Bill C-5

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.

Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the House this morning to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I want to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

This bill fulfills a platform commitment to reintroduce former Bill C-22 within 100 days, and I am proud to work with the Minister of Justice on this important piece of legislation. The proposed reforms represent an important step in our government's continuing efforts to make our criminal justice system fairer for everyone by seeking to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. Bill C-5 focuses on existing laws that have exacerbated underlying social, economic, institutional and historical disadvantage and which have contributed to systemic inequities at all stages of the criminal justice system, from first contact with law enforcement all the way through to sentencing.

Issues of systemic racism and discrimination in Canada's criminal justice system are well documented, including by commissions of inquiry such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System.

More recently, the Parliamentary Black Caucus, in its June 2020 statement, called for reform of the justice and public safety systems to weed out anti-Black racism and systemic bias, and to make the administration of justice and public security more reflective of and sensitive to the diversity of our country. I was pleased to sign this statement, as were numerous cabinet colleagues, including the Minister of Justice, many members of Parliament and senators representing the different political spectrums.

The numbers speak for themselves. Black Canadians represent 3% of the Canadian population yet represent 7% of those who are incarcerated in federal penitentiaries. Indigenous people represent roughly 5% of the Canadian population yet represent 30% of those who are federally incarcerated. The number is profoundly higher for indigenous women, who represent 42% of those who are incarcerated.

Indigenous people and Black Canadians have been particularly marginalized by the current criminal justice system. The calls for action recognize that sentencing laws, and in particular the broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities in Canada.

This is precisely why Bill C-5 proposes to repeal a number of mandatory minimum penalties, including for all drug-related offences and for some firearm-related offences, although some MMPs would be retained for serious offences such as murder and serious firearm offences linked to organized crime. Data shows the MMPs that would be repealed have particularly contributed to the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest and curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family ties and community and health-related support systems.

I want to talk about who we want to help with Bill C-5. It is the grandmother who agrees to let her grandson leave a gun at her house overnight even though she knows she is not supposed to because he did not purchase the gun legally. It is for the young indigenous man who shoots a hunting rifle at what he believes to be an empty building and no one gets hurt. The incident prompts him to get his life back on track. He goes into a rehab program to get off drugs and starts counselling to address childhood and intergenerational trauma that has haunted him throughout his young life. By the time of sentencing, he has a job and a new relationship, and is ready to contribute positively to his community.

These are not the hardened criminals. These are people who deserve a second chance or an off-ramp from the criminal justice system. They are people who, with the right support, will never offend again. Sending them to jail, which hurts not only them but their families and communities, will do nothing but put them on a path toward further criminality. This is why MMPs that tie judges' hands can lead to negative outcomes in the justice system and for our society more broadly.

To appreciate the pressing need for these reforms, we must go back to the foundational principles of sentencing in Canada. The fundamental purpose and principles of our sentencing regime are rooted in trail-blazing reforms made in 1996, which created a statutory recognition that sentencing is an individualized process that relies on judicial discretion to impose just sanctions. Such sanctions are proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence.

To achieve these sanctions, the 1996 reforms directed judges to take into account a number of sentencing principles, including rehabilitation and deterrence. Some of these principles acknowledge that in sentencing less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective, unduly punitive and to be discouraged. The sentencing principles also recognize the need to address the over-incarceration of indigenous persons, who were at that time already overrepresented within the system. As such, the amendments to the Criminal Code directed judges to consider all sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances before choosing to send an offender to jail. This principle applies all offenders, but requires judges to pay particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

To give full effect to these principles, the 1996 reforms created conditional sentences of imprisonment that allowed judges to order that terms of imprisonment of less than two years be served in the community under certain conditions. An offender could be eligible for a conditional sentence if serving their sentence in the community would not pose a risk to public safety, if the offence for which they were convicted is not subject to a mandatory minimum penalty and if the community-based sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Unfortunately, the previous Conservative government's increased use of mandatory minimum penalties and imposition of additional restrictions on the availability of conditional sentencing orders have restricted judicial discretion and made it difficult for courts to effectively apply these important principles. These so-called tough-on-crime measures have actually made our criminal justice system less effective by discouraging the early resolution of cases. These measures have eroded public confidence in the administration of justice.

The biggest problem with these measures has been that they disproportionately affect indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

In fact, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently found in its 2020 decision in R. v. Sharma that certain of the limits on conditional sentence orders enacted in 2012 undermine the purpose of the Gladue principle by limiting the court's ability to impose a fit sentence that takes the offender's circumstances into account. The Court of Appeal held that those limits perpetuate a discriminatory impact against indigenous offenders in the sentencing process.

By targeting these sentencing policies, Bill C-5 seeks to restore the ability of courts to effectively apply the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, and ensures that sentences are individualized and appropriate for the circumstances of the case. Although it is important to ensure that fair and compassionate sentences are imposed, it is equally important to ensure that measures are in place to avoid contact with the criminal justice system in the first place.

This is why Bill C-5 would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with charges for the simple possession of drugs, such as issuing a warning, taking no action or diversion to addiction treatment programs. We want to focus on getting individuals the help they need, whether that be treatment programs, housing or mental health support, instead of criminalizing them. These measures are consistent with the government's public health-centred approach to substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada.

Together, these measures would encourage responses that take into account individuals' experiences with respect to systemic racism, health-related issues and the particular supports they could benefit from. These reforms would allow police, prosecutors and the courts to give full effect to the important principle of restraint in sentencing, particularly for indigenous offenders, and explore approaches that focus on restorative justice, the rehabilitation of individuals and their reintegration into the community.

It is essential that Canadians have confidence in the justice system and that they believe it is there to protect them, not harm them or their community. These reforms reflect what we have heard from Canadians.

The 2017 national justice survey revealed that Canadians overwhelmingly support diversion measures, less restrictive sentences and judicial discretion in sentencing, even in cases where there is an MMP. For instance, 91% of Canadians indicated in the survey that judges should be granted flexibility to impose a lesser sentence than an MMP. Moreover, 69% of those polled believe that diversion could make the criminal justice system more effective and 78% believe that diversion could make it more efficient by reducing the caseload for the courts and court processing times.

I would like to assure my colleagues that our government takes violent gun crimes seriously. I am from Scarborough, a community that has issues with gun violence. I understand the need to crack down on firearm traffickers and the organized criminal element that threatens our communities. In my previous life, I ran a youth organization and saw many young men buried as a result of gun violence. I saw the pain in the faces of the parents. In fact, I recall one mother, whose son was killed over 20 years ago, who is still grieving for her loss. This affects the community as a whole. That is why we are not repealing MMPs for those offences.

I had a chance to speak with Louis March of the Zero Gun Violence Movement this morning. He has advocated for taking guns off our streets. He came to Parliament about two years ago, just before the pandemic, to advocate for MMPs to be removed, because he feels it is crucial for judges to have discretion over decisions and that MMPs have disproportionately impacted members of the Black community. Many of the mothers who came here that day were broken by what they saw as a problem with guns. I bring the issue of gun violence to Parliament each and every day, and in many ways, in Toronto and other major cities, it is a significant problem that requires a significant response. Our government is working toward that.

For less serious offences, particularly when someone is a first-time offender who is young or non-violent, MMPs are not the answer. MMPs that send young Black men in my community to prison, when they could be rehabilitated and turn their lives around, only serve to continue the vicious cycle that leads to involvement in gangs and further criminality.

We are repealing the MMPs for robbery and extortion with a firearm, and for discharging a firearm with intent or recklessly when this does not involve a restricted firearm or organized crime. In other words, where the offender—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I want to remind members of the official opposition that they will have an opportunity not only to ask questions and make comments, but to also debate the issue. I would ask them to hold off on their comments while the hon. parliamentary secretary is speaking.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, in other words, this would apply when an offender uses a firearm that may otherwise be legal. A review of the case law reveals that many indigenous offenders and marginalized groups who have experienced significant trauma, including the legacy of residential schools, commit non-violent offences using long guns.

Maintaining the four-year mandatory minimum penalties that relate to the commission of these offences with firearms that are not restricted or connected to organized crime would directly undermine our important commitment to reduce the over-incarceration of indigenous peoples. We know that Canadians are troubled by gun violence. By maintaining the MMPs for serious offences, using restricted firearms or an association with organized crime, we keep the strong tools in our tool box to combat serious and gang-related gun crime.

Our government will also work to crack down on gun crime in other ways. In our platform we committed to continuing to combat gender-based violence and fight gun smuggling with measures we previously introduced, such as increasing maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling, from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment; lifetime background checks, to prevent those with a history of abuse against their spouse or partner from obtaining a firearms licence; red flags that would allow immediate removal of firearms if that person was a threat to themselves, or otherwise to their spouse or partner; and enhancing the capacity of the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to combat the illegal importation of firearms.

Our government is taking steps to ensure that the strong hand of criminal justice is used where it is needed to keep people safe, but not where it would be discriminatory or counter-productive. Bill C-5 is an important step taken by our government to address the injustice of systemic racism in our criminal justice system and to ensure that it is fair, just and compassionate for all Canadians.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that one of the targets of this legislation is not targeting a marginalized offender who perhaps shoots a firearm at a residence that he or she does not know to be occupied.

First, I am not sure why anybody would be doing target practice in such a scenario on a residence. Second, section 244 of the Criminal Code deals with discharging a firearm with intent, and that provision is under the mandatory minimum sought to be repealed.

If there is intent to harm, how does that fit in with the government's narrative?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo on his recent election. I know he has a great deal of experience as a Crown attorney, and I appreciate the question he posed.

The mandatory minimum sentences that we are proposing to repeal are 14 of the 57 that are in the Criminal Code right now. This reflects that we are maintaining the ones that involve serious criminality. We are taking down 14 of them that have a disproportionate impact on indigenous and Black Canadians. The facts kind of speak for themselves, as I outlined earlier.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am still hearing people think loudly. I would ask them to hold off, because there are 10 minutes for questions and comments. They may get another question. My interrupting is eating up the time, so I would ask members to be respectful.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the United States and Australia have much harsher mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking than Canada does.

However, we have not seen any major differences in drug use on the ground. What we have seen is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to interrupt the member because there seems to be a problem with the interpretation.

Is it working now?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I invite the hon. member to repeat her question.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, minimum sentences for drug trafficking are much harsher in the United States and Australia than they are here in Canada.

Despite that, there is no on-the-ground evidence of reduced consumption. What we are seeing is more small-scale dealers in prisons. These are not the people who are least likely to be rehabilitated. They typically rehabilitate on their own.

The thing is, when people get involved in drug dealing, arms trafficking or any kind of trafficking, they are doing it to get more money because they are in tough situations.

That is why it would be good to look upstream at prevention, especially at things like adequate social housing, health transfers for social needs, and social supports.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree that there are many issues within our society that need attention. Our government is focusing on housing, including a national housing strategy, but as a government we are also investing in youth programs that would enable youth to be proactive and would enable them to get out of the criminal justice system.

The amendments that we are bringing forward are off-ramps that would allow young people to have a second chance. That is precisely what we are trying to do today.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like start by welcoming the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to his role. I did a lot of positive work with his predecessor, and I think Bill C-5 shows there is a lot of work we could do to improve legislation.

When this bill was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, lots of stakeholders in the community criticized it for its narrowness and for being a half measure. Certainly the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, more than six years ago in its call to action number 32, called for the restoration of judicial discretion to ignore mandatory minimums when there were good reasons to do so.

Why has the government chosen to pick just 14 offences instead of following the truth and reconciliation call to action to give judges back their discretion when there are mandatory minimum sentences?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have taken very important steps today with Bill C-5, which is the reintroduction of Bill C-22. It was part of our platform commitment. We promised to introduce this within 100 days, and we had the mandate from Canadians to do that. We look forward to a very robust discussion at committee and at every stage of the bill. I look forward to working with my friend opposite on this.

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

Madam Speaker, what this bill represents, and what we are going to witness today throughout this debate, is the stark difference between two approaches when it comes to our correctional institutions. There is the approach of the Conservatives, which is “lock 'em up and throw away the key”, then there is the approach of more progressive governments that believe in rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice provide some perspective on the benefits of properly rehabilitating individuals so that they can be reintegrated and become productive members of society?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me divide this into two. With respect to offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, six mandatory minimum penalties are being repealed. This reflects that drug use, possession and so on affect health. We are trying to have an approach that will allow individuals to get the support they need. Whether they need mental health support, counselling or rehab, it allows the system to do that.

With respect to the 14 Criminal Code offences, again this allows the judge, the prosecutor and the police discretion in terms of diverting programs and allowing individuals to get off the criminal justice highway and become contributing members of society.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend, the parliamentary secretary, for his recent appointment.

The problem with the bill is that it is not as advertised. The parliamentary secretary spoke about the fact that the bill supposedly helps those who are struggling with addictions, except there is nothing in the bill that provides that. He speaks of minor possession. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has issued a directive not to prosecute. However, what the bill does is reward those who imperil the lives of those struggling with addictions by eliminating mandatory sentences for drug trafficking offences and for those who are the producers of fentanyl and crystal meth, which are killing on average 20 Canadians a day.

How does that help those who are struggling with addictions? It does not.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me reframe this discussion. Bill C-5 is meant to address the systemic inequities within the criminal justice system. We see that the numbers speak for themselves.

If I may, I will just repeat those numbers. Three per cent of Canadians are Black, yet 7% of the prison population are Black offenders. We have an indigenous population of 5% across the country, yet they represent 30% of people within the criminal justice system. That number is 42% for indigenous women. We have significant public-policy issues that we need to deal with, and that is what we are going to address here within Bill C-5.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the media reported a couple of days ago that we have the worst overdose deaths in Vancouver, in my community. The government has a choice to decriminalize small possession of drugs to save lives, along with instituting safe supply.

Why is that not included in this bill, given the urgency of the situation all across the country?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 is reintroduced from the previous Bill C-22.

The issues that my hon. colleague discusses are very important. They are in the hands of our Minister of Mental Health and Addiction, and our government is reviewing the requests of British Columbia and other places with respect to drugs. We will make decisions in short order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill.

It is unfortunate, though, that the government is taking the first opportunity possible to flex its soft-on-crime approach. They have very much reinforced this approach with Bill C-5. It would do nothing more than reduce punishments, and truly reduce accountability, for perpetrators of violent gun crimes and drug dealers. It would keep those individuals in our communities, among their victims, rather than in prison, where they belong.

Bill C-5, for those who are just tuning in, would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences for very serious crimes. I am talking about a soft-on-crime approach, and I would like to contextualize that. This bill would reduce the mandatory minimum jail time for robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and discharging a firearm with intent. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo demonstrated very ably, in response to a question by the parliamentary secretary, why this approach is so problematic, and why the example given does not make sense. It would not achieve the result they are looking for.

This bill would also reduce the mandatory minimum jail time for possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence and possession for purpose of weapons trafficking. These are incredibly serious offences, but the government is taking its first opportunity to reduce the accountability mechanisms available for the commission of these serious offences. Instead, we are seeing the Liberals posturing, and they hope Canadians will confuse motion for action on gun crime. The motion and activity they will generate will be to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners instead of gun smugglers and drug traffickers.

I find one talking point the Liberals use particularly offensive, and that is that this bill would help those who are struggling with addiction get the help they need. Of course, it would not do that. Canadians, and anyone who is struggling with addiction, should be receiving treatment, but that is not what this bill would do. In fact, the problem would get worse under these Liberals because this bill would also eliminate mandatory prison time for those convicted of trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance in schedule 1 or 2.

The Liberals would literally be letting drug traffickers and manufacturers off the hook while saying it is helping addicts and people in our communities. We are in the grips of an opioid crisis in this country. People are dying every day. We should crack down on the people who are peddling that poison in our communities. However, that is not the approach the Liberals are going to take.

I also heard mention from a representative of the government that they would be getting rid of these nasty Conservative minimum penalties. Rightly, many of these laws came into force in the mid-nineties, and the government of the day was a Liberal government, so there is a bit of a disconnect between what they are saying and what they are doing, as is often the case.

The Liberals want to blame Conservatives for laws that former Liberal governments enacted. They say that they are helping addicts and communities, but they are actually reducing sentences and eliminating accountability for traffickers and manufacturers. Instead of punishing gang members, they are looking to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners.

To be clear, the process and the system we have in place in this country for law-abiding firearms owners is robust. There is no disagreement in the firearms community, with hunters and sport shooters, on the need for that system to be robust. Background checks and CPIC checks are already in place. They are effective and important. When we have a group of citizens who are following the laws in place, it might seem like low-hanging fruit for the government to say that they will just make tougher restrictions and demonstrate that they are putting more laws on the books, and Canadians will somehow believe that they have gotten serious about this.

However, it speaks to the priorities of this government when, last year, its members voted against the Conservative private member's bill that would have seen punishments for weapons trafficking strengthened, but here we are with them proposing to weaken it with this inadequate law. While Conservatives seek to empower victims of crime and to defend their rights, this Liberal government wants to empower the criminals: the drug manufacturers, the traffickers and the gang members.

I have heard from people in my community who have been victimized, or who have loved ones who have been victims of violent crime, and they have serious concerns about the rise of violent crime in Canada. However, it seems like the approach that this government is taking is one that is soft on crime and not one that stands up for victims.

I have certainly heard from police who are at their wits' end. They are doing their part to keep our neighbourhoods and communities, our country, safe, but they are dealing with a justice system and a government that would rather see criminals released back into the community instead of putting them in jail. For example, the police will pick up someone for a violent offence, for one of the offences listed here, on Friday, and by the end of the weekend, that person is back in the community, then rearrested on a different crime, released and rearrested in the same week.

