenous people in Canada have higher unemployment and poverty rates, lower levels of education, disproportionately more inadequate housing and poorer health outcomes. These at-risk factors, by-products of generations of government policies and barriers, are directly related to the disproportionate vulnerability of indigenous people in Canada and involvement with the criminal justice system.

Since Lakeland first elected me in 2015, I have consistently called on the government to implement real measures to protect victims and stop the revolving door of repeat offenders that impacts everyone.

Three of the five communities in Alberta with the highest crime rates are in Lakeland, and like violent crime across Canada, rural crime has spiked under the Liberals. More than half of rural crime victims are indigenous. In Alberta, with the second highest number of cases of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls of all the provinces, the homicide rate of indigenous women is more than seven times that of non-indigenous women and higher than the national average.

The highest percentage of indigenous women who go missing in Alberta are over the age of 31, and a vast majority are mothers. Indigenous women 18 and under are 23% of missing women and 10% of murder victims, and 40% of indigenous people experience sexual or physical violence by an adult before the age of 15. More than half of them aged 55 and older have experienced the same, twice as high as those who are 15 to 34. More than a quarter of indigenous women experience sexual violence by an adult during their childhood, compared with 9% of non-indigenous women, 6% of indigenous men and 3% of non-indigenous men.

From 2015 to 2020, the average homicide rate of indigenous victims was six times higher than the homicide rate of non-indigenous victims, and the homicide rates for indigenous people are particularly high in the Prairies and the territories.

This is obviously a crisis, involving many complex factors, that requires action from government, so with a broken heart and a little bit of a sense of rage, I want to talk about what the Liberals have done.

The vast majority of violent crime in Canada is committed by repeat offenders, and indigenous people are disproportionately victims of violent crime, but after eight years, violent crime is up 32% across Canada and gang-related homicides are up a shocking 92%. A top concern indigenous leaders raise with me every time we meet in Lakeland is about more police presence and frontline support to combat growing gang activities in their communities.

These days, the justice minister claims to want to fix the very broken system he created, but despite all of these tragic facts, I want to read, verbatim, the law the Liberals passed. It says, “In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”. That is explicit that the top priority at a bail hearing is to release as quickly and easily as possible, even for the most violent accused. How does that protect indigenous victims and innocent indigenous people in Canada?

Even more appalling are the Liberals' changes through Bill C-5, which now make many serious offences eligible for conditional sentencing, house arrest and community service. I will list those crimes for which convicted offenders can now get house arrest: human trafficking, sexual assault, kidnapping, abduction of kids under 14, criminal harassment, prison breach, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, being in someone else's house unlawfully, breaking and entering, and arson.

Again, this includes sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, abduction of kids under 14. These are the very crimes that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately victims of. How does this honour indigenous victims of these crimes? How does it possibly do anything to stop it? It is no wonder that deterrence does not seem to be a factor.

Obviously, improvements must also be made in supporting and preventing at-risk youth from taking dangerous paths in the first place, and in corrections around mental health and addictions treatment, skills training and reducing recidivism.

Certainly indigenous communities take their own diverse cultural approaches to punishment, accountability and making amends, but these Liberal changes on bail and serious crimes also create an obvious perpetual catch-and-release system that does not protect the most vulnerable populations and victims. It does not protect indigenous women and girls, or anyone else for that matter.

The Liberals have taken years and have announced hundreds of millions of dollars to set up projects, plans, roundtables, frameworks and photo ops, but indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike are right to ask what it is achieving. They ask how it makes sense in the context of a government that simultaneously reduces penalties for the severe crimes of which indigenous women and girls are disproportionately victims and survivors of, while enabling serious criminals to serve sentences in their living rooms while their victims and peaceful neighbours live in fear?

On Red Dress Day, let indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians together demand better, more than performative words and empty promises, but real action and real change.

[Matthew Taylor]

Sure. Thank you for the question.