I took the opportunity to go on a ride-along with local police in my community, and in the time it took us to drive five minutes away from the station, the officer observed someone who was violating their release conditions. When the officer called back to dispatch to say that the person was detained and there would be an arrest, the person was still showing as being in the system because the person had been released so recently. The release was processed, and the person was rearrested. The officer was tied up with that individual for the evening.

I then went out on the road with another officer, and before the end of the shift, that same person was back on the street again. I heard story after story from these officers and from officers across Canada who, while dealing with fewer resources, are dealing with a government that wants to see police further taxed with fewer resources available for our law enforcement, less protection for our victims, and leniency and less accountability for criminals.

It is important to note that we are not talking about someone who is accused of a criminal offence. We are talking about individuals who have been convicted. They have, in fact, committed and been convicted of committing the offence, and the government's response is to let them out. They would let them out for robbery with a firearm or for extortion with a firearm or weapons trafficking. It is unbelievable to think that these are the priorities of the government.

We heard the government talk about conditional sentencing and the expansion of conditional sentencing. That means that someone could be put on house arrest, as the parliamentary secretary said, for a number of offences, including kidnapping, sexual assault, human trafficking or trafficking in persons, abduction of a minor or a person under 14 years of age, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house.

It is incredibly concerning that this is the approach that the government wants to take. Those individuals ought not to be released into the community after having been found to have committed the offence for which they were accused. They were found guilty. This bill would only result in an increase in violent crime, fewer resources for our police and law enforcement, and more fear in our communities.

This soft-on-crime approach is full of talking points about helping folks who are struggling with an addiction, but it does not do that. We know that currently the justice system and the police are exercising their discretion in dealing with folks who are struggling with addiction for things like simple possession. If the government wants to get serious, we should be talking today about its expansion for support for people who are struggling with addiction or their mental health.

We know that the House passed a call for a national three-digit suicide prevention hotline, but government members have not done that. Instead, they are dragging their feet and dragging the pot, talking about CRTC consultations that go on and on and on. Get serious. Members from across the country called for this to take place.

That would be a concrete action, but it looks like the government does not want to do it because it was proposed by a member of the official opposition, by one of my Conservative colleagues. That is not in the spirit with which we should be approaching serious issues like addictions and mental health. How will Canadians get the help they need when the government will not even streamline the process for them? We know that that three-digit number is not currently in use. We need to get the lead out.

We saw the government take a full two months after what it deemed to be the most important election that we have had. It certainly did not do that to hand out mandate letters to their ministers, name parliamentary secretaries, or consult with Canadians on any of a number of things that it now wants to rush through this place. It is concerning. Canadians are concerned.

I hear those in the Liberal benches heckling that they have a mandate. Do you have a mandate to let people out for kidnapping someone under the age of 14? Do you have a mandate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind the member that he is to address questions and comments to the Chair and not directly to the government.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that. I will direct them through you. Of course, I hope that the government is reminded about its heckling, as the opposition is held ruthlessly to account.

We want to ask the government these questions: Does it really have a mandate to expand conditional sentences for these crimes? Does it have a mandate to let someone out, and to not have someone go to jail for a minimum amount of time, for the crimes of importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm, extortion with a firearm, and robbery with a firearm? The government says it has a mandate. Did government members really go to their communities to say that this is right, and that the community wanted them to let people out who have committed robbery with a firearm? Is that the kind of accountability in justice that we want in this country? I do not think so.

Does the parliamentary secretary have a mandate for recklessly discharging a firearm?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, are we in questions and comments right now? I believe my friend opposite asked me a specific question that I would be glad to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order.

I am hearing heckling on both sides and individuals providing their feedback, even on the hon. member's side. I know that the hon. member is very capable of delivering his speech.

I want to remind members on the government side that should they have questions and comments, they should wait until that time comes. There should be no heckling and participating in the debate until it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I am concerned, Madam Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary has been named as a representative of the government, but does not understand how simple debate works in the House. He thinks that if a rhetorical question is put through the Speaker to the government in response to Liberals creating disorder in the House, suddenly they have standing to interrupt debate and start answering questions.

However, I have more questions for the parliamentary secretary and perhaps he will rise and courageously proclaim that the Liberals' expansion of conditional sentencing for people convicted of dangerous and violent offences is what Canadians sent them here to do. I would encourage him to do that, to stand up and say just that, not to blame previous Conservative governments for enacting mandatory minimum penalties. It was Jean Chrétien who put most of those on the books.

It is unbelievable that Liberals are so fearful that the truth about this bill is going to be exposed that they do not even want the debate to unfold. It has been happening for 40 minutes and they are already in a panic. I hear members on the Liberal benches again attempting to create disorder. The heckles do not come from the official opposition. We know that, rightfully—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is very well aware of the rules in the House and I hope they can serve as an example to others by ensuring that they wait for questions and comments. The more we have to stop the clock, the more it takes away from other members who wish to debate.

I remind members that there are only two minutes and 30 seconds left for the hon. member to finish his debate and there will be opportunities for everyone to participate during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, much to the chagrin of the member for Kingston and the Islands, who is very upset that the Conservatives continue to expose the Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach, we are going to continue to do that, because we have a mandate from Canadians. We know the government wants to crack down on law-abiding gun owners while letting gangbangers out with a warning. It is no problem if someone possessed a firearm for the purpose of weapons trafficking, no problem at all. The Liberals will continue to push their soft-on-crime approach, a criminal-first agenda, and everyday Canadians will suffer the consequences. It is truly shameful. Hug a thug, indeed.

Conservatives will stand up for the victims of crime and for the safety of our communities. In spite of the disorder Liberals look to create in this place, we will not be silenced by their attempts.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little speechless as to how to respond to my friend opposite, because there is very little truth in what he said.

Let me very clearly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to interrupt. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes just asked me to be very vigilant on the heckling on the other side, and he is doing the same thing. I would ask the hon. member to wait to hear the question so he can answer it. I am sure he will want to hear all the details.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me just be clear: Bill C-22 was introduced earlier this year. It was in our platform. On September 20, Canadians gave us a mandate to reintroduce that bill, because we promised to do so within the first 100 days. That is exactly what Bill C-5 represents.

I have a very direct question for my friend opposite. He has not used the words “systemic racism” at all. He has not even acknowledged that systemic racism exists within the criminal justice system. He has not addressed that within his comments this morning.

Why has he not included that important term in his speech today?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about Bill C-22, which is really interesting. We are dealing with Bill C-5. Why are we dealing with Bill C-5 and not Bill C-22? It is because the Liberal Prime Minister, against the agreement of all parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, called an election during a pandemic. He killed his own legislation. He did not want to enact anything he had put forward at the time, because Liberals like to try to confuse motion for action. They get very little done. In this case, it is dangerous that one of the first pieces of legislation they are looking to enact is a soft-on-crime bill that punishes victims and rewards criminals.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my hon. colleague a chance to talk about something he failed to mention regarding this bill. Perhaps he has an opinion on this.

Does he not believe that, as we face this disturbing opioid crisis, it is important to ensure that addictive behaviours are not criminalized and, with that in mind, the best approach to helping people who are struggling with substance abuse and addiction is to repeal mandatory minimum sentences? That is one aspect of the only approach that works, namely, harm reduction.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has already issued a directive with respect to these types of diversion measures. The effect of codifying them and having Bill C-5 enacted is that there will not be much of a difference between what is currently happening and what would happen as a result of this bill being put in place for those measures.

What we would see is the repeal of these mandatory minimum penalties and conditional discharges, weakening the accountability for folks who are committing drug trafficking and drug manufacturing offences. This, of course, is going to gravely impact our communities and have a negative impact on folks who are suffering from addiction. With respect to diversion measures, the ones that are currently in place and the directive issued are appropriate.

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

Madam Speaker, I feel like I am stuck in some kind of time warp after hearing the comments from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. That speech could have been given 10 years ago.

In the meantime, we have had more than a decade of experience with mandatory minimums and we know what they result in. They do not result in less crime. They result in the overincarceration of indigenous people and the overincarceration of Black Canadians. The academic literature is clear; our practical experience is clear, and even jurisdictions like Texas have given up on mandatory minimums as a solution to crime problems.

Will the Conservatives join us in the 21st century and give up this dated rhetoric about mandatory minimums that somehow implies that taking them away removes penalties altogether?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is incredibly important that we have accountability measures in place. The mandatory minimums being repealed are going to weaken accountability; it is that simple. The crimes that are going to be impacted and the criminals who will be impacted will have been convicted of committing serious offences.

Victims need someone speaking up for them. That is exactly what we are doing here today. These crimes, the list I have read out twice, are not minor offences. They are serious and dangerous offences committed by dangerous people. The penalties being repealed serve as an accountability mechanism and should remain in place.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard from my colleague from the NDP. If he thinks it is a relic of the past to put people in prison for sexual assault, for trafficking in persons and for kidnapping, I will be a relic of the past for a long time. They just—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

I want to remind members to hold off on their thoughts while someone is speaking.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not like me to come to the defence of members of other parties, but what the member from the Conservative Party just stated was a complete, utter lie and misrepresentation of what was—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is debate.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Kingston and the Islands just accused the member for Regina—Lewvan of lying. I am just wondering, with respect to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Given the information that the hon. member was providing, he did not indicate that the hon. member was lying.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes may finish.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to your response, I am sure, if you consulted with Hansard, you would find that at the conclusion of the member's comments he did in fact make that very assertion. The member for Kingston and the Islands said the member for Regina—Lewvan lied. My understanding is that is not how we speak in this place.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, you do not even need to check Hansard. I can confirm that I did indeed accuse the member of lying, based on what I heard the NDP member say and what the member for Regina—Lewvan said. Because it was unparliamentary of me to do so, I apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There we go. We have an apology in place.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to raise this point of order.

The comments made by the member for Regina—Lewvan are a misrepresentation of what my colleague the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said. We are all hon. members here. We are all hearing and listening carefully to the debate. It is inappropriate and I find it offensive that someone would get up in the House right after another person spoke and misrepresent what they said. I would ask the member to retract those comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The information the hon. member is providing is part of a debate. I want to remind members to be extremely judicious and careful in their comments, to ensure that they are not speaking directly about an individual. I just want to make sure members are very judicious and respectful in their debates and responses in the House.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan can finish his question.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to indulge this debate with some common sense.

I was going to say that if it is a relic of the past to say that people should go to prison when they commit the offence of sexual assault, trafficking in persons and kidnapping, I will be proud to represent that common sense for as long as I am allowed to be in this House. Would the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes agree with those comments?

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

Madam Speaker, I expect this is not just a point of order, but perhaps a question of privilege. For a member to stand up and completely distort and say that I had said something that I most certainly did not say in the debate affects my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament. It becomes part of the official record.

What I said was that the Conservatives were arguing about the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. I did not say people should not be subject to penalties under the Criminal Code. I said they should not be subject to mandatory minimum sentences, which have been demonstrated not to work, to be ineffective and to result in the overincarceration of indigenous people and Black Canadians.

The member is completely distorting my remarks for his own political purposes, and I consider that a violation of my privilege as a member of Parliament.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member's setting the record straight. I want to again remind members to be very judicious in their comments and their words in the debate. This is a very passionate and very sensitive bill that we are discussing at this point. Again, I just reiterate the fact that we need to make sure we are not attacking individuals and we are speaking to what is in the bill and not what is not in the bill.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments on the elimination of mandatory prison time for people who have committed serious offences, it is contrary to ensuring we have accountability when these crimes are committed. Again, I remind people these are not folks who are accused of committing crimes, these are people who have been convicted of committing criminal offences such as discharging a firearm with intent, weapons trafficking, extortion with a firearm or robbery with a firearm.

Surely we can all agree one should go to jail for those offences, but it does not seem we have an agreement on that in this place. I heard from a previous member that this is an argument of decades past. I do not think so. I want to ensure the folks who live in my community know that anyone who commits those offences will be held fully accountable, and that includes time in prison.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, on the topic of sticking to what this bill is about and what this bill is not about, I have a very simple question for my colleague, with whom I share a floor in our office.

If we can we agree things need to change in order to get better and we can agree this is about helping people get better and helping society heal, can we not agree the system, as it currently stands, is overreliant on incarceration, is overreliant on penalties rather than helping people get better, and that we should be relying more on various methods by which people are reconstituted into society and brought back in so they can develop and redevelop as people, or is it all just about punishment?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we do agree that Canadians who are suffering from addiction should be getting treatment, and if the crime is simple possession, there are currently directives in place and the discretion can be exercised to divert those individuals from the criminal justice system to help them get help. That is entirely appropriate. We absolutely need to help people who are suffering from the scourge of addiction, and this bill is not about that. It does codify the discretion currently in place, but I would much prefer we have a conversation about helping people who need help instead of relaxing important accountability measures in place for people who commit serious crimes.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑5 is important. It was introduced during the previous Parliament when it was known as Bill C‑22. The two bills are substantially the same, with some minor differences. What really makes Bill C‑5 different from Bill C‑22 is context. Society is in a completely different place now.

In my mind, Bill C‑5 might be better off being split up. The debate over diversion and the debate over minimum penalties are two completely different debates. People could be very much in favour of one and against the other. If we want to be able to work effectively on this bill, all members of the House need an opportunity to speak to each of the aspects of the bill. We should be able to agree with one aspect and disagree with the other.

That said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of decriminalization. We believe that rehabilitation is an essential step to eliminating crime in a society. We can never completely eliminate crime, of course, but rehabilitation would at least help make our society better and more in line with our values.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. This can be seen particularly in Quebec's young offenders legislation, which facilitates diversion. For example, young people who have broken the law are asked to do community work, to engage in activities with various organizations.

I know of a case where a young man who shoplifted and vandalized the wall of a convenience store had to meet with the store owner, clean up the wall and do some work for the store. They ended up fully reconciled. While the young man and the convenience store owner may not have become great friends, they developed a relationship that was probably conducive, if not essential, to the young man's rehabilitation. There are other positive experiences and cases like that one. That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that diversion has a role to play and it has historically agreed with this principle.

With respect to minimum penalties, the courts must be able to exercise their power freely and judiciously. The Bloc Québécois has always believed that minimum penalties are a hindrance, but that is not always the case. In some circumstances, minimum penalties can be a way of sending a clear message to offenders. We need to look at this aspect of the question. However, generally speaking, we do not think that minimum penalties contribute to a healthier society. On the contrary, we believe that they may have given rise to some highly regrettable situations.

I remember one case in the Lower St. Lawrence region of Quebec. An 18-year-old man had a 16- or 17-year-old girlfriend. Both families were aware of the relationship and approved of it. Everything was fine. However, for one reason or another, they found themselves in court, and the young man was found guilty of corrupting a minor. The judge said he hated to do it, because the situation did not warrant it, but he had no choice, because there was a minimum penalty in the Criminal Code, and he had to impose it. At the time, this caused an uproar and a certain amount of frustration in Quebec, and for good reason. I was one of the ones who felt that, in a situation like that, not only did the minimum penalty not help, but it hindered the judicious exercise of judicial power. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois has historically also been in favour of the abolishment of minimum penalties.

That being said, I am speaking from a historical point of view, but we are now in 2021. The situation is not the same as it was in 2020, 2019 or 2018. I could go back as far as 1867.

Circumstances are changing, and the law is changing. There is a reason we pass laws here in Parliament and in the legislative assemblies of Quebec and the provinces. We are continually passing laws because circumstances change, society evolves and, as a result, the laws must be adapted to fit our different realities.

What is the context surrounding Bill C-5?

I think that it is important to discuss it, because that is our job as legislators. We cannot simply pass a law that will apply to everyone without considering the consequences. We cannot pass a law until we evaluate the context in which a decision will be made concerning Bill C‑5. What is going on in Montreal in 2021?

On January 4, 2021, a 17-year-old boy was injured in a shooting in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood of Montreal. On January 31, 2021, a 25-year-old man suffered minor gunshot wounds in the Rivière-des-Prairies borough of Montreal. On February 7, 2021, 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui died from a gunshot wound to the head in Montreal.

On July 5, 2021, 43-year-old Ernst Exantus was shot dead in Montreal North. He was known to police for his ties to organized crime. On July 26, 2021, a 22-year-old woman was injured by glass shards when her vehicle was shot at. On August 1, 2021, an 18-year-old man sustained gunshot wounds to his lower body during a dispute between groups. On August 2, 2021, three people were killed and two others were wounded in a shootout in the Rivière‑des‑Prairies borough of Montreal.

On September 1, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, a man was shot during an attempted murder. On September 10, 2021, 35-year-old Patricia Sirois was in her vehicle with her two young children when she was shot dead by her neighbour, a 49-year-old man from Saint-Raymond. On the night of September 24 to 25, 2021, a 19-year-old woman was shot dead in her vehicle.

On September 26, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, 33-year-old Yevgen Semenenko was found dead near a vehicle with bullet holes in it. On September 28, 2021, a man was shot as he was walking down the street in Mount Royal. On October 25, 2021, a 25-year-old man was shot and wounded in Montreal.

On November 14, 2021, in the Saint‑Michel neighbourhood of Montreal, 16-year-old Thomas Trudel was shot dead as he walked home. On December 2, 2021, in the Anjou borough, 20-year-old Hani Ouahdi was shot dead in a vehicle; a 17-year-old boy in the vehicle was also wounded. On the same day, in Coaticook, Quebec, 80-year-old Jeannine Perron-Ruel was shot dead by her 38-year-old neighbour. On December 3, 2021, in Montreal, a woman in her fifties was injured at home by a bullet that came through her window. On December 6, 2021, an 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a Laval library.

I have just listed 18 incidents that took place in Quebec in 2021. Were there more? Probably. I found 18 after a quick search.

Were there others outside Quebec? Probably. I would be surprised if crimes of this sort and gunshot victims were found only in Quebec. There are undoubtedly others. In any case, in the past 11 months, there have been at least 18 incidents involving as many, if not more, gunshot victims.

On September 21, the mayor of Montreal asked the federal government to institute gun control measures.

On November 22, the City of Montreal reiterated its request, and the Quebec government said that it wanted to increase pressure on the federal government regarding gun control at the border and banning handguns.

Many debates have taken place in the House in recent weeks, and I have taken part in them. We demand that the government take responsibility, because Quebec and certain parts of Canada are turning into the wild west.

We want the government to set up a special task force. Illegal firearms are flooding into Canada via the St. Lawrence River through the Akwesasne reserve, which borders the U.S. and the St. Lawrence. Quebec and Cornwall, Ontario, are just across the river.

We need a special task force. Currently, we can do little to prevent arms trafficking because there are too many jurisdictions involved. We need a special joint task force made up of U.S. agents, peacekeepers, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP to fight these crimes effectively. It could be funded by an investment from the federal government. For example, we could have five boats patrolling this part of the St. Lawrence 24-7. I can guarantee that the problem would be solved within a year. There would be no more firearms crossing the border there. They might cross elsewhere, but we will fight them where they are.

We need to take concrete action. We demand investments in the fight against arms trafficking and the creation of a joint task force. A bill against organized crime could be tabled, like the one I introduced in the House in 2016 during the 42nd Parliament. Unfortunately, the bill was rejected for reasons that, in my opinion, were not justified, but I will not reopen a debate from the past. Maybe the bill could be reintroduced, because organized crime, arms trafficking and the government's complacency on gun control are causing immense harm and putting Quebeckers in an unsafe and vulnerable position. We cannot let that happen, not in 2021.

I read out a list of 18 incidents. I explained that cities in Quebec and the provinces are demanding that the government take action. What did the government do? The latest incident I mentioned happened on December 6, when the 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a library. A library seems like the ideal place to find peace and harmony, yet this young man was shot and wounded in a library on December 6. While we have been debating the topic for weeks, on December 7, the day after that particular shooting, the Liberal government chose to table Bill C-5, the bill we are considering today, for first reading. This bill aims to divert certain offences away from the justice system and to abolish certain minimum penalties, including for offences involving the possession and use of firearms and the commission of certain other crimes.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum penalties. However, I am starting to seriously wonder about the Liberal government's timing. If the Liberals were tabling Bill C-5 and creating a joint task force; if they were proposing to deploy river patrols starting Monday to put an end to the arms trafficking; if they were investing in the creation of a special unit to patrol the entire border of Quebec and the other Canadian provinces to fight arms trafficking; if they were adopting a bill like the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois in 2015 to create a list of criminal organizations and treat members of these organizations in the same manner as members of listed terrorist organizations, so that if someone in organized crime is caught with a firearm, he gets his comeuppance; if that were what they were proposing, I would feel less uneasy voting in favour of Bill C‑5.

Right now, I am feeling very uneasy about the government's timing and its complacency in the face of an almost unheard-of situation that is threatening not only people's quality of life and ability to thrive, but the very survival of our youth on the streets of Montreal.

Once again, we are not in the wild west. This is not the 1600s or 1700s, when cowboys rode around with guns, shot at each other for no reason and were summarily hanged because a trial was too much trouble. It is 2021. I think that we should be able to agree on the importance of keeping our teenagers and the entire population safe, and we should not have to discuss it. We need to do something about it.

Once the government has done something about that, then we can talk about diversion programs. In fact, we could talk about it at the same time; we could talk about it now. With respect to minimum penalties, we need to abolish many of them. The Supreme Court itself has said so, and far be it from me to go against it. I think that it is entirely justified: some need to be abolished, and others need to remain in place.

Bill C‑5 warrants a good, solid discussion in committee. We need to review the details of this bill, but the government needs to step up, for goodness' sake. We cannot tell citizens that we are going to do away with minimum sentences when there are people going around with guns, yet nothing is being done to stop gun trafficking and people keep getting shot at week after week on the streets of Montreal. That would be absurd. If the government is serious and really wants to get tough on crime, then we would be talking about diversion programs because we want to rehabilitate young people, and we would be talking about doing away with minimum sentences because we want judges to be able to do their job effectively and judiciously. Most importantly, the government needs to get tough on crime by taking responsibility and putting an end to firearms trafficking and the gun violence we have been seeing over this past year.

We will take responsibility and work effectively in the public interest. I am here for one thing. I want to represent my constituents and Quebeckers, and I will not keep silent on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I fully appreciate the concerns outlined by the member opposite.

The 18 specific incidents that the member refers to will not be impacted in any way by the repeal proposed in Bill C-5. We fully recognize the concerns respecting guns, not just in Quebec but also in Ontario and other places, and we will take decisive action in that regard as per our platform.

I do want to emphasize that we will work with the member and the Bloc Québécois to ensure we address all the important measures in the bill that would allow for off-ramps, that would allow for people who are charged with minor offences to receive the help they need, but also the discretion of the judges to ensure people are rehabilitated.

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

Madam Speaker, I would not want to suggest that my colleague opposite is not speaking in good faith, but I am sick and tired of hearing that. They always say they are going to take things into consideration. I am not talking about what is going to happen next week, next month or next year. I am talking about what is happening now, today, Monday, December 13, 2021. This is the situation facing our society now. Does the government want to work with society as it is, or does it want to make promises about what it will do someday when society is different? If what the government is saying is that it will take action at some point and is taking things into consideration, then when the time comes, any action will probably be too late because the situation will have evolved.

What is the government going to do now?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

My hon. colleague noted the necessity for a balanced approach. The hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned the term “systemic racism”. My question is a general one.

If the issue is one of systemic racism, why are we repealing all mandatory minimums? Why would the government not simply put what we call a safety valve or an exceptional circumstances provision in the legislation, so people who are the targeted outlaws, the people who are committing violent crimes, could be put in jail, and those who fit into that one category or classification could be dealt with as the government proposes? Would my colleague support that?

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

Madam Speaker, that subject does concern me. I must admit that I always feel a little uneasy when I hear government members tell us that they are going to abolish minimum sentences to help the Black community or the indigenous community. Let us think about that for a moment. The Criminal Code applies to everyone, and everyone should be treated the same, regardless of their skin colour, race, religion or background.

Accordingly, if we think the Black community is being treated unfairly in the justice system, let us fix that problem. I personally think that, generally speaking, the courts are relatively fair. If that is not the case, then we need to train the court officials and police officers who work in the field to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

I think it is crucial that everyone be treated the same. I do not think the Criminal Code should apply differently to anyone based on the colour of their skin, whether it is white, black, red or yellow.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the issues the member for Rivière-du-Nord has spoken about is a topic that the public safety committee now will be seized with, and I look forward to commencing our study on that.

Listening to the previous speech from the Conservatives, one would be forgiven for thinking that we were doing away with sentences for all time. I liked how member spoke about judicial discretion. It is incredibly important for people who are listening to this debate to understand that, while the Criminal Code is very much reactive legislation and it happens after the fact, there is a very important section in it, section 718.2, which allows judges to increase or reduce a sentence based on aggravating factors. Not every case that comes before them is exactly the same, which is precisely why there is a problem with mandatory minimums.

Could the member expand on that existing section of the Criminal Code, which does give judges the freedom to increase the severity of a sentence if there are certain aggravating factors at play? We should all have some trust in our judges across Canada, that they are the best equipped people to lay such a sentence down.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good point that we could debate for hours. Let us just say that the Bloc Québécois trusts the justice system. We think that judges generally do outstanding work and, as my colleague was saying, their work is essential when it comes time to tailor a sentence to a specific situation.

Even though every bill we pass applies to everyone in all circumstances, there are situations where we wish the law were different, and that is normal. That is why I think it is essential to give judges the power to adapt a sentence based on how the evidence was presented in court.

My colleague is right to raise that point, and I think that is what should be done. Again, if issues are raised with the fairness of judges' decisions, I think the solution might lie in educating and training the courts.

I personally trust the justice system and believe that we need to give the courts the freedom to tailor sentencing to the situation at hand.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his very clear and very informative speech on the Bloc Québécois's position. Above all, he demonstrated that we are open to debating Bill C-5.

However, the problem is that nothing is happening right now, and we would like to know why. The situation is urgent, because people are being killed every day in Montreal and even elsewhere in Quebec. It seems that the government is just twiddling its thumbs while all this is happening, because it is not responding, even when called upon to do so by various levels of government and by our party.

As a former section president of the Quebec bar and now the Bloc Québécois's justice critic, I would like my colleague to explain the government's failure to take action.

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

Madam Speaker, I am aware of my colleague's concerns about the administration of justice and I think he is right to raise them.

As I was saying, legislation has to reflect the social context. We have to ensure that legislation is adapted to that context when it is passed.

In the past year, no one in my riding has complained about how odious minimum sentences are and no one has talked to me about diversion programs. However, every week, people in my family, friends and constituents tell me that what is happening in Montreal makes no sense. They ask me what the hold up is, why we are not doing anything about the people who are getting shot to death. Some parents are no longer comfortable sending their kids to high school, because they believe it is no longer safe.

The Criminal Code is a federal responsibility. People are asking me to do something about this and I very much want to, but are my colleagues across the way equally concerned or are they just as out of touch as they seem? That is what I am wondering.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, virtually all of us know that systemic racism is very real. If we take a look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, we see 94 calls to action. One of those calls is to take a look at the minimum sentences. It is believed and ultimately proven to be effective in dealing with things such as systemic barriers to have legislation of this nature.

I wonder if my colleague could provide this thoughts, as this is an important step towards truth and reconciliation and the calls to action.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that diversion and reduced minimum sentences are important.

I am not going to repeat what I said, but my point is that the bill needs to reflect our current situation. With all due respect to my colleague, Quebeckers and Canadians are calling on us to act now to curb arms trafficking and to get weapons off our streets. This is the government's responsibility. It is what we need to be working on, and I am appealing to the government's sense of justice.

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

Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking the voters of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for sending me back to the House once again, this time for a fourth mandate. In particular, I would like to thank my partner for more than 20 years, Teddy Pardede, for his constant and enduring personal and political support. My role as an MP is now taking up more than half our relationship and I will never be able to repay him.

As I said during the campaign, I very much wanted to come back to the House to be able to deal with unfinished business from the last Parliament. Indeed, there were lots of things we made progress on that were cut short by the early and unnecessary election. That is why I was pleased to see the quick passage of the ban on conversion therapy, Bill C-4, unanimously no less, both here and in the other place.

There are other examples of bills on which this House had held hearings, had achieved a broad consensus on moving forward and is now able to do so. Those include my Bill C-202, to make coercive and controlling behaviour and intimate partner relationships a criminal offence and Bill C-206, which would remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence and instead make sure that self-harm is treated as the mental health challenge that it truly is. I hope we can find a way to move forward on both of those bills that were left undone in the last Parliament.

Today, here we are debating Bill C-5. I am frankly surprised to be up on Bill C-5 so soon because its predecessor was not one of those bills which had been to hearings and it was not of those bills where we had lots of discussions about how to come to a consensus on what needed to be done. Normally, I would be glad to see the House moving quickly to get stuff done that sat on the back burner for far too long. That would be especially true of the issue of systemic racism in the justice system and it would be even more true of the opioid crisis on our streets today.

However, Bill C-5 is a virtual carbon copy, to date myself with an archaic phrase, of Bill C-22, which the government introduced at the eleventh hour in the last Parliament. At that time, we New Democrats clearly told the government we found Bill C-22 to be weak sauce. After its introduction, there were only very limited discussions before Bill C-22 was reintroduced in this session as Bill C-5. In those brief talks I made it clear that New Democrats wanted to see a bill with a few more teeth. We have a crisis of over-incarceration, we have a crisis of opioids on our streets, and the bill is not strong enough.

I am not sure how happy I am to be rushing forward on a bill that remains a half measure, especially when it is not even very clear what it is a half measure of. Here is the first and most important question I have for the government about Bill C-5: Is this a bill to address systemic racism in the Canadian justice system? If so, why is its focus so limited? We know mandatory minimum sentences are one of the causes of the over-incarceration of racialized Canadians and indigenous people. Then why does the bill restrict itself to only removing mandatory minimums for some offences, namely personal possession of drugs and some firearms offences?

We have years of experience now with mandatory minimums. We know they do nothing to reduce crime. We know that they only result in the incarceration of people who have no place in the prison system.

As the over-involvement in the justice system is a real problem for indigenous and racialized Canadians every day, I still have my doubts of some of the provisions in Bill C-5, like introducing those diversion programs instead of more fundamental reforms. In the absence of tackling the thorny question of reform of the RCMP, again I still have some doubts about increasing police discretion in drug cases as Bill C-5 proposes.

If Bill C-5 is actually about racism in our justice system, then there is surely much more it could do. I will return to this question later in my remarks. If Bill C-5 is not about tackling the broad issues of systemic racism in the criminal justice system, then is it really about something else? In fact, the heavy focus on removing mandatory minimums for drug crimes might lead us to believe that Bill C-5 is actually about the opioid crisis. If that is the case, then once again, it makes it hard for me to be excited about quick action on the half measures to confront the opioid crisis that we have in the bill, especially when we have known for so long what is needed.

As an elected official, I first spoke in favour of decriminalization of personal possession of all drugs more than a decade ago as a city councillor in Esquimalt. At the time, I argued that decriminalization provided the most effective path, along with safe injection sites, to tackle the emerging problem of deaths from drug overdoses in my community.

Even then, I was able to point to early signs of success in Portugal where decriminalization was adopted in 2001. Since then, Portugal has seen an 80% reduction in overdose deaths. It has seen the proportion of people who use drugs fall from 52% to 6% when it comes to new HIV and AIDS diagnoses. It has seen a decrease of incarcerations for drug offences by over 40%. Instead, in Canada over the last decade, we have seen so many preventable deaths and now this problem has accelerated into a full-blown crisis across the country.

Last month the Province of British Columbia announced a record number of people had died so far this year from overdoses. There were 201 deaths in the month of October alone, the highest ever in a single month. Think of all the families we are talking about, all 201 families affected by the loss of loved ones in a single month in a single province. This is a crisis.

Numbers released by the B.C. Coroners Service show a death toll in the first 10 months of 2021 in British Columbia being 1,782, surpassing the 1,765 deaths recorded in all of 2020. B.C.'s chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, was direct in her assessment of the situation in B.C., a situation no different than any other jurisdiction. “Simply put, we are failing,” she said. With six people dying every single day in British Columbia, the status quo cannot be accepted.

That is why recognizing the stark reality of the opioid crisis, the City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia and now the City of Toronto have all three applied to the Minister of Health for an emergency exemption from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that criminalizes personal possession of small quantities of illegal drugs. They are asking that we recognize that criminalization only adds more harm to the toll addiction takes on its victims.

Where are the Liberals on decriminalization of so-called “hard” drugs, either as a temporary exemption or permanent strategy to shift our response to addiction from punishment to health care? One might be surprised to learn that decriminalization is the official policy of the Liberal Party, endorsed more than three years ago at its 2018 convention in Halifax. Perhaps some will be even more surprised to learn that the government was advised to move on decriminalization of personal possession of drugs before the last election.

The previous Minister of Health appointed a commission of experts to advise on drug policies well before that election. Don MacPherson, executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition at Simon Fraser, was part of the task force that simply said that charging people with simple possession and seizing their drugs makes no sense.

In a CBC Radio interview, MacPherson said, “There's mountains of evidence that show it's a bad thing. It's harmful, it hurts people and there is not really an upside to it.” He continued saying, “So the task force...came fairly quickly to the conclusion that the federal government should immediately start work on putting forward a plan to decriminalize simple possession of drugs across the board.”

The task force submitted that report before the election and has since followed up with the new Minister of Health and the new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, but MacPherson reports they have yet to hear anything back.

Since we returned to Parliament last month, MPs have been increasingly vocal in raising their concerns about the opioid crisis. Certainly, my leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Burnaby South, has repeatedly called on the government to commit to moving quickly on decriminalization. This call has come from all parties and all parts of the country, urban and rural.

Last August, during the election campaign, even the Conservative leader added his voice to those calling for shifting our approach from punishment to treatment as the way to respond to the opioid crisis, though he did not go quite as far as decriminalization.

Last week, the new member for Yukon, who was previously the Territories' medical health officer before running for the Liberal Party, rose in this Commons to acknowledge that the Yukon has the highest rate of opioid deaths in the country. The new Green MP, the member for Kitchener Centre, made a moving statement in this House on the scourge of opioid deaths in his community.

Indeed, when the new cabinet was appointed, we saw the appointment of the first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions at the federal level, which many of us took as encouragement and acknowledgement of the urgency and seriousness of the opioid crisis.

Therefore, when we know the severity of the problem and we know the solutions, it surely becomes incumbent upon all of us in the House to ensure that we act. Therefore, where is that action? It is not in Bill C-5.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the three emergency decriminalization applications from Vancouver, B.C., and Toronto, we have no indication that things are moving quickly. Under the leadership of Mayor Kennedy Stewart, a former member of the House, Vancouver submitted its preliminary application for an exemption on March 3, and its final application June 1. British Columbia's application was submitted November 1 and Toronto's December 1. It is not like the government has been taken surprise by these requests, yet all the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is reported to have said is, “We are looking at these proposals very, very seriously.”

At the same time, the minister refused to set a timeline for a decision on these applications. Instead, the minister veered off into an argument that decriminalization alone would not solve the opioid crisis, as if anyone ever thought decriminalization by itself was a solution to addiction rather than an important measure of harm reduction.