I could start by reminding the committee—and I think you know—that Bill C-5 did repeal a number of MMPs, including those for firearms offences, but it did not repeal MMPs for firearms offences involving prohibited or restricted firearms or where those firearms offences were connected to organized crime.

I think on the Justice Canada website there is fairly extensive evidence and information related to the purpose of Bill C-5, which was to address the disproportionate impact that MMPs for some offences had on certain individuals, certain populations overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The bill did not alter the purposes and principles of sentencing, which are that sentences must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender. As MInister Lametti has stated countless times, and as Minister Mendicino has said in response to another question, they have confidence that the justice system will impose appropriate penalties based on the facts before them.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

My next question is probably for Mr. Taylor. I want to touch on Bill C-5, because the minister touched on Bill C-5 in his opening testimony. Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for groups that are historically disadvantaged—indigenous Canadians and Black Canadians, groups that are actually overrepresented in our present prison populations.

If you believe Conservative rhetoric on Bill C-5, you would think that these measures would increase recidivism. Do you want to comment a little bit about Bill C-5 and the effect on recidivism and the intent behind Bill C-5?

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the reckless budget brought down by the Liberals and supported unreservedly and unsurprisingly by the NDP.

In fact, the budget is truly a product of the office of the Leader of the NDP. I think it is fair to say that people underestimate him. Canadians now know that he is the one truly responsible for the government's budgetary decisions. We might even call him the right hon. member for Burnaby South.

It has to be a bit embarrassing for the Liberal members to sit in the House day after day and see their party being completely controlled by the NDP leader. They should not be surprised because since 2015, the Prime Minister and his ministers have demonstrated through their behaviour that their level of incompetence should have served as a warning.

For example, in 2013, the Prime Minister told anyone who would listen that he was not worried about budgets because, as he explained, budgets balance themselves. We know how that turned out.

After such a comment, we might have expected that many Liberal candidates would be reluctant to run under his leadership. No, on the contrary, they all took the same stance and eagerly repeated whatever he said.

That was certainly not the first time that the Prime Minister made odd and dangerous comments, but, for Canadians, that was certainly the most memorable one.

Some believed that although the Prime Minister was incompetent and did not have the experience required to steer the ship, at least he was surrounded by ministers and wise advisers who could tell him how to be sensible and would control his impulses. This hope quickly evaporated when his Minister of Finance increased our country's national debt to unprecedented levels. Yes, the Minister of Finance defended the federal government's record deficit of more than $381 billion arguing it was affordable, given the low interest rates.

I would like to say more about that, but I want to speak about what would be important to address in a budget, and that is my Bill C-325, which I recently introduced.

Bill C-325 would strengthen the conditional release system by creating a new offence for the breach of conditions, requiring parole officers to report breaches of conditions and restoring the former version of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which was repealed in 2022 by the Prime Minister's Bill C‑5.

The government's Bill C-5, which has passed, allows criminals convicted of aggravated sexual assault, for example, to serve their sentences in the community. I hope that this monumental error will be corrected, and that the Bloc Québécois and NDP members will support my bill.

These violent criminals should not be serving their sentences at home watching Netflix. They should be behind bars. The Bloc Québécois did support Bill C-5. They voted in favour of it, but after seeing what happened next, they realized that there were problems. Consider the case of Jonathan Gravel, a 42-year-old man who managed to avoid prison after committing a violent sexual assault. The Bloc Québécois now realizes that this needs to be reversed, because it just does not work.

Even a Crown prosecutor in Quebec, Alexis Dinelle, slammed the government for reopening the door to sentences served in the community for this type of crime. He said, and I quote, “Right now, [the Prime Minister] and [the Minister of Justice] probably have some explaining to do to victims of sexual assault. I cannot stay silent in the face of this regressive situation”.

What this federal law does is give men who have been convicted of aggravated sexual assault the possibility of serving their sentences at home. For example, according to La Presse, Sobhi Akra wants to be able to serve his sentence from home after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting eight women. That is outrageous.