The minister said that other options were being considered, including establishing a safe supply of opioids to give injection drug users an alternative to the increasingly toxic fentanyl now on the streets. She indicated the federal government was also looking at setting up more safe injection sites and making more counselling available. Yes, that it is all good, but there is no need to wait on decriminalization while putting together a more complete package.

What was especially disappointing to hear was the minister in one interview referring to these ideas as “innovative”. She should know that these are not new ideas, but rather tried and true harm reduction strategies with a track record of nothing but success.

When it comes to the temporary decriminalization applications, the B.C. minister of mental health and addictions, Sheila Malcolmson, also a former member of this House, told reporters last week that Health Canada staff had identified no barriers to speedy processing and approval of B.C.'s decriminalization application.

Where are we? On the one hand, we see no real sense of urgency on the short-term exemption applications and, on the other hand, that leaves us with Bill C-5, which reflects none of that necessary urgency to move toward permanent and complete decriminalization of personal possession of drugs. The narrow scope of Bill C-5, as drafted, certainly means that, for technical reasons, we cannot likely add decriminalization through amendments at the committee stage.

That brings me back to the question of what is Bill C-5 really about. It seems that in the government's mind, this must be a bill primarily about tackling systemic racism in our justice system. If that is the goal of the bill, is there enough there to support?

Clearly removing mandatory minimums for drug offences would be a step forward. Even better would be removing mandatory minimums for all but the most serious violent offences. That is not there, not in Bill C-5. The frustration with the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimums has gone so far as to see a provincial court judge in Campbell River last week substituting probation for a mandatory jail sentence for a woman convicted of dealing fentanyl to support her own addiction. The judge said that she could see no positive impact of a jail sentence in that case.

Not only does Bill C-5 fail to address cases like the Campbell River case, but as well Bill C-5 is missing other elements that would help right the wrongs caused by systemic racism in the justice system. Let us make no mistake about how serious this problem is.

Correctional investigator Ivan Zinger reported in 2020 that while indigenous people made up 4.9% of the total population of Canada, they made up just over 30% of the people in Canadian prisons. Approximately 3.5% of Canadians identified as Black in the last census, yet Black Canadians make up more than 7% of those in prison.

When we look at indigenous and racialized women, the figures are even more stark. Zinger reported that Black women made up just over 9% of women incarcerated and indigenous women made up a shocking 42% of the population in women's prisons. This is the result of mandatory minimums.

The injustice does not end with incarceration as then there is the legacy of a criminal record. Not only have indigenous and racialized Canadians been disproportionately targeted for investigation, prosecution, diversion, fining and imprisonment, the most marginalized among us then end up stuck with criminal records, criminal records that make getting a job almost impossible, criminal records that often restrict access to affordable housing. Bill C-5 lacks any provision for automatic expungement of criminal records for drug possession, something for which the NDP has been calling for more than two years.

Automatic expungement is clearly what is needed after seeing the failure of the government's program for expedited pardons for marijuana convictions, a program that has granted pardons for less than 500 people of the estimated 10,000 eligible in the two years it has been operating. We need something better; we need automatic expungement of these records.

Again, the narrow drafting of Bill C-5 means, for technical reasons, we likely cannot add those elements we really need to tackle racial injustice to the bill. Certainly we cannot add expungement. It is likely we cannot even add additional offences where mandatory minimums now apply to the removal list.

Therefore, I have a question for the government, one I had already been exploring with it before we rushed into this debate. Is there not a way we can make this bill do more to address both racial injustice and the opioid crisis?

The New Democrats are ready to talk, but we probably need to do so before we reach the conclusion of this second reading debate. There is one possibility I will put forward right now to get the ball rolling, and I have to credit the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which put forth the following recommendation in call to action 32 more than six years ago. This call to action states:

We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.

This proposal would allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums where there are good reasons to do so, including the good reason that mandatory minimum sentences are, in and of themselves, most often unjust. This call to action to restore discretion to judges over sentencing for offences where mandatory minimums have been imposed is clearly doable, it is just not in Bill C-5.

A way to put this call to action into legislation has been provided in what is now Bill S-213. Again, it is probably not possible to add restoring discretion for judges when it comes to mandatory minimums to Bill C-5 in committee, because this idea is far beyond the scope of the existing bill.

What I am asking of the government is whether we can think about using the relatively rare process of sending Bill C-5 to committee before the vote at second reading. This would allow the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to alter the scope of the bill and to add missing provisions like the TRC call to action 32 to Bill C-5, and to add expungement to it. That would put some teeth in this bill.

Sending Bill C-5 to committee before a second reading vote would require a motion from the minister, and he has that opportunity later today when he speaks.

Let me conclude with this offer to work with the government on Bill C-5. This is renewing the offer New Democrats made when the bill was originally introduced in the last Parliament. I make this offer pointing to the progress we were able to make on bills like Bill C-4 and Bill C-3, when we were able to work together on common goals and purposes.

If sending Bill C-5 to committee before a second reading vote is not the way forward in the government's view, then let us work together to find other ways to strengthen the bill.

Am I optimistic about the chances of Bill C-5 proceeding? With the bill as it stands, can the government actually convince the New Democrats that there is enough in Bill C-5 to justify proceeding quickly or even proceeding at all? As I have said, I have good ideas about how we can ensure that is true.

I know there are misgivings in other parties about certain provisions of the bill, but I also know that no one in the House is unaware of the systemic racism in our justice system and its impact on racialized and indigenous Canadians. As well, I know no one in the House wants to turn a blind eye to the suffering imposed on families by the opioid crisis.

I also know we will not get a lot of opportunities to address systemic racism in the justice system in this minority Parliament and will not get many, if any, other opportunities anytime soon to respond effectively to the opioid crisis. Let us not waste the opportunity we have before us now with Bill C-5 to do one, the other or both—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am afraid the hon. member has run out of time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is critically important to hear from many of us, as we try to deal with some of the issues facing society today. The numbers speak for themselves, no matter what we want to think otherwise. The numbers clearly indicate that the governments of the day have to take some action. They are asking for that action, and I would hope our government will respond in a very quick fashion.

Given that we now have a Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, does the hon. member recognize that this is another step in the right direction to accomplish the goals that many of us in the House want to see?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, the creation of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions at the federal level is encouraging. Now the minister has to actually take actions. Since March, the government has had a proposal from the City of Vancouver for a temporary exemption to the criminalization of personal possession of small amounts of drugs. When will the minister act on that application?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

One thing that seemed to be missing from my colleague's eloquent words was victims. Frequently victims are racialized people, disproportionately, in fact, and that has to be stated when we are discussing this. I also thought I heard my hon. colleague say that he was in favour of repealing all mandatory minimums.

Would that go for sexual offences against children, including those under section 164.1 of the Criminal Code, which involves production and distribution of child sex abuse material?

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to speak very carefully here.

In no way did the member hear me say “removing all mandatory minimums.” I said, very clearly, except for “the most serious violent offences.” I always take offence in the chamber when members rise and accuse me, an adult survivor of child abuse, of being weak when it comes to offences against children. I have this personal experience and I am happy to speak about it publicly, because the more the victims of this abuse speak out, the more effective we can be at helping them go on with their lives.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to echo what my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said earlier. Violent gun crimes have been on the rise, and someone was even shot in a library in Laval not too long ago. However, the bill that the government has introduced includes a provision to repeal minimum penalties for certain firearm possession crimes. This is a rather strange time for the government to propose that. What does my colleague think?

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

Madam Speaker, I spent 20 years teaching criminal justice before I came to the House. The literature, professionally, was already clear that mandatory minimums did nothing to deter crime. No one who is about to commit a crime gets out his or her Criminal Code, looks up what the penalty will be and makes a decision on whether to commit that crime based on whether there is a mandatory minimum. It is simply an absurd view.

However, as I stated in a previous question, we have had more than a decade of experience with mandatory minimums in our country, especially on firearms, and they have done nothing to deter firearms crime. There are many other ways to tackle this crime; mandatory minimums make no contribution.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, early this year in the previous Parliament, the Standing Committee on Public Safety released a report on systemic racism in policing in Canada. When I look at the new additions to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that Bill C-5 would make, such as the declaration of principles, the warnings and referrals section, it gives me a bit of a pause. We can look at the experiences of indigenous and racialized Canadians with police forces. Through this bill, we would be now making it entirely dependent on the judgment of police officers as to whether they would issue a warning or referral or whether that declaration of principles would guide them in the interaction.

Could my colleague comment further on that approach and the problems that might be inherent in it?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an important question, and I did raise the issue in my speech. Given the history of systemic racism in policing, I am a bit concerned about who will actually benefit from the warnings and referrals section and whether only more mainstream and less marginalized Canadians will benefit from it. Perhaps, instead, racialized and indigenous Canadians will continue to be over-involved in the justice system for things that are actually a reflection of poverty and addiction instead of an intent to commit crime.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his years of advocacy around decriminalizing illicit drugs and for the decision to include a mention of call to action 32 from the TRC in his speech this morning.

I wonder if the hon. member is willing to comment further on to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. To cite the report at page 644, “Mandatory minimum sentences are especially harsh for Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.... This leads to higher incarceration rates.”

Would the hon. member be open to sharing his views on this?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member re-emphasized a point I was trying to make in my speech. We have known for a long time that the main impact of mandatory minimums falls very heavily on indigenous women. When we look at the figures, with more than 40% of the women incarcerated in this country being indigenous, we see there is something seriously wrong with our system, and not just with our justice system, but with our social system as a whole.

The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called our attention to this and called for action. We have the chance to take actions now by strengthening Bill C-5. I very much hope that we can have those discussions at committee, but that would require the minister to refer this bill to committee before a second reading vote.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his expertise and decades of advocacy on issues of social justice and others like it. I also want to acknowledge that he is an expert on the subject matter.

He mentioned that we were rushing into debate a bit. I tend to agree with that, but I also agree with him about the urgency of this matter and the importance of correcting the wrongs of the past. I have here a list of the mandatory minimum penalties that would be repealed and the ones that would not be repealed. I also want to thank him for his bravery in speaking out on the aforementioned issues.

I would like to read an excerpt from another colleague, the member for Beaches—East York, who has worked hard on bills relating to these matters. He said the bill would “require police and prosecutors to consider alternative measures—including diverting individuals to addiction treatment programs, giving a warning or taking no further action—instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple possession”. I agree that the bill would address systemic racism in our judicial system, but I also agree that it would not fix everything.

In closing, I want to express interest and enthusiasm in collaborating with the member on this bill, because I think of all of us here in this place, he has some expertise that we will all benefit from.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his kind remarks and compliments.

I think we have shown in this Parliament that when we put our minds to it, we can get things done. When I said we were rushing into the debate, I meant yes, we need to rush on this because of the urgency of the issues, but we should not rush into the debate before we have had a chance to have discussions about our common purpose here and what we can accomplish by working together. That is what I was referring to. We certainly need to have those talks and we need to have those talks soon.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I stand before the House as the member of Parliament for Whitby, but I grew up in Peel region. My father who was a homicide detective there for much of my upbringing and then moved to the National Parole Board. In terms of my life history, he spent most of his career catching individuals who were committing crimes in our community and making sure they were convicted of those crimes. He then spent the latter half of his career working toward reintegrating offenders successfully within society. Also, I spent seven years working with a local halfway house in Brampton, which definitely gives me a unique perspective on the bill we are debating today.

It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Today, I will be speaking to the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs for short, in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The importance of equitable sentencing laws in the criminal justice system cannot be overstated. Indeed, imprisonment represents one of the most grave intrusions by the state into the lives of individuals. As such, sentencing laws must be carefully reviewed in order to ensure they reflect the values that Canadians hold dear.

Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies within the current sentencing regime provided by the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that have disproportionately impacted indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities right across Canada. This bill proposes to repeal the particular MMPs that have been shown to have the most significant impact on those communities, while ensuring that courts can continue to impose sentences for violent and serious crimes that respond to their seriousness and the harms caused.

When considering the appropriate sanctions for an offender in a criminal case, a judge must effectively balance the principles of proportionality, parity and restraint. The principle of proportionality requires a sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, also taking into consideration some of the background circumstances within which the offender offended. The principle of parity requires sentences to be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. Perhaps most important is the principle of restraint, which dictates that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. Balancing these principles is highly individualized and is a process that demands an assessment of all relevant factors, including the personal characteristics and life experiences of the individual standing before the court.

However, when an offence carries a mandatory minimum penalty, the minimum punishment is prescribed by law. This removes a certain amount of discretion from judges, and it means they cannot impose sentences below the legislated minimum, even in cases where they find that a shorter period of imprisonment or no imprisonment at all would be an appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the offence. I will also add here that the Canadian Sentencing Commission recommended the abolition of all MMPs except for murder, and 90% of Canadians when surveyed agreed that judges should be given sentencing discretion.

While proponents of MMPs often argue they ensure consistency and fairness in sentences for the same crime, the reality is that for some crimes they can and do yield unfair results that can have negative impacts on the justice system writ large, as well as on victims. MMPs can be inconsistent with the direction in the Criminal Code requiring judges to use imprisonment with restraint and to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

Data shows that between 2007 and 2017, indigenous and Black individuals were more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP than were other Canadians. In fact, the proportion of indigenous adults admitted with an offence punishable by an MMP almost doubled between those years, from 14% to 26%. Similarly, in 2018-19, Black people represented 7.2% of the federal inmate population but only 3% of the Canadian population.

Indigenous people and Black Canadians are particularly overrepresented for firearm and drug offences carrying mandatory minimum penalties. Specifically, Black Canadians comprised 43% of individuals convicted of importing and exporting drugs in 2016-17, while indigenous people comprised 40% of those admitted for a firearm-related offence that same year. To quote from the study, “Over the ten year study period, Black and other visible minority offenders were much more likely to be admitted with a conviction for an offence punishable by an MMP.”

In response to this data, Bill C-5 proposes to repeal mandatory minimum penalties for all drug offences in the CDSA, as well as for one tobacco-related offence and 13 firearm-related offences in the Criminal Code. MMPs should remain for offences such as murder, sexual assault and all child sexual offences, and for certain offences involving restricted or prohibited firearms or where the offence involves a firearm and is linked to organized crime.

While MMPs have been in place since the Criminal Code was first enacted, they were largely the exception until relatively recently. Over the last two decades, there was an increased reliance on MMPs to further denounce crimes, deter offenders and separate them from society. What is interesting here is that the evidence shows the contrary. In fact, there is really no deterrent effect provided by MMPs. No criminal stands in contemplation before committing an offence and considers the length of the sentence they will get, so MMPs do not deter future crime. One of the intentions behind support for MMPs in the first place was that they are supposed to deter crime, but that is actually false based on the evidence I have seen and based on my personal experience from working with ex-offenders.

MMPs are also incredibly expensive and ineffective in general, and they increase the rate and volume of incarceration. Prosecutors can use the threat of mandatory minimum sentences as a bargaining chip. Harsher penalties increase defendants' incentive to go to trial because of higher stakes, which means they are less likely to plead guilty and instead go to trial. They clog up the justice system. They lead to charter challenges and, in essence, increased court costs. Also, longer, harsher sentences lead to the overcrowding of our prisons and increased prison costs.

Overcrowding in prisons also contributes to congestion within the criminal justice system, which soaks up vast quantities of limited resources. This takes away resources that could otherwise be dedicated to release planning and reintegration efforts that actually reduce recidivism. Remember, recidivism is the rate at which offenders who are released reoffend, and in many cases it is a measure of success regarding the measures that are implemented. In addition, lengthier sentences actually increase the likelihood of reoffending. The evidence shows that recidivism actually goes up the longer people stay in prison. There are many reasons for that. There is more institutionalization, offenders are subject to greater stigmatization when released and they have a harder time finding work and reconciling with family members.

I will end with a story. I worked with federal offenders to help reintegrate them into society. I did this for about seven years with St. Leonard's Place Peel. These offenders were out on statutory release under conditions, and many of them, with the right reintegration supports and programming in the community, were not reoffending. We had about a 92% to 96% effectiveness rate. We can see that in essence, the whole tough-on-crime agenda and approach seems to be an ideological narrative that is not based in facts and reality.

I hope that all members of the House will support Bill C-5.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about getting back to reality for a second for the member opposite.

In 2015, 25% of the prison population was indigenous. Now it is 30%. Why has the Liberal government failed in reducing the percentage of indigenous inmates across Canadian penitentiaries?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, the overrepresentation of indigenous people in our prison system is a direct result of having mandatory minimum penalties entrenched in our Criminal Code. This is exactly what Bill C-5 would help to address, as it would repeal those mandatory minimum penalties. I think that there is much more we can do, but a lot of it has to do with the work our government is doing on reconciliation, with the largest amount of money in any federal budget dedicated to indigenous people.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, it has been said that this is not a good time to bring this bill forward, especially with respect to eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences, such as discharging a firearm with intent or robbery or extortion with a firearm. What does my colleague think about that?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the timing of this piece of legislation, there is no better time than now to deal with systemic racism within our justice system. It is long overdue. Evidence has been accumulating for decades on how ineffective mandatory minimum penalties are. In fact, they do nothing to deter gun crime. In essence, I am not really sure how to respond to the member opposite because, in my view, there is no better time than now.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the debate, and it appeared that the Conservatives' approach to address the opioid crisis is a criminal justice approach. We in the NDP, and I hope on the government side as well, have a different perspective. If we really want to address the issue and save lives we must treat the issue as a health issue.

Will the member call on his own government to decriminalize possession of small amounts for personal use and to bring in a safe supply now? We have a crisis. People are dying and it is urgent.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member's general sentiments.

From my perspective, the opioid crisis and all substance use are health issues and should be treated as such. Our government is definitely looking at safe supply and harm reduction methods, and is making investments and headway in that area.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member a very specific question with respect to off-ramps in the criminal justice system. I know that diversion programs are very important, as well as for judges to have discretion in sentencing.

Could the member talk about his experience with the types of supports that are available for young people who want to get out of the criminal justice system?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, that question gives me the opportunity to talk about some of those off-ramps for offenders, whether they be young offenders or federal offenders.

From my perspective, there is a robust support system in communities that can help to effectively reintegrate offenders. Certainly, there is also a lot at the front end that we can do to deter gang violence and crime, and to prevent crime from happening. Our government has placed a lot of emphasis on dealing with poverty reduction, homelessness and substance-use issues, but through a health lens and through a social justice lens.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to join this important debate on Bill C-5. I am speaking today from the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people in Canada's House of Commons.

This bill that is being debated today, and the changes it proposes to make to the Criminal Code of Canada, are critical to addressing systemic racism and systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system. Anyone who has been listening to this morning's debate knows quite clearly at this point that we are facing a very serious issue. That issue is the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous persons in our criminal justice system, primarily Black and indigenous men.

How did we get to this situation? We have prepared legislation, tabled it in the last Parliament and retabled it in this Parliament because we have fundamentally listened to experts I had the privilege to consult with in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice in the last Parliament. We have also listened to Canadians, among whom are my constituents in Parkdale—High Park. We have been seized with certain issues that relate to challenges not just with individual acts of discrimination, vis-à-vis one particular person or group of people, but rather norms and rules that embody our systems and our institutions. There is no more robust place to do the hard work and the heavy lifting that goes into addressing systemic racism than the criminal justice system of Canada.

We know that Canadians in every riding in this country were seized by the videos we saw of George Floyd. Things were also occurring here in Canada with respect to indigenous populations. We could talk about the response of law enforcement to the Mi'kmaq fishers on the east coast. We could talk about RCMP officers and the overuse of violent force with Inuit individuals in Canada's far north. These images, stories and issues really captivated our nation. That is why we are here today acting and mobilizing on that sentiment. We are here to listen to those voices and act upon them.

We have also consulted the statistics, and they are startling. In 2020, despite representing 5% of the Canadian adult population, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. That is a sixfold increase. That is reprehensible. I think I heard that from across the way. Although Black individuals represent 3% of the Canadian population, in 2018-19 they represented 7.2% of the federal offender population. This was more than a twofold increase.

What I have heard from my constituents in Parkdale—High Park and from people right around this country is that we need to act. That is why we are taking action now, specifically as it relates to Black and indigenous persons and other persons of colour. There is a unanimous sense I have heard that there is a need to take action.

Today, we are talking about a bill that would do so in three areas. Before I touch on those, I want to outline two broad themes that underlie the points I am making today. The first point is that we need to tackle systemic racism. The second point is that on this side of the chamber, we are a government that believes in judicial discretion. That is fundamental because it will underpin what I am going to speak about.

First, Bill C-5 would repeal mandatory minimum penalties or imprisonment for certain, but not all, offences to address the disproportionate impact on indigenous and Black offenders as well as those struggling with substance abuse and addiction, as appropriately raised by the member for Vancouver East. Second, it would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs in the legal parlance, when an offender faces a term of less than two years' imprisonment and does not pose a threat to public safety. Third, it would address issues dealing with drugs, opioids and addiction in this country by requiring police and prosecutors to consider measures other than laying charges or prosecution for simple possession of drugs, such as diverting individuals to addiction treatment programs.

In terms of the first category, we heard about mandatory minimum penalties ad nauseam during this morning's debate: why they exist and whether they are useful, etc. I rest on the side of the evidence. The evidence has shown us clearly that regardless of how they are imposed, who imposed them or how long they had been in place, mandatory minimums have only served to disproportionately impact men of colour in particular, but also indigenous women, by having them be overrepresented in our criminal justice system.

These are for crimes such as simple possession of narcotics, simple possession of a firearm, or a first-time offender using a firearm. More likely than not, people of colour are entrapped in the criminal justice system based on these charges, and more likely than not, because of the mandatory minimums they face jail time.

This is problematic because it eschews judicial discretion. We heard about this from the member for Whitby. He spoke about his family's experience, including his father's, and about what we need to do to ensure people are not sent down a certain path for the rest of their lives. The way we do that is by not putting people into a revolving-door situation of incarceration after incarceration where people are habituated to a life of criminality behind bars.

The way we do that is by ensuring there are other options available. One of those options is to give judges the tools they need to craft sentences that are appropriate for particular individuals. As a minor digression, that is what informs our motivation behind the impact of race and culture assessments, which we are also funding. We want to be able to look hard at accused individuals and understand their life circumstances, what got them to this place and how we can ensure they do not reappear in front of a court six months or six years from now on a repeat offence.

We want to get them out of a cycle of potential criminality and toward a cycle of productive life, contributing to our communities. By binding the hands of judges, we have seen exactly the opposite. The exact law and order methodology that is professed by members of the official opposition is turned on its head by this kind of blanket prohibition. All it does is produce more criminality, not less. That is why we are standing up against it.

Secondly, judges have spoken out against these types of penalties. Decision after decision rendered by courts as high as the Supreme Court of Canada has found these types of penalties unconstitutional. They violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why we are taking action: We believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and adhering to it particularly when guided by the judiciary.

The impacts of these penalties have been legion. In terms of worsening over time, we know that in 1999 indigenous peoples represented approximately 2% of the adult population, but accounted for 17% of admissions to federal penitentiaries. By 2020, after a series of mandatory minimums were added to the Criminal Code by the previous Conservative government, 30% of the federal inmate population was indigenous. That is a trend in the wrong direction, and it is a trend we need to correct.

I do not want this bill to be mis-characterized. Canadians are watching, and I know it is not just our mothers and fathers who watch in the middle of the day. Other people watch the House of Commons in the middle of the day. They need to know that we are not purporting to get rid of mandatory minimum penalties for serious offenders. Mandatory minimums involving cases of firearms, and those who traffic, smuggle, commit repeated violent assault or murder using firearms, are not being targeted. We are targeting single, first-time offenders in low-level offences. That is who we do not want destined for lives of criminality.

The other serious issue that needs to be addressed concerns conditional sentencing orders. I want to emphasize that this is the old-fashioned notion of house arrest. It goes back to the point I made at the outset of my remarks today. If we want to ensure that individuals are not subjected or destined to lives of criminality, or lives interacting with the criminal justice system, one good way to ensure that is to ensure that they do not spend time behind bars for their first offence.

Instead, when they are not a significant threat to public safety and when they are not likely to reoffend, at that point in time we would subject them to a conditional sentence order. This would allow them to serve their sentence outside of incarceration, subject to certain restrictions. This is critical, because we need to ensure there is a penalty applied. However, by not having them placed behind bars, we do not subject people to lives of criminality.

We have seen that conditional sentence orders entrenched by Allan Rock, who was the Minister of Justice 26 years ago, were eroded over time by the previous Conservative government. We are trying to return to the status quo.

My last point is on drug diversion. This is critical. The reason we are doing this is simple: We are listening to the evidence in the city of Toronto and the city of Vancouver. We are listening to the Canadian chiefs of police who have advocated for this type of drug diversion, and we are listening to the director of public prosecutions. They have said that not having diversion clogs our system and renders it less effective in addressing the true cause of criminal behaviour.

These are important initiatives. They are threefold within this legislation. I hope all members will stand behind this important bill.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, but I would like him to clarify something about maintaining mandatory minimum sentences.

Would Bill C‑5 maintain mandatory minimum mandatory sentences for firearms offences? I am thinking of firearms trafficking, firearms importation and exportation, certain restricted or prohibited uses of firearms, and use and authorization related to organized crime.

While my colleague may not be able to offer us any guarantees, would he at least be open to maintaining these sentences?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Montcalm for his question and I congratulate him on returning to the House.

I can emphasize that this bill is for simple offences, such as an individual violating the Criminal Code for the first time and in a minor way. For the more serious offences that the member raised, such as trafficking and importation, the penalties are more severe. We will certainly take those offences seriously, with corresponding and commensurate penalties.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, could the member cover how we will be able to reduce drug abuse in our country? That is something everyone has talked about in all of the speeches I have listened to this morning and this afternoon.

If this bill has fewer punishments for drug trafficking, and for those people who are putting fentanyl and opioids back on the street for people to consume, how does this bill help in the opioid crisis we are fighting today, which many members in the chamber have talked about? This bill would do nothing to aid in a solution to the crisis we are trying to limit going forward.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, as one point of clarification, this bill does not touch on issues such as drug trafficking. That is not a low-level drug offence. What this bill does touch on is mandatory minimums that relate to simple possession of narcotics and for people such as first-time offenders. That is point number one.

Vis-à-vis drugs and the opioid crisis, we are treating it as a health problem and not a justice problem. We have done that with our approach to safe supply. We have done that with our approach to safe injection sites. We will continue to do that as we consider requests from cities such as Vancouver and Toronto for things like the decriminalization of simple possession. This is critical in facing a battle against the opioid crisis, in which we all share responsibility.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are things in this bill that I am very pleased to see and am very supportive of. I am wondering, though, if the member would agree that a useful next step would be to send this bill to committee, so the bill can be built up, amended and have things added to it, such as recommendations from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Would he consider first sending it to committee before the vote?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Edmonton Strathcona to the House after her re-election.

It is critical that this gets studied thoroughly at committee. That is very important. Having served on the justice committee for many years, I believe it is one of the best committees in Parliament in terms of its scrutiny of legislation that comes before it. Considering the timing of when it goes to committee, we have already commenced second reading debate, so the stage at which it would go to committee has already been addressed, and it would be following this second reading debate.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on judicial independence, a fundamental part of this legislation, which would tell judges and those adjudicating these cases that they are better placed to make decisions based on the nuances of the facts of each individual case. I know the member opposite has a legal background. Could he speak to how fundamentally important it is to allow judges to take this on, as opposed to parliamentarians imposing it?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is fundamental. On this side of the House is a government that believes in the quality of our judiciary, as well as its ability to analyze an individual accused before the court and consider factors of social context, including systemic racism and discrimination, something we amended in legislation on judicial training in the last Parliament. That is exactly the kind of characterization that judges need to account for in allowing them to calibrate the penalty for an individual accused, which is fundamentally to avoid recidivism.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin today, I would like to first thank the fine people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for putting their trust in me for the third time. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve them in this capacity.

I thank my core campaign team, including our chair, Ryan Thorburn; volunteer coordinators, office managers, get-out-to-vote leaders, full-time encouragers, and basically the real bosses of the campaign, Sharlyn Wagner and Margo Dick; our IT go-to guy, Dean Grey; my financial wizard and agent, Dave Camphor; planning and printing logistics, Tim Seitz; volunteer care and event planning, Val Seitz; and all things signs, Alex Dumanowski and Gary Proctor. I thank them all so much for their dedication and hard work. They are a testament of what can be accomplished when people get together as a team. I will always be indebted to them.

I thank the many volunteers who door knocked, put up signs, helped in the office and volunteered with scrutineering on election day. None of this is possible without them, and I thank them very much.

I will turn my attention now to Bill C-5, which is the exact same bill, ironically, that was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament before the Prime Minister called his snap vanity election.

The Liberals would want Canadians to believe that Bill C-5 is simply about reducing minimum sentencing for simple drug possession, but that is not so. Most Canadians would be alarmed to learn that the Liberal bill, Bill C-5, is aimed at eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who prey on our communities and victimize the vulnerable.

Bill C-5 proposes to eliminate mandatory prison time not for petty crimes but for things like drug trafficking and acts of violence. It would even allow violent criminals to serve their sentences on house arrest and not in prison, putting our communities at continued risk.

Over the last six years, Liberal legislation on crime and the criminal justice system has been largely out of touch with the realities of most Canadians, especially those impacted by crime. Canada's crime stats confirm that we are seeing rising crime rates all across this country, increased gang violence and shootings, increased organized crime activities, and increased drug trafficking, drug use and drug overdoses.

Let me focus for the next few minutes on examining several of the main areas of Bill C-5, those being the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences, the elimination of mandatory prison time for drug dealers, the expansion of conditional sentences and the diversion for simple drug possession.

I try to look at this legislation through the lenses of having been in law enforcement for 35 years and of being a parliamentarian representing the constituents of my riding and their voices. Let us first of all look at the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences.

In contrast to the Liberal spin on their being so-called tough on gun violence, which is what they have been feeding Canadians, there is the complete hypocrisy of Bill C-5, which proposed to eliminate several mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including serious gun crimes such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearms, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with intent, which is Criminal Code language for shooting at someone, illegal possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm, discharging a firearm recklessly and other firearm offences such weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing the firearm is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence in Canada and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking.

What does this really all amount to? Because the Liberals believe the current laws are unfair, they would be eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit such crimes as robbery with a firearm, drive-by shootings and unlawful possession of firearms. It is clearer than ever that the Liberals are more interested in protecting criminals than they are protecting our communities. If we think things are bad now, just wait for this legislation to take effect, should it pass in its current form. I am afraid the worst is yet to come.

Let us look at the second area of the bill, which is the elimination of mandatory prison time for drug dealers. At a time when we are experiencing the heartbreak of addiction and overdose deaths in our country, the Liberals' solution is to eliminate mandatory prison time for several offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which specifically targets drug dealers and offences such as trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing or exporting, or possession for the purpose of importing or exporting; and production of a schedule 1 or schedule 2 substance, which are drugs such as fentanyl, crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, the very drugs that are wreaking havoc on our communities. How does that even make sense?

The Liberals are trying to spin it and say that Bill C-5 will help those who struggle with addictions. Come on, Canadians are not that naive or stupid. They know the Liberals are purposely failing to point out that the mandatory minimums they are eliminating are for drug dealers who specifically prey on those with addictions. This is not the solution. It would only make the current problems a lot worse.

The next area I want to look at in Bill C-5 is the expansion of conditional sentencing. The bill allows for greater use of conditional sentencing orders, such as house arrest, for a significant number of serious offences for which the offender faces a prison term of less than two years. Those offences now include sexual assault; kidnapping; criminal harassment; human trafficking; abduction of a person under the age of 14; assault causing bodily harm or assault with a weapon; assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm, or assaulting a peace officer with a weapon; trafficking or importing schedule 3 drugs, which are hallucinogenic like LSD and psilocybin; and many other offences, such as prison breach, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being in a dwelling house unlawfully, arson for a fraudulent purpose, causing bodily harm and criminal negligence.

What this all means is that criminals who prey on victims in their communities can now serve their sentence at home, many times in the same neighbourhood as their victim. Again, this clearly puts communities at risk. For years now we have heard whispers that the Liberal government was trying to empty out our prisons, expedite parole and reduce sentences. It now appears that those whispers are coming true. I wonder how conditional sentences will deter criminals who prey on our communities.

I also want to touch briefly on another aspect of Bill C-5, which is the diversion measures for simple drug possession. Again, the Liberals are trying to tell us, and are asking Canadians to believe, that the diversion section in Bill C-5 all of a sudden gives police and prosecutors the ability to use their discretion when determining for simple drug possession whether to lay charges, warn, or refer to support programs. It might come as a complete surprise to the Liberals, but that has been the case all along.

Police have been doing that. For decades they have been using their discretion whether to lay charges on someone for drug possession. In fact, Canada's Public Prosecution Service has previously issued a directive to prosecutors to avoid prosecuting simple drug possession unless there are major public safety concerns. Yes, I admit, Bill C-5 now does codify this approach, but it is unlikely to have any impact because this is already the practice when dealing with simple drug possession.

This legislation is out of touch with rising crime on our streets. It is out of touch with the needs of victims and communities battling gang violence. It is out of touch with law enforcement from across the country, who continue to report rising crime, increased violent crime and more gang shootings. This legislation is out of touch with our country's opioid epidemic. Crime has been increasing every year the Liberals have been in power, reversing a two-decade trend. This is the worst government on keeping Canadians safe in the last 20 years.

According to Stats Canada, the crime severity index has risen since 2015 from a 66.9 rating to a 79.5 rating in 2019, a 25% increase in serious crime. The violent crime index has increased from 70.7 in 2014 to 89.7 in 2019, which is also a 25% increase in the last five years.

Stats Canada also reports that rural crime and the rates of rural crime are increasing 23% faster than urban crime rates.

The Toronto Police Service has some of the best publicly available stats when it comes to the realities in its community. There has been an increase in shootings, gun homicides and injuries in each year of the last six years the Liberals have been in government. In comparison, let us first look at 2014, before the Liberals formed government, as the baseline for the Toronto numbers. In 2014, there were 177 shootings in Toronto alone, which resulted in 103 people killed or injured. Those are unacceptable numbers, but pale in comparison to the years that followed. In 2016, there were 393 shootings in Toronto, with 183 people killed or injured. In 2017, there were 367 shootings, with 180 people killed or injured. In 2018, Toronto again had 393 shootings, with 208 people killed or injured. In 2019, those numbers jumped to 492 shootings, with 284 people killed or injured. In 2020, there were 462 shootings, with 217 lives lost or injured. So far, in 2021, those numbers are continuing, at similarly unacceptable rates, with over 380 shootings and 198 people killed or injured.

I am sure Canadians are wondering how this bill will reduce shootings and people dying even by just one. What will removing mandatory minimum sentences on firearms offences such as the ones I have mentioned do for our communities? Safer communities should be the focus of the current government, but sadly they are not.