My bill also proposes to create an offence for breach of conditions of conditional release by criminals who have been convicted of crimes such as sexual assault, murder or assaulting children, for example, and who fail to meet their parole conditions when they are on parole. Right now, it is not an offence for such criminals to violate the conditions of their parole.

For example, I am sure everyone remembers Eustachio Gallese, who murdered Marylène Levesque three years ago. One of his parole conditions involved being treated by a psychologist. However, he was not reincarcerated when the Parole Board learned that he was seeing prostitutes and violating the conditions of his parole. His release was not revoked and nowhere in his record does it indicate that he was failing to meet his parole conditions.

With my bill, people like Eustachio Gallese, who are out on parole, will no longer be able to make a mockery of our justice system and will have to take the conditions of their parole seriously. It will help save the lives of people like Marylène Levesque.

As we know, the main role of parliamentarians is to ensure the highest level of public safety for Canadians. We must correct the monumental error in the law stemming from Bill C‑5 and strengthen management of the parole system.

Let us get back to the budget.

Canada's finances and public funds are not toys for the Prime Minister and his rich friends to play with. Canadians have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to allow these people to destroy the quality of life of our future generations.

We know that the Minister of Finance studied at Harvard. We also know that this university does not teach these kinds of financial strategies to its students. Like the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance clearly missed a lot of classes at university.

When the budget was tabled by the government, we heard different reactions. One came from Mario Dumont, a well-known commentator and former Quebec politician who hosts several shows in Quebec, on TVA. This was his initial reaction upon seeing the budget:

What is most shocking is that, during those months when the Canadian public service was growing by leaps and bounds, service delivery was the least efficient it had ever been. Need I remind anyone of the passport crisis? ...When you read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report and compare it to what is happening on the ground, one conclusion is obvious. Canada is bloody badly managed. A private company that is so poorly managed would be sent to the slaughterhouse.

From what we can see, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have no idea what sound financial practices are, and, with the support of the NDP leader, they are dragging this country into financial chaos. While the Prime Minister is destroying the country's finances, Liberal members on the other side of the House are sitting back and watching our children's future slip away. That is the Liberal legacy under this Prime Minister: a total failure to manage our country's finances that puts Canada's future in a very precarious position.

Our legacy will be to clean up this mess and restore sound fiscal policies for the good of our citizens, because when we talk about the future, we are talking about our children and grandchildren. We may tell ourselves that everything is fine right now, but when we look at the interest on the current debt, when we do the projections and calculations, we can see that we are talking about $21 billion in additional interest payments. It is not hard to see that this will become unsustainable over the next few years and the funds available for government operations will be subject to that interest. That means there will be less money and we cannot just keep borrowing, which will only make things worse.

That is why we on this side of the House will always seek to work in a reasonable way in order to maximize the public purse and strike a balance to ensure we do not end up in a situation where our grandchildren will pay the price later on.

Human Trafficking

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to do more to combat human trafficking.

Petitioners are particularly displeased about the egregious action the Government of Canada took in Bill C-5, which reduced sentencing and allows for house arrest for the crime of human trafficking. They want to see that aspect of Bill C-5 repealed.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Justice just said was preposterous. Before the holidays, as soon as Bill C‑5 passed, Jonathan Gravel, a man who had violently sexually assaulted a woman, was given a 20-month sentence that he could serve at home, while watching Netflix, rather than going to prison. If not for Bill C-5, that guy would be behind bars.

I just introduced Bill C-325, which would correct those kinds of appalling situations. These cases are really shocking. Will the Minister of Justice try to understand that and agree to support my bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, in Calgary, a teenage girl was shot while sitting in a car. No one knows why. The night before in Louiseville, Sergeant Maureen Breau was killed in the line of duty. Violence in on the rise everywhere in Canada. In order to deal with this issue, the Prime Minister passed Bill C‑5, which allows violent criminals to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home and in the communities where they committed their crimes.

I introduced Bill C‑325 to correct the monumental error that is Bill C‑5. Will the Prime Minister and his caucus support it?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. As my colleague Ms. Diab said, we are very grateful. We are studying a very important matter and this could be our last meeting to hear from witnesses, so your testimony is important.