Since 2016, nearly 30,000 Canadians have died from opioid-related addiction and overdose. Why is the first action of the Liberal government to reduce sentences on drug trafficking? How does this help the tens of thousands battling addictions whose habits are being fed by the very drug dealers preying on the vulnerable this bill is meant to protect? Going after these drug dealers should be the priority of this place.

Canadians do not feel safe and nothing in this bill will help them be any safer in their homes and communities. In 2020, an Angus Reid survey found that 48% of Canadians felt crime was getting worse. Canadians are rightly tired of being afraid in their own neighbourhoods and homes. The top priority of any government should be the protection of its people. This bill does nothing to address those threats against Canadians; it only protects criminals from being held responsible for their crimes.

The bill really shows how far out of step the Liberal government is with the needs and concerns of everyday Canadians. A legal scholar recently suggested that when looking at legislation we should be asking what the problems are that we are trying solve and whether the proposed legislation would solve those problems. It is the kind of question that should be asked in this place every time the Criminal Code or any similar act is used to try and solve policy problems. I can say that after reviewing Bill C-5, I would assert that the legislation may actually contribute to the problems we are facing in this country, rather than trying to solve them. It does nothing to improve public safety.

Let us be clear. The problem the government should be trying to solve is gun violence committed by criminals and gangs using illegal firearms, mostly smuggled into this country and used to kill in communities across Canada. It should be trying to solve the addiction and drug problems we have and the overdose deaths plaguing our communities across this country, not catering to those who are contributing to the epidemic. It should hold criminals responsible for their violent crimes and drug dealing and focus on rehabilitation, not a revolving door of justice. However, the Liberal solution to these problems is a lazy, misguided approach that caters to criminals, ignores victims and does not protect Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the statistics that my friend did not mention is on the racialized nature of incarceration. For example, 42% of women in federal penitentiaries are indigenous women. As another example, 7% of the male population in prison are Black males whereas they only represent 3% of the population. He also did not mention the term “systemic racism” at all in the context of this debate. I wonder if the member can reflect on it and maybe incorporate that into what we need to ensure that there is fairness within the overall criminal justice system.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, it is fair to say. I was in public safety for a number of years with some of my colleague from across the way, and there are a disturbing number of incarcerated individuals who are racially marginalized. However, one of the things we found through those studies is that certain individuals, by nature of who knows what, and the studies are still ongoing, do not access the programs that are available. They do not access the justice system supports that are available to help them navigate their way through the justice system.

That being said, I do not know what in the bill before us would prevent people from being held responsible for their crimes, nor does it abdicate the responsibility of those individuals to be responsible. Furthermore, there are some offences that we are talking about here that are not petty crimes. They are not things that society would consider to be more property offences or things where we can rehabilitate an individual. Generally, we are talking about people who commit crimes against other people, and in that case—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have to allow for other questions. I am sure the hon. member will be able to continue during the next question.

Questions and comments, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, when we hear the Conservatives talk about crime, it always seems that their solution is to lock up all the criminals and throw away the key, as my colleague said earlier. Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts.

There is a report from a few years ago posted on the government's own website that compiles the very interesting findings of 50 studies involving over 300,000 offenders. Government researchers state the following:

None of the analyses found imprisonment to reduce recidivism. The recidivism rate for offenders who were imprisoned as opposed to given a community sanction were similar. In addition, longer prison sentences were not associated with reduced recidivism. In fact, the opposite was found. Longer sentences were associated with a 3% increase in recidivism.

An analysis of the studies according to the risk of the offender also did not show a deterrent effect.

What does my colleague think about those figures?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is fair to say that, certainly on this side of the House, we advocate for a compassionate, fair and rehabilitative approach to criminal justice and incarceration, but that also includes accountability for those who have committed a crime. However, that does not stop people from reoffending, and I appreciate the comment that these numbers do not support people from reoffending, whether they have served a short or long period of time.

I think the problem is inside, where the programs are not available for folks to receive the help they need, whether it be addiction counselling or skills training. One of the gaps we have in Correctional Service Canada is the limited ability for individuals to be rehabilitated and learn new skills, and that is the biggest issue we have for those who find themselves incarcerated.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been curious throughout today's debate on Bill C-5. Is it the position of the Conservative Party that its members do not have faith in the men and women of this country who serve as judges? The Conservatives do not seem to believe at all in judicial discretion. The problem with the Conservative approach is that they think that by supporting this bill, or supporting the idea that mandatory minimum sentences should be done away with, means that we somehow also believe that people should just walk away scot-free, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to draw the attention of the member to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which gives judges the ability to either increase or reduce a sentence based on aggravating factors. Would the member not agree that we cannot have a black-and-white approach to every single case? I would rather put my trust in the person who is sitting on the bench who can look at an individual's circumstances and look at the particular severe aspects of the crime and then make the appropriate judgment in each individual case.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do have faith in our judicial system. I have a number of provincial court judges and Queen's Bench justices as friends whom I respect highly. I have been in courtrooms where I have watched the adjudication process and admired the skill and the fairness approach that our justice system has.

However, one of the things we have to remember is that our court systems are busy. Prosecutors are looking at ways to limit the number of court exposures. While that may work in some cases, it does not work in all cases. Many times, the habitual criminals continue to be habitual criminals preying on our communities.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his service as a police officer. The government has been clear that it wants to reduce gun crime in Canada, and all Canadians would agree that is the right thing to do. However, I do not understand why reducing the penalty for gun crime would actually reduce gun crime. I wonder if the member could illuminate me.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, many things from the government have baffled me in the last five years that I have been here, and its whole approach to solving the public safety issues surrounding gun violence is certainly one of them. Targeting law-abiding Canadians who statistically have been shown to not be the problem with gun crimes in our communities, and targeting them by taking the lazy approach to firearms legislation is certainly an example of that. The Liberals are considering having no mandatory minimum sentences for people who important firearms, who are in possession of firearms, who use a firearm in the commission of an offence and who shoot at people with a firearm. What deterrent is there?

It is interesting. I had the privilege of being in the now public safety minister's riding a couple of years ago. We visited a mom whose two daughters who were shot, thankfully not killed, in the crossfire of gang violence. I asked the woman what should be done by us, legislators in this House, to solve this problem. She said clearly that the gangs who shoot up their streets in Toronto are not afraid of the police, are not afraid of the law; that we need to have some teeth in the law that is going to hold those who commit gun crimes to account in our country, and that until we do that, we will continue to see gun crime and the killing of their kids in their communities.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague's 35 years of service in policing and also acknowledge his very clear sense of duty.

Sadly, the member used the word “liberal” more than he used the word “racism”, so I would remind him that this bill is not about parties or politics but more so about who mandatory minimum penalties actually harm. Mandatory minimum penalties have not improved public safety one bit. In fact, they have only exacerbated racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Therefore, I would ask him to perhaps reflect in his comments with respect to his inclusion of the term “systemic racism”.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is fair to say that in my years of service in law enforcement, watching the criminal justice system for years and listening to debate in this House on public safety, we have biased outcomes throughout all aspects in the justice system and the prison system. I would think that it is a fair assessment to say that there is some work to be done.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, my thanks for the opportunity to begin my speech at second reading debate on C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today, our government is taking an important step toward making our criminal justice system a more effective and fair justice system where decisions are based on facts. Most importantly, we are delivering on our promise to reintroduce former Bill C-22 within the first 100 days of our government.

Indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities are overrepresented, both as victims and as offenders in the criminal justice system. They face systemic racism and discrimination and are the collateral damage of law reforms that have not made us safer or the justice system more just.

Bill C-5 is an important part of our government's plan to address this unfortunate reality in our criminal justice system. It is also an important step in reorienting our criminal justice system so that it is both fairer and more effective, while ensuring public safety. This bill accomplishes these important objectives by advancing a series of coordinated sentencing measures and policies in three broad areas, which I will take up afterward.

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

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I left off on Bill C-5.

This bill would accomplish important objectives by advancing a series of coordinating sentencing measures and policies in three broad areas. First, it would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences; second, it would increase the availability of conditional sentences without compromising public safety; and third, it would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to require police and prosecutors to consider diverting cases of simple drug possession away from courts at the earliest point of contact. I will address each of these important amendments in turn.

With Bill C-5, we are proposing to repeal the mandatory minimum sentences for 14 Criminal Code offences, 13 related to firearms and one related to tobacco. We are also repealing the mandatory minimum sentences for all offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These offences are associated with the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of other marginalized communities in our prison system.

These reforms will also repeal the three- and five-year mandatory minimum penalties for illegal possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm and the one-year mandatory minimum penalty for drug trafficking struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our reasoning is simple. Sentences must be appropriate to the unique circumstances of the crime. All too often, a rigid approach to sentencing results in a grossly disproportionate outcome, particularly when the offence is broad in scope. It has been shown that mandatory minimums have not only failed to protect our communities, but also contributed to the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in our prison system. That is especially true for drug- and firearm-related offences.

I want to pause here for a moment and let the numbers speak for themselves. Data from the Correctional Service of Canada from 2007-2017 reveals that 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people incarcerated in a federal institution between those years were there for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Further, during the same years, the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty almost doubled, from 14% to 26%. During this time frame, indigenous people also represented 40% of all federally incarcerated offenders admitted for a firearm-related offence.

Regrettably, the data does not get better when we look at the experience of Black Canadians and their interaction with the criminal justice system. From 2007-2017, nearly half, more specifically 43% of all federally incarcerated offenders convicted of importing or exporting a controlled substance or possessing controlled substances for exporting under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were Black adults.

These statistics are a sad testament to policies that focus on incarceration and the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences. Some would have us believe that mandatory minimums are the only way to fight crime. That is simply not true.

Mandatory minimum sentences have been around for decades because the previous Conservative government brought in a whole host of new ones without taking into account what kind of impact they were actually having. We know that a more nuanced approach is needed, and that is exactly what our government is doing.

The data show who is in prison and why. If the mandatory minimum sentences are repealed, as provided for in Bill C-5, people can still be given tough sentences. However, the courts will be able to take into account the unique circumstances of each offence and determine the most appropriate sentence, rather than being limited by the mandatory minimums.

I know that many people are concerned about the rise in gun violence we are seeing now. As a Montrealer, I want to say that I understand them, but I also want to be very clear: When it comes to firearms, serious crimes will continue to receive serious penalties.

The repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for some does not mean that public safety will be compromised. Bill C-5 gives the courts the flexibility to consider alternatives for low-risk offenders. By repealing mandatory minimum sentences, we are reducing these individuals' risk of reoffending and building a safer society.

For example, let us look at the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Nur, which struck down mandatory minimum sentences but upheld a sentence above the prescribed minimum.

That is why the repeal of mandatory minimums in the bill is expected to reduce the overall incarceration rate for indigenous and Black Canadians.

Repealing mandatory minimum sentences ensures that an individual convicted of an offence receives a sentence that is proportionate to their degree of responsibility and the seriousness of the offence, taking individual factors into account. These factors could include an indigenous offender's experience with intergenerational trauma or residential schools, or a Black offender's experience with systemic racism.

To this end, the government recognizes that restoring a sentencing court's ability to consider important sentencing principles is only one part of the equation. The other part is getting this important information before the sentencing court, so that it can account for all relative sentencing factors in imposing a fit sentence.

That is where program funding comes in. The government is providing $49.3 million over five years to support the application of Gladue principles and the integration of Gladue reporting writing in the justice system. This is critical to help address systemic barriers for indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system by ensuring that the background and systemic factors that bring them into contact with the justice system are taken into account at sentencing. It is also critical to help inform reasonable alternatives to sentencing for indigenous accused.

What is more, the government is making investments of $6.6 million per year over five years and $1.6 million in ongoing funding in support of the implementation of impact of race and cultural assessments, or IRCAs, which will ensure that a sentencing court can consider the disadvantage and systemic factors that contribute to racialized Canadians' interactions with the criminal justice system.

The government is also investing $21.5 million over five years to support access to legal information and advice for racialized Canadians. This would support organizations that provide free public legal education and information, as well as those that provide legal services and advice to racialized communities.

I want to be very clear about who we are targeting and not targeting with this bill. This bill is about low-risk offenders.

Bill C‑5 does not repeal mandatory minimum sentences for the most serious firearms offences, which of course include offences that result in people being injured, offences committed with a restricted or prohibited weapon and offences involving gangs or organized crime.

We are determined to crack down on the major crimes that make our cities and communities less safe. Let me reiterate: Serious crimes will continue to have serious consequences.

In its platform, our government committed to continuing to combat gender-based violence and fight gun crime with measures we had previously introduced, such as lifetime background checks to prevent those with a history of abuse against their spouse or partner from obtaining a firearms licence; red flag laws that would allow immediate removal of firearms if a person is a threat to themselves or others, particularly to their spouse or partner; increased maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment; and enhancing the capacity of the RCMP and the CBSA to combat the illegal importation of firearms.

Bill C-5 would make our justice system more fair and more just for young, first-time or non-violent offenders by giving judges back the ability to impose a sentence that fits the crime and the offender. However, nothing in this bill would prevent a judge from imposing a serious sentence where it is warranted.

I would like to turn to the proposed changes in Bill C‑5 regarding the elimination of restrictions on conditional sentences. Bill C‑5 would allow for greater use of conditional sentences so that courts can impose community-based sentences of less than two years when the offender does not pose a threat to public safety. Here too the evidence is clear. Incarceration, especially for low-risk offenders, is associated with higher rates of recidivism. That is not my opinion; that is a fact.

It has also been proven that alternatives to incarceration, such as sentences served in the community, can have a significant positive impact and improve the likelihood of successful reintegration into the community, which also helps reduce the risk of recidivism. Once again, that is a fact, not an opinion.

It has also been proven that recidivism rates among offenders who receive conditional sentences are relatively low. This is according to a large body of research showing that tackling the root causes of delinquency can produce long-term benefits for the individual, improve the efficiency of the justice system and protect society as a whole. It is not hard to see why. Community-based sentencing is an option that eliminates the negative effects of incarceration, thereby promoting offender rehabilitation.

Restrictions enacted by the previous Conservative government in 2007 in former Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, and in 2012 by former Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act, made it much harder for a sentencing court to impose these sentences. These reforms made conditional sentences unavailable for all offences punishable by maximum terms of imprisonment of 14 years or more, as well as for some offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. These laws tied the courts' hands. These amendments to the conditional sentencing regime, coupled with the increased use of mandatory minimum penalties, have produced negative impacts on the criminal justice system as a whole.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentence orders when offenders do not pose a risk to public safety and are facing terms of imprisonment that are under two years or less, and where imposing such a sentence would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing. CSOs would be available for all offences that do not carry a minimum mandatory penalty, including those repealed by this bill, with certain exceptions. Conditional sentences of imprisonment would not be available for the serious offences of advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder and any terrorism or criminal organization offences that are prosecuted by way of indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

I will turn to the other important amendments being advanced in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act shortly. Before I do, let me speak to the positive impacts that can be expected by repealing MMPs and making conditional sentences of imprisonment more widely available.

First of all, as I have already mentioned, we can expect an overall reduction in incarceration rates, particularly as they relate to the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in federal correctional institutions.

Reducing the number of mandatory minimum sentences should also help our courts. In cases involving mandatory minimum sentences, the evidence demonstrates that trials take longer to complete, accused persons are less likely to plead guilty and there is a stark increase in successful charter challenges before Canadian courts.

This all causes delays in the criminal justice system, and we have to deal with them. The bill would improve that situation.

This brings me to the last set of important reforms proposed in Bill C-5. For the first time, we would enact a declaration of principles in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is intended to guide police and prosecutors in the exercise of their discretion to divert simple possession of drugs away from the criminal justice system at an early stage.

At the outset, I would like to thank the member for Beaches—East York for his private member's bill in the last Parliament and his leadership in this area. We agree that these changes to treat addiction as a health issue would improve the state of criminal justice in Canada and may well help save lives during the opioid crisis. These principles are consistent with and informed by the large body of research indicating that criminal sanctions imposed for simple possession of drugs can increase the stigma associated with drug use and are not consistent with established public health evidence.

These reforms reinforce the government's ongoing commitment to addressing the opioid crisis and recognize that substance use is a health issue, not a crime. Accordingly, it requires evidence-based interventions to address its causes rather than its effects, with measures such as education, treatment, detox, rehabilitation and social reintegration.

Police forces and Crown prosecutors will be required to consider alternatives to laying or pursuing criminal charges for individuals who are found in simple possession of controlled substances. Possible actions will include doing nothing, issuing a warning, or referring individuals to alternative measures, including treatment programs.

The reforms in this bill align with the August 2020 guideline of the director of public prosecutions. It tells prosecutors to pursue diversion for simple drug possession cases and instead focus on prosecutions for the most serious drug cases that raise public safety concerns. The proposed amendments also align with the advice given by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They also reflect calls to action made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and recent calls by the Parliamentary Black Caucus to address anti-Black racism and systemic bias and to make the criminal justice system more reflective of our diverse society.

Taken together, this package of reforms is an important reset of our approach to criminal justice. It would allow actors in the system, including police, the Crown and courts, to determine the right course of action for each individual before them. That could mean diversion to a treatment program for an offender who committed a crime in order to feed an addiction, or it could mean a long jail sentence for the drug trafficker who is profiting from selling those drugs to our most vulnerable citizens.

It is high time that Canada adopted an approach that works. Our justice system must be fair and equitable for indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized people, and it must be effective in punishing serious criminal offences and protecting our communities.

We have enough evidence now to know that reflexive and punitive justice policies do not work. They do not make our communities safer, they hurt people and the people they hurt most are indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians.

Our government is set to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. Bill C-5 is an important step in that direction, and I urge all hon. members of the House to support its swift passage.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the minister's speech, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out that are mischaracterizations of the bill. One is that it somehow deals with minor offences, and the other is that somehow these penalties are from an era when the Conservatives were in government, the Harper era the minister referred to.

With regard to robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm, those mandatory minimums came in under a Liberal government. Minimums for weapons trafficking, again, came in under a Liberal government. Using a firearm in the commission of an offence came into force in 1976 under the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

What do those offences have in common? One, they were brought in under Liberal governments. Two, they are not minor offences; they are serious offences. When we talk about hurting people, I am concerned about protecting the communities that are being hit day in and day out with firearms offences. Putting people back out on the streets is not protecting those communities.

Will the minister comment on the fact that these mandatory minimums, one, deal with serious offences and, two, came in under previous Liberal governments?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. critic for his work on the issue.

To answer the second question first, yes, there has been an accretion of minimum mandatory penalties over the years, and some of them came under previous Liberal governments. However, the real harm or hallmark of mandatory minimums as a central piece of criminal justice policy came in 2007 and 2012 under the Harper government.

Serious crimes will always be punished seriously. We are not talking about maximum penalties. Those are still going to be in place, and if someone does commit one of those offences and is proven to commit one of those offences, judges, given the circumstances, will sentence seriously.

I would also point out that for a number of the offences cited by the hon. member, such as action with a firearm, extortion, robbery, etc., the only weapons we are targeting in those pieces are long guns. If it is a prohibited or restricted weapon, like an assault weapon or a handgun, the mandatory minimum will stay in place.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting, very relevant, very focused speech. Clearly he knows his file and I congratulate him.

We know that the entire Bloc Québécois caucus will vote in favour of Bill C‑5. If ever there were a free vote across the way, I am not even sure that all of the Liberals would vote in favour, but that is another story. I get the impression that our Conservative friends will vote against the bill.

I would like to play devil's advocate and take the point of view of those in favour of mandatory minimum sentences because they help standardize sentencing for similar crimes and therefore minimize disparities in sentencing based on gender, race and ethnic origin. What does my colleague think of that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the numbers show exactly the opposite. Ever since minimum sentences were adopted in several areas, racialized, indigenous and Black Canadians have been overrepresented in the criminal justice system. We have to maintain some flexibility to allow judges to take into account individual circumstances precisely to address systemic racism and discrimination. It is very important.

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

Madam Speaker, there is very little I can disagree with in the minister's speech, but when this bill was introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-22, we raised concerns. Given the scale of the opioid crisis and the scale of the over-incarceration of Black and indigenous Canadians, is there really enough in this bill or are we missing an opportunity?

The way this bill is drafted, which is very narrow, means that some topics we would like to discuss are outside its scope, such as expungement and recommendation 32 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on restoring discretion to judges completely, not just for a limited number of offences, when it comes to mandatory minimums and conditional sentences.

My question for the minister is very specific. Will he consider referring this bill to committee before a vote at second reading so the committee will have the chance to add some of these things, which are beyond the scope of the bill as it is currently written?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the work he does on these issues, and I appreciate the sentiment behind the question.

I am never averse to any good-faith suggestion, whether procedural or substantive, to make a bill work better. In this case, he has raised a number of issues that are outside of my ministry, such as expungement, which falls under the Minister of Public Safety, and further measures that might be taken with respect to the opioid crisis, which would fall under the Minister of Health or the new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

I will take that question under advisement and get back to him. It is a discussion I will leave to the House leaders as well.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, this afternoon and even this morning, I heard several members of Parliament make reference to the fact that our criminal justice system disadvantages people who are indigenous, people of colour and people who are racially marginalized. I have read parts of the Criminal Code, although certainly not all of it, and I do not see where inside it there is any disadvantage to being indigenous, a person of colour or racially marginalized. However, I do recognize that the statistics seem to indicate that.

Can the minister tell the House how he comes to that conclusion and where the data is, other than the population?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the data is well documented, and with all due respect to the hon. member, I am going to trust the data over an opinion. Indigenous adults represent 5% of the general population but 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. That is six times higher than the rate of federal custody among non-indigenous adults. Black Canadians represent 3% of the population but 7% of federal offenders.

I would also point out, with respect to the efficiency of the criminal justice system, that I often hear members on the other side complaining about the slowness of the criminal justice system in light of the Jordan ruling. Mandatory minimum penalties are one of the single biggest factors in clogging up the criminal justice system. They represent almost 50% of all charter appeals. People often win, and cases often result in extremely contentious litigation because people do not plea bargain anymore. By removing the mandatory minimum penalties for these kinds of offences, we will be able to increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about the harm that mandatory minimums can do and the inability of sentencing to take into account additional factors. I would like the minister to speak about youths and ensuring there is a process in place to make sure young people do not get sucked into the cycle of crime because extenuating circumstances or factors are not considered, while also ensuring that serious harmful crimes are punished in a way that Canadians would expect.

Can the minister speak about the impacts of this legislation on youths?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I presume that by “youths” the member means young adults of 18, 19 and 20 at a particular point in their lives. What this legislation does is it allows a judge to take into account a variety of different factors such that a simple and stupid mistake does not end up putting someone in prison for four years.

An example I often use is a young person in the north who is 19 or 20 years old and has a job, has a significant other and is still going to school. He goes out on a Saturday night, has a few beers too many, comes back and, on a dare from a friend, takes out a long gun and puts a couple of bullets into the side of an empty building. There is no harm, no foul there, but let us say a neighbour hears it and calls the police, and he is arrested and gets a four-year mandatory minimum penalty. He loses his job, loses his education and loses his girlfriend, and when he gets out he has no friends, so he moves in with the people he did time with. In this case, all the sentence did was form a different kind of finishing school for a person we could have helped otherwise.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House and speak to this bill. It is my first time rising to give a full speech since the last election. I was able to give a short statement a week and a half ago, but this is my first opportunity to give a full speech. I do want to say a big thanks to the people of Portage—Lisgar who voted for me, and those who did not vote for me, because I am here to represent all my constituents in Portage—Lisgar. This is the fifth time they have sent me to the House.

As I said in my previous statement, it was a difficult election, so I really appreciate the people who stood with me, those who worked and who volunteered. They volunteered in offices and with door knocking, and they donated. They were there for me.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my campaign team. I specifically want to mention Deb, Colleen and Neal. Then there was Hank, Glenn and Brian, who were always there, and countless others who supported me. As I have a little time today, I also want to say a big thanks to my husband, Michael. This was his second election with me. When we met, he did not know that he would be entering the world of politics, but he is actually pretty good at door knocking. He is very efficient and he knows how to keep me moving through the doors. I appreciate his love and support as well.

Portage—Lisgar sent me to Ottawa to be their voice. It is so important that we, as MPs, stay connected to our riding and put our riding's needs, priorities, and ways of looking at our country and, indeed, of addressing problems that face our country first and foremost in all that we do. That has really been my endeavour since I was first elected back in 2008.

Madam Speaker, you would probably recall that as a new MP, and I think you were a fairly new MP at that time, too, I was able to bring forward a private member's bill to end what we believed was the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. I have a funny story. Madam Speaker very much supported the long gun registry. We were on different sides of that issues.

In sending thank you letters to everyone in the chamber who supported my private member's bill, I accidentally sent one to Madam Speaker, who was understandably unhappy with me because she did not support it and did not want her constituents to think that she had. I am not sure if she recalls that. I see that she does, and I do as well. Hopefully she has forgiven me for that faux pas back then.

I did appreciate the support I got from people in the chamber. The interesting thing I learned during that entire endeavour was that members of Parliament sometimes say one thing in their riding and then something very different in the House of Commons. Madam Speaker was not one of those. She was consistent in her riding and in Ottawa. She supported the long gun registry.

However, there were MPs from the NDP side, and even a few from the Liberal side, who told their constituents they supported law-abiding Canadians and the ability of farmers, duck hunters, rural Canadians, indigenous Canadians and others to legally have firearms and not have to register them, but then they came to Ottawa and voted completely differently. They were what some would call two-faced in how they presented themselves in their riding and how they voted.

That was an interesting first lesson for me. The other thing I learned working on ending the long gun registry was how valuable stakeholders are in developing legislation. When I am talking about issues around crime, guns and how to combat crime, gun crime specifically, frontline police officers were some of the best resources for me. Certainly I talked the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters a lot. I talked to the Shooting Federation of Canada. I talked to countless men and women who were involved in hunting and who used firearms on their farms.

I have to say, when I talked to frontline officers and asked them, again as a new MP, if we were to end the long gun registry, would we hurt the work they were trying to do as police officers. They overwhelmingly told me “No, the long gun registry does not help us”.

What they were having problems with, they told me, were criminals, gangsters and drug dealers on the street victimizing people, luring people into gang activity and using guns in the commission of a crime. They said they needed us, as the Conservative government, to get tough on those individuals. Needless to say, my private member's bill did not pass. It was defeated, but it really brought the issue to the forefront.

In 2011, we had an election and a number of the Liberal MPs who had been inconsistent in terms of where they stood on the long-gun registry lost their ridings and the Conservative Party won a majority government. We were then able, through a government bill, to end the long-gun registry and enact what we believed as a government was the best way to combat gun crime.

All of us in the House know that gun crime in Canada is a problem. Thankfully, we do not have the same degree of gun violence that the U.S. has, but the gun violence we are seeing in Canada is alarming, and it is only growing. It was something that we, as a Conservative government, recognized was a problem that had to be addressed.

The Conservative approach to gun crime was to, first of all, not spend time, energy, resources and police time targeting law-abiding Canadians. These are Canadians who legally own firearms, have licences to own their firearms and have gone through safety courses. We have very strong laws, and so we should, around the transport of firearms, background checks, storing firearms and using firearms.

Conservatives believe in that kind of regime. We believe that we should have strong legislation around who owns firearms and how those firearms are used. Conservatives supported that, but we did not believe we should be using all of our resources, political resources and the finances of the country to target law-abiding Canadians. Why would we? They are following the law. They are not using their firearms to commit crimes.

I remember when I was doing the work on this, an interesting statistic was, and I have said this before in the chamber, if someone has a licence to own a firearm, that person is 50% less likely to ever commit a crime with a gun. That statistic was valid back in 2009-10, and I would say it probably still is today. Those of us here who do not have a licence to own a firearm are actually 50% more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It is only logical that law-abiding Canadians trying to follow the rules and want to own firearms for the right reasons are going to keep following the law. Conservatives said not to focus on those people, not make life more difficult for those people, but make sure they follow the law and keep the rules strong.

If we look at criminals and criminal activity going on primarily in our major cities back in 2011, gun crime was on the rise in places such Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, and even in places like Edmonton, Winnipeg and some of the smaller cities. The Conservative focus was to ensure that people who commit crimes with guns were put in jail.

Over the years, I see more and more that there is hope for many people who find themselves involved in criminal activity. Not all of them are horrible people for whom there is no hope. There is hope for people to change.

Once someone walks into a store with a gun, puts it against the head of somebody and says, “Give me all your money, or I'm going to shoot”, public safety then becomes a priority. The minister referred to somebody who had been drinking too much and did something they regretted. We need to help those people before they get to the point of committing these kinds of crimes. Once they have committed the crime, they need help, and many times the most help they are going to get is in a federal penitentiary. They will actually get more help if they get two years plus than they would in a provincial facility.

Let us help them before they get involved in a life of crime. At least, that is what the Conservatives believe. We proposed some great measures in this last election. Our leader and our party presented some really good, solid and practical solutions to helping people with addictions and mental health issues.

Helping people before they get involved in crime is really the way to do it. However, once they have committed a crime, and I will say it once again, protecting the public should become the government's top priority. That was the Conservatives' top priority. Let us not focus on law-abiding gun owners; let us focus on criminals.

I would now like to focus on the different approach taken by the Liberals since 2015 to combat gun violence. As the Conservatives, we had our approach, and when the Liberals were elected, they had their approach. Their approach is to get out the big hammer, come down hard on farmers and duck hunters, and throw the book at them because they are easy to go after.

I know not every Liberal in the House should be painted with the same brush, but it would appear the Liberal government wants to do the easy thing, which is a lot of great virtue signalling, but does not accomplish anything. Therefore, they go after what some would say is the low-hanging fruit, the law-abiding Canadians. That is who the Liberals go after.

Then they have no problem being hard and very severe. Once the hammer comes down, somehow they do not care about how people feel or the stress law-abiding Canadians are being put under when they are made out to be criminals. Somehow compassion, common sense, justice and fairness are not words found in the vocabulary of the Liberal government when it talks about what it is going to do to law-abiding Canadians who own firearms.

The minute the government had the chance, it called an election. Then, when it got to this Parliament, the first thing it wanted to do was pass a bill to make life easier for the people who commit armed robbery with a gun and say it will help those people who are marginalized. However, people who are minorities are probably victimized even more by gun crime, so saying that it will help marginalized Canadians and reduce gun crime is insanity.

I want to go to my graph to talk about the evidence. This covers the reporting period from 2004 to 2020. It is entitled, “Shootings & Firearm Discharges in the City of Toronto”. I will not go through all of the years, because I do not have enough time, but I will say this. In 2014, we had a Conservative majority government with Conservative legislation and a Conservative approach to combatting gun crimes, and shootings and firearm discharges by year were at an all-time low of 177, although that sounds like a lot. At the start of 2016, all the way to 2020, it was as follows: in 2016, 407; in 2017, 392; in 2018, 427; in 2019, 492; and, in 2020, a whopping 462. The numbers have skyrocketed.

I will now turn to the number of persons killed and injured, the instances where peoples' lives have been impacted. Innocent people and children have been killed and injured, not while they were off hunting with grandpa or killing some rodents on the farm. In cities in our country, children and teenagers have been and are being killed by people who are committing crimes with illegal guns, which have, often times, been smuggled in and sold illegally, so I want to talk about the number of people who were killed and injured per year.

In 2012, there were 114 deaths and injuries. That is sad. In 2013, there were 119. In 2014, there were 76. We start to see the trend go down. By 2015, there were 125. It starts going up and then my graph is cut off. In 2017, there were 148. We have seen the numbers go up consistently under the Liberal government. The point of this is that the Liberal approach to combatting gun crime is not working. It is very disappointing to see that the Liberals are continuing the same pattern they started.

The bill that we are debating today is Bill C-5. It is basically a reintroduction of the previous bill, but it really does the same harm and damage. I think there could be some agreement and work we could do to help people struggling with addictions and mental health, but this approach is so backward. It just feels like what the Liberals do is always backward. When the minister said that if someone commits a crime with a long gun then there will not be mandatory minimum sentences; he was somehow trying to comfort Canadians. I think that is what I heard him say.

No, if a person commits a crime with a long gun, small gun, short gun, handgun or any gun, public safety and justice should be paramount in the government's policy and that person should go to jail. That is a bottom-line principle that the Conservatives believe. The Liberals somehow think that they can kind of twist it around, virtue signal here and soften it there. It is very hard to understand their logic.

Bill C-5 reduces mandatory minimum sentences for a number of drug offences. I am sure we will have a chance to talk about that, but the ones that I am concerned about are to do with gun violence in Canada and its massive increase.

A lot of what the Liberals are reducing in taking away of mandatory minimum sentences have to do with people literally committing crimes with guns, such as robbery. These crimes are just so serious. I do not think any of us can imagine getting held up. Imagine if a person is working in a store or at a local gas station and someone comes in with a gun and asks for all the money or they will shoot, and then the firearm is discharged.

People who commit these kinds of crimes are a danger to society for whatever reason. They may have a mental health issue. They may have an addiction. They need treatment for that, but the protection of the public should come before the treatment of the criminal. That is what Conservatives believe.

I want to tell colleagues what frontline officers are saying. I am going right to an individual who is a frontline officer dealing every day with very serious crimes. She said this:

“Criminals using illicit firearms in the commission of an offence is now a common occurrence. The violence I see is unprecedented. I see it firsthand. I often feel like I am working in a war zone with no end in sight. Recently I was mandated to be certified in tactical trauma care to help save the lives of gunshot victims in the critical minutes following a shooting until we can make the scene safe for paramedics. As a police officer, it is incredibly frustrating to see the revolving door of criminals in and out of jail. Violent offenders out on bail or receiving conditional sentences for the violent crimes they committed. Not to mention continuously breaching their conditions and being arrested again and again. How do I protect victims? Repealing mandatory minimum such as Firearms offences, Discharging a Firearm with Intent, Robbery with a firearm and Extortion with a firearm are incredibly serious offences that put the public at serious risk. Offenders need to stay in custody where they should receive meaningful rehabilitation. I am sickened to hear and sincerely hope that Bill C-5 will not proceed any further in the best interest, safety and well-being of Canadians.”

I respect the work that our police officers do. Let us listen to our frontline officers. Let us definitely help the people who need help, but when they cross the line and commit violent crimes, we have to protect Canadians first and foremost.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard on a number of occasions the member talk about the paramount need for public safety after somebody commits a crime and I could not agree more with her. It is absolutely imperative that the number one objective is to make sure that the public is the top priority in terms of what we are looking at.

The problem is that Conservatives do not consider the fact that the proper rehabilitation and reintegration into society of a convicted individual is part of that public safety. This goes to the crux of this issue with Conservatives. Corrections to them is “lock 'em up and throw away the key”, but on the other side of the House—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

They are even saying hear, hear!

On the other side of the House, we believe that rehabilitation and reintegration into society is very important for our overall societal perspective. Would the member not agree that rehabilitation and reintegration into society is part of that public safety?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, before I became a member of Parliament, I and my family members volunteered in Stony Mountain penitentiary for many years. It was a federal maximum security penitentiary at the time and we worked with violent offenders, lifers, murderers, people who had done very serious crimes.