There are two ways of looking at things, as you may know, since you are important players in the judicial system. According to the basic doctrine, release is the rule and detention the exception. Some people maintain that detention is necessary in certain cases because releasing the individuals would be dangerous.

I believe it was Mr. Arnet-Zagarian who said earlier that use of a firearm in the commission of an offence is an important factor. Similarly, it is difficult to justify the release of repeat offenders because of their risk to reoffend.

In my opinion, detention is necessary in some cases, while in others, individuals should be released. Those are my thoughts so far. I heard earlier that it is really a case-by-case approach and that the court has to decide in light of the evidence submitted. I think that is wise.

That is a long preamble to my question, which pertains to the fact that the court's decision may vary over time based on a number of elements and the legislation adopted.

For example, the Parliament of Canada recently enacted Bill C‑5, which abolishes minimum mandatory sentences for certain offences, specifically those involving a firearm. The minimum mandatory sentence imposed for the deliberate discharge of a firearm has therefore been abolished. There is of course still a maximum sentence, and a stricter sentence can still be imposed, but as legislators we decided that the minimum sentence would no longer apply to this type of crime.

Mr. Arnet-Zagarian, in your opinion, will that impact how the court rules on releasing an individual or not?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dakalbab, Ms. Efford and Mr. Taylor, for being with us.

My question is for you, Mr. Dakalbab, and it has to do with a subject I raised with the minister earlier. With the passage of former Bill C‑5, mandatory minimum sentences were eliminated in certain cases. I won't go on about the need for minimum sentences. I believe in judicial discretion, but in some cases, the fact remains: doing away with minimum sentences sends a message. Lawmakers don't talk for the sake of talking. In certain cases, when handing down sentences, the courts were influenced by the fact that mandatory minimum sentences had been eliminated.

How do we avoid giving the impression that the parameters for assessing the seriousness of those crimes are less stringent? We don't want the courts to think that when deciding whether to grant an accused conditional release.

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

I have just a few seconds left, so I'll simply ask you whether former Bill C‑5 impacts interim release decisions or not.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking my fellow member for standing in for me on Monday and at the beginning of today's meeting. I'm sure that the committee members were none the worse as a result of the switch.

Good evening, Minister. I'm really glad you're here.

The bail rules for accused go back quite a few years. Those rules are assessed on a case-by-case basis. The courts consider each accused's case and make decisions based on those rules. However, you'll probably agree with me that the assessment of those rules has changed over time, according to the circumstances. A case in which an accused would have been remanded 20 years ago may no longer warrant remand today, and vice versa.

That said, as you will recall, it wasn't that long ago when Parliament adopted provisions, through former Bill C‑5, to do away with mandatory minimum sentences in certain circumstances, including for some firearms-related offences. One offence that no longer carries a mandatory minimum sentence always comes to mind, discharging a firearm with intent. Furthermore, conditional sentences now apply to some sexual assault offences, meaning offenders can serve their sentence in the community.

In your view, Minister, does that influence the courts' decisions about whether to hold someone in remand when they are accused of discharging a firearm with intent, for example?

Five years ago, the offence carried a mandatory minimum sentence, which attested to the fact that the crime was fairly serious. Today, the mandatory minimum sentence no longer exists. It's akin to telling the courts that lawmakers consider the offence to be less serious than they did five years ago.

Do you agree with that? What impact do you think that has on interim release?

Criminal Code

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am pleased to join in the debate today as we progress to the second reading of Bill C-283, regarding addiction treatment in penitentiaries. I thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for her advocacy on this important issue and for her hard work. As the member has noted, this bill aims to expand sentencing options to help address the root causes of criminal offending through treatment.

Our government is committed to protecting the health and safety of all Canadians, including those who are incarcerated and struggling with substance abuse issues. As my colleagues would agree, these issues cannot be addressed in isolation. Substance use is a social and health issue that intersects clearly with systemic racism and inequities. That is what I would like to focus on today.