I did that because I do believe in redemption and I do believe that people can change. I do believe that there is hope for people to change and Conservatives believe that. What Conservatives do not believe is that we have to exchange one for the other. I have been talking with frontline officers and have been told that one of the problems is individuals who maybe need some help get two years less a day. They are put into a provincial system that has fewer resources and it is probably more damaging to them.

Let us do the right thing. What is amazing is that when we do the right thing, the right result happens. Let us protect—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

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

Madam Speaker, to follow up on what my colleague was saying about violence and the police, does she think that passing Bill C‑5 could jeopardize public safety in any way?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think we can do the right thing and get the right result. There should be a mandatory minimum sentence if people commit a violent crime with a gun. While they are in prison, I do not believe we should just treat them like animals and throw away the key. We need to help individuals who are in prison and help them become functioning members of society, including being integrated back into society.

To answer my hon. colleague's question, I am concerned. When I hear the stories from my colleagues and people I know who are police officers, literally they are not exaggerating when they say that they feel they are in a war zone. Guns are everywhere right now and they are illegal guns. They are being smuggled in and that is one of the other problems with this legislation. It is reducing mandatory minimums for people who are smuggling guns in and selling them. This is sending a really serious negative message to our police officers, that we are not ready to tackle this problem. I have concerns regarding the safety and security of frontline officers.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to compassion and health. I will start by saying that I have heard a lot of talk in the House about building homes and that the construction industry has already been stretched beyond its capacity. I anticipate that we will hear more of it as we try to fill the housing supply gaps and more injuries will come for sure.

Due to the shortage of doctors, many construction workers are in pain and cannot access care. We might have all seen this week Vicky Waldon of the Construction Industry Rehabilitation Plan tell us that this opioid crisis is hitting them hard in the construction industry. Research states that 83% of construction industry workers have experienced some form of moderate to severe mental health illness, 90% experienced early childhood trauma and 70% have undiagnosed PTSD.

Do the Conservatives accept that the tradespeople need compassion when it comes to managing their pain and potential addiction and that addiction should be placed squarely in public health and out of the criminal justice system?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are some sectors that we think would not have mental health challenges, PTSD or drug addiction, but I think what my colleague is saying is that in every sector in our country there are issues around drugs and addiction, and we need to help them and we need to be there with good, sound policy.

However, I will maintain that we have to take a whole-of-government approach to addiction, and ensure that public safety is paramount, so I do not think we can say that if someone has an addiction it does not really matter what they do, and compassion for the addicted person will lead the way. We have to at the same time have compassion for the victim, we also have to ensure that justice is served and we have to ensure that public safety is protected. Is that sometimes a hard balance? It possibly is, but that is why we are in government and in Parliament, to find these solutions and to end up doing the right thing for Canadians.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite and I had the opportunity to connect at the airport, and I congratulate her on her fifth election to this House.

She mentioned in her remarks during her introduction of a private member's bill in a previous Parliament the importance of listening to stakeholders. My understanding is that this bill before the House right now has the endorsement of multiple police associations across the country. For me it comes down to judicial independence. We have heard examples in this House; we had one from the Minister of Justice himself about a particular case. The member mentioned a particular instance of armed robbery. Every instance could be different. I have a legal background. There were always nuances; there were mitigating and aggravating factors about each case.

Why does she think she is best placed to be able to balance those decisions versus a judge? I ask, because that is really what this is about; it is about allowing judicial independence to make the decision that is most appropriate on the basis of the facts before the judge in a courtroom.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will quickly say I do not believe that, and I would like to see where there have been police associations endorsing this bill. I have seen police associations, including the RCMP, talk about some of the other Liberal approaches to firearms very critically, saying they would like to see Liberals use evidence-based measures to ensure public safety, and to find ways to stem the smuggling of firearms into Canada. I know the Vancouver police chief, who also heads up the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, is not thrilled with much of the Liberals' approach to gun violence.

I think the challenge here is that we have seen judges previously, and it was not just under Conservatives, it was under Liberal governments, would sometimes nuance so quickly that violent offenders were out on the streets. It is up to us, here in the House of Commons, to create laws that protect the public from violent offenders who are using guns, especially with gun violence increasing. Do members know what signal this sends right now? The signal it sends across the country at this point in time, that the Liberals are reducing sentencing, is very disturbing.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to the member for Portage—Lisgar for her re-election.

I wanted to note that in Bill C-5, of the 73 mandatory minimum penalties, only 13 are repealed in full, 20 in full or in part and only 10 of the 28 that have been ruled unconstitutional are part of the bill. At a time when we know that sentencing judges would still be required to impose a sentence that is proportional to the degree of responsibility and seriousness of the offence and at a time when we know that the TRC call to action 32 has called for departing from mandatory minimums and that mandatory minimums contribute to systemic racism, could the member comment on her opposition to this particular bill?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, as well, on being elected and being here in the House of Commons.

As Conservatives, if we want to see a reduction in the overrepresentation of minorities, including indigenous Canadians and Black Canadians, in our criminal justice system and in our jails, we believe the best approach is to help people before they find themselves in a life of crime, whether it is by helping with addictions and mental health, or with support in communities. Those are the areas where support needs to be happening. Our concern is that—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, before I provide my comments on Bill C-5, I want to take a moment to congratulate the Bombers on their performance yesterday in the Grey Cup. I, along with hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, take in the annual festivities of the Grey Cup, which is a great Canadian tradition, and we are very proud in Winnipeg of how the Bombers performed. The coaching staff, players and administration all did an outstanding job, winning the Grey Cup for the second consecutive year, although there was a one-year pause in the CFL. I am very proud of the team, and I know I speak on behalf of all residents of Manitoba and Bomber fans in all regions of our country.

Having said that, I am often reminded there is a great divide between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party when it comes to justice-related issues. I approach it with a bit of a different bias, having had an opportunity in different capacities to get a sense of young people's interactions with the law.

I was the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years in my local community and was also a justice critic. I had the good fortune of being an MLA for a number of years and had the opportunity to be a justice critic in the province of Manitoba.

I look at Bill C-5 as positive legislation that would make a difference. Back when I was the chair of the justice committee a gentleman by the name of Gary Kowalski, who was a colleague of mine and represented the Maples, opened my eyes to what justice committees were all about.

There are youth in all our communities who at times do things maybe they should not. They will fall on the other side of the law. In many of these cases, especially in the early nineties, often 16-year-olds or 14-year-olds would go to local stores, pick up something and decide not to pay for it. They were often first-time offenders. As opposed to having local police enforcement, in particular the Winnipeg police department, lay charges against those youths, they were provided the alternative of going before a youth justice committee. If the youths agreed to participate and fulfill the disposition of whatever the youth justice committee came up with, they would not be registered as having committed that criminal offence.

I was amazed when I found out about the group and wanted to know how we could get more people engaged and what sort of level of interest there would be. When I advertised it in the community of Inkster, which was the provincial area I represented at the time, no shortage of people were interested in being these quasi-judicial probation officers, because that is in fact what we were. We were honorary quasi-judicial probation officers.

At the first meeting, we probably had 40-plus residents. The average justice committee was under 20 people, so we had to decide who would be the most interested in moving forward. Some of the personalities on the committee were fairly hard: There were harsh individuals there. When we started to see young people come before the committee, even the harshest of them all had a much better appreciation and understanding. We would see youths who stole something from a store, and as a direct result they would have to do X, Y and Z and go through the courts.

One can talk about individual youths. One could also talk about the costs to society, such as court costs and so forth. I would argue that the cases we were receiving, at least in the first number of years, were best dealt with by our justice committee.

The committee was dealing with youth who were committing offences in the community. I believe that really had an impact. I remember a librarian at one of our local schools who got to know some of the youth. The dispositions that were typically given were for community service. Whenever we met with a 14-year-old or someone under the age of 18, and that was all of the time, we also had a parent come forward. It was amazing when we saw that 14-year-old without peer pressure, without his or her friends around, sitting in a chair with a guardian who was usually a mom or a dad. That young person would kind of shrink into the chair, head down, often breaking into tears. We got that sense of remorse. There was an appreciation of the terms of the crime committed and the circumstances around it.

We all knew what impact peer pressure can have on a young mind when going into a store with a friend. It does not make it right, but hopefully we could be a little more sympathetic as a community. I would argue that because we took that community approach, we said to our young people coming before us that we genuinely cared for them, and that they had fallen on the wrong side but we wanted to help them get on the right side. I know first-hand that some of the youth who went through our program ultimately ended up working in jobs and made reference to the positive impact of the dispositions given to them. There is an alternative.

When the Minister of Justice was talking, he said that the bill was all about low-risk offenders. However, listening to some of the rhetoric coming from the Conservative benches one would think that a cold-blooded murderer was going to be let go. The Conservatives seem to have this tough-on-crime mentality, whether it is better or healthier for our communities or not. I saw that in opposition and I am seeing it again today. The Conservative Party needs to better understand that people who become incarcerated, generally speaking, are going to be released some day. It is important that our justice system is there to protect the public. The issues of public safety and rehabilitation need to be factored in. The closer we get to doing everything right, the safer our communities will be.

For political purposes, for the three-inch headlines, Conservatives have a mentality that gives the impression that as a caucus they are tough on crime, that there is a consequence for crime, and that criminals are going to go to jail for a long time. That is the impression the Conservatives want to give. What is worse, they then try to give false impressions. Their first speaker, the critic, talked about how the Liberals were saying that if people committed certain crimes they would not have to go to jail: there would be no problem with it. The legislation would pass and people would not have to go to jail.

One of the fundamental differences between Liberals and the Conservative Party is that we have more faith in our judicial system and the independence of our judges. When judges have been appointed at the federal and provincial levels, especially in the last six years, we have been very diligent in ensuring that judicial appointments were done in a way that Canadians could be very proud of. We are saying that when a judge is appointed, that judge is in a far better position than any one of us to give a disposition in the best interests of the communities we represent and of the individual who committed a crime. That is what this legislation is really about, from my perspective.

Judges are well equipped to deal with low-risk offenders and the circumstances surrounding the offences, but if we listen to the Conservative rhetoric on the other side, one gets the impression that Liberals want these people to be set free: that we want to let them go. We are saying we have confidence in our judges. We are saying that we need to recognize that systemic racism is real, it is there and we need to do something.

The Conservative Party talks about truth and reconciliation and how important it is to the party. As a government over the last number of years, we have passed laws whether on language, children, the statutory holiday or more, all dealing with the calls to action. I keep my little book with me in the chamber that talks about the importance of truth and reconciliation. In fact, it has the 94 calls to action in it.

The member from the Green Party referred to call to action 32. I will read it. It states:

We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.

The government has enacted a number of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We are acting upon somewhere around 75% to 80% of the ones we are responsible for or have shared responsibility for. It is in progress. It is not like we can click our heels and they are all done. We recognize that. That is the reason we feel it is important to get this bill passed.

Many government members would love to see the bill passed sooner as opposed to later, and we understand the Conservatives will have some concerns with regard to the legislation. I would challenge members of the Conservative Party in particular, as an opposition party, to talk to me about truth and reconciliation and call to action 32, and to tell us how and why they believe this legislation goes against it. I suggest the bill supports call to action 32. That is one of the reasons it is getting the support it is receiving, at least from the government and members of the Liberal caucus. When we talk about truth and reconciliation and establishing that relationship, which I know is so important to the Prime Minister of Canada, this is the type of legislation that will make a difference.

If members were listening to the Minister of Justice, he gave us some percentages, and so did the parliamentary secretary. I made a quick note. The parliamentary secretary said that the Black community makes up 3% of Canada's population, yet when we look at federal institutions, it makes up 7%. When we look at indigenous communities across Canada, which make up around 5% of the overall population of our country, they make up close to 30% of federal inmates. That is 30%, based on 5% of the population.

How can we not look at this call for action and react to it? Some of my colleagues across the way said that some of these minimum sentences were put in during other administrations, the odd one even referencing Liberal administrations. It is important to recognize that we have been in government for just over six years. How time goes by.

[An hon. member]

It feels like 20 years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am inclined to say that it is hopefully for a lot longer yet.

Let us take a look at some of the things we have been able to accomplish. On the special relationship with indigenous people, that is something I am very proud of. I know we can do a lot better.

Driving around the north end of Winnipeg, the area I represent, people can see a lot of signs saying that every child matters. We see that. I saw that particularly when I was going door to door during the last election, but it does not even have to be during the election; we still see it.

Inside this chamber, I have made reference to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and the hundreds who have gone missing. It is well over 1,000. There are woman and girls who are still going missing today. I made reference to a red dress on Jarvis. Whenever I go downtown and take Jarvis, there is that reminder, and there are also the ribbons that are tied to the bridge.

Our communities are aware that we need to take action. That is what this bill does. It provides hope for people who want to see the government deal with issues like systemic racism, move forward with reconciliation and call for action number 32, and make our communities safe, especially when it is the low-risk offenders we are talking about. Contrary to the impression the official opposition is trying to give, our judges would be empowered if we passed this legislation.

If members believe in our judicial system, our judicial independence and the importance of keeping it independent, then let us understand that legislation of this nature is a win-win-win for all the stakeholders out there.

If we cut back on the rhetoric, look at the facts and take a better appreciation of what has been taking place over the last number of years, members will find that this legislation would make a difference. I would ask my colleagues to rethink the judicial sentencing options that are there for our judges and our communities. I am all about making our communities safer, and if I did not believe this legislation would make them safer, I would not be standing here in support of it.

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

Before we go to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brantford—Brant, The Economy; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Housing; and the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to all of the hon. member's remarks, and most of them were about someone who steals something from a store. They did not involve armed robbery or serious firearms offences. However, that is what this bill is about. We are seeing the Liberals trying to soft-sell what is in the actual legislation.

The penalties were put in place by previous Liberal governments for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. Does the member think that individuals who are doing those things in his riding should go to jail or not?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that if a person commits a crime, there needs to be a consequence for that crime. However, the difference between the member and myself is that I have more faith in the judicial system than he does, and in having a judge with the discretionary authority to ensure that both the safety of the community and the individual who has committed the crime are taken into consideration. I have more faith in that judge than I do in mandatory minimum sentences for the simple reason that, quite often, it can also be used as a shortcut and prevent other sorts of potential plea bargaining. There are many reasons, but I did not have enough time to provide the type of detail I would have liked to on the many reasons it makes sense.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Inmates, indigenous or not, can cost the system up to $100,000 a year. Does my colleague agree that the money the government will save by abolishing mandatory minimum penalties should be reinvested in youth awareness campaigns, rehabilitation, education or reintegration, for example?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to recognize when we think of judicial matters that Ottawa is working, in particular, with provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous leaders so that we can actually prevent crimes from taking place in the first place, and that means by investing. However, I do not think we should look at it in terms of saving money here and investing over there. Wherever we can come up with the investments that are necessary in order to prevent crimes from happening, we should encourage that investment, but it also means that we need to get all levels of government working together. If we are successful at doing that, I believe at the end of the day that we will have safer communities.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on the Grey Cup win in his community.

However, by removing mandatory minimums instead of decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs being used for personal use, the Liberal government is taking half measures. It is not actually protecting people who are suffering from a medical condition. As we all know, addiction is a medical issue and not a criminal issue, but the government is still making those people take part in the criminal system. I wonder why it is always a halfway step.

I wonder if the member would agree that what we really need to do is decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs and ensure a safe supply on our streets, because that is actually how we are going to save lives.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the positive things within the legislation is that, if passed, it would give our police forces yet another tool in their tool belt to deal with this issue. It might not necessarily cater to all the needs the NDP would like to see, but at this point I would encourage the member to at least sit down with the appropriate minister. The issues she has raised could also be dealt with through Public Safety and the Department of Health. There may be a more holistic approach with respect to what she is suggesting, but we are providing additional tools for our law enforcement officers, which is a strong and positive thing within this legislation.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North, particularly for his comments about the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. That was an amazing game last night.

We have talked a lot about what is in the legislation, but not about what is not in it. The member across the way for Portage—Lisgar talked about firearms and the long-gun registry. This legislation would not repeal aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, attempted murder with a firearm, manslaughter with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, robbery with a firearm that is restricted or prohibited, or the discharge of a firearm with intent. The legislation addresses public safety.

Maybe the hon. member could talk about how this legislation would maintain safety while at the same time keeping in place legislation that protects against the use of firearms in crimes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. One thing I have learned relatively quickly in the House is that the Conservatives grossly exaggerate on the rhetoric file at times, so if we want accurate information we should not necessarily buy into what they say or the propaganda emails they send out.

This is good, solid legislation. Canadians should feel comfortable knowing that we want our communities to be safe and we recognize the importance of positive judicial reform and legislation.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and it was almost entirely a gross mischaracterization of the Conservative position, with zero relevance or comment on the bill itself. Therefore, I have two questions: Did he read the bill, and did he listen to the opposition critic when he made his speech?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the bill and I listened to the opposition speak to the legislation, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on what side of the House one is on. I also listened to the minister who introduced the bill. I would hope the member who posed the question listened to what the minister had to say, because no doubt it would have alleviated a lot of the concerns being brought forward by the Conservative Party.

Sometimes I find the Conservatives have scripted talking points and it does not really matter what the minister has to say, because the facts go out the window and they stick to the script.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member on the other side after listening to him. I note that he spoke ad lib on this. I am not sure he has read the bill. I am not sure he has spoken to anybody in the criminal justice system or anyone who might be affected by this legislation. Therefore, I would encourage him to take a look at and comment in this House on the concept of broken windows.

As members know, years ago several successful American cities had to revert back to rather stringent