The Minister of Public Safety's December 2021 mandate letter reaffirmed the requirement to continue to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. This includes supporting work to address systemic racism and the overrepresentation of Black, indigenous and racialized Canadians within the criminal justice system.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, last December. It received royal assent, and we are hopeful that it will make a significant impact in our criminal justice system in addressing these issues. Bill C-5 aims to restore judicial discretion to impose fit sentences and to address overincarceration rates among indigenous and Black persons, and members of marginalized communities who are overrepresented among those convicted of certain drug- and firearm-related offences. Harms related to substance use would be treated as a health and social use rather a criminal one.

The Minister of Public Safety, in concert with the provincial and territorial colleagues, addressed many of these important matters head-on at recent meetings of ministers responsible for justice and public safety. Work is under way to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, across the country and within provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Excellent collaboration continues with the FPT working group on the development of the indigenous justice strategy and in addressing systemic discrimination and overrepresentation of indigenous persons within the criminal justice system.

The ministers also affirmed, in light of the James Smith Cree Nation tragedy last year, the need to work with indigenous leaders to ensure their communities are safe and supported. The ministers agreed to collaborate on the development and implement of the Canada's Black justice strategy to address anti-Black racism and discrimination within Canada's policing and criminal justice system.

Another key priority was the ongoing opioid crisis. Again, substance use is a public health issue that must be balanced with public safety. In practice, that means diverting individuals away from the criminal justice system at an early stage, through rehabilitative and treatment programs or increased use of conditional sentences.

Our government is very much seized with the work to both build safer communities and help break the cycle of substance-related harms by addressing the root causes of criminality. On its surface, Bill C-283 appears to have the same goals. It proposes to offer offenders the possibility of serving all or part of their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility.

Let us examine some of the bill's unfortunate oversights and exceptions. Proposed section 743.11 would stipulate that those whose offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment or life in prison, and those who have committed offences resulting in bodily harm, involving a weapon, or drug trafficking or production, would not be eligible to serve their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility. This is a problem.

With respect to overrepresentation, Bill C-283 runs counter to our goals. We know that indigenous and Black persons are overrepresented in federal penitentiaries. According to the data, over 68% of indigenous women in custody are serving a federal sentence of more than 10 years. Black offenders represent the largest proportion, 42%, of offenders convicted of importing or exporting drugs.

Overall, Black and indigenous persons tend to be subject to longer sentences, and I invite members opposite to look at the Auditor General's report on corrections, released late last year, which talked about systemic racism. It is, therefore, clear that Bill C-283 would exclude some of the most vulnerable and overrepresented members of the custody population, those who, in fact, may be most directly in need of treatment and rehabilitation.

In addition, proposed paragraph 743.11(1)(a) of the bill would require the offender to show evidence of repeated good behaviour in order to indicate that substance use has contributed to their actions. Here is yet another barrier to accessing treatment for incarcerated people. Not everyone who needs support and services may have a history or a pattern of behaviour: for example, those who have only recently begun using opioids.

This could also represent a prohibitively expensive burden for offenders who do not have the means to provide submissions established in their history or repeated behaviour. Bill C-283 would therefore not only make those individuals ineligible for treatment, through no fault of their own, but also create significant issues of inequity, with BIPOC and socio-economically disadvantaged offenders being denied services at a disproportionate rate.

This bill flies in the face of the Minister of Public Safety's December 2021 mandate letter, which reaffirmed the need to continue to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. It is also misaligned with Correctional Service Canada's commitment to addressing the overincarceration of indigenous peoples. Again, that is why our government introduced Bill C-5, to treat harms related to substance use as a health and social issue and not a criminal one. Ultimately, the measures in Bill C-5 will help address overincarceration rates among indigenous and racialized persons convicted of certain drug- and firearms-related offences. In contrast, Bill C-283 would undermine these goals.

Despite its veneer of concern for the health and safety of offenders who use substances, this bill is not designed to help those who need it the most. I encourage all members to join me in voicing their concerns about this bill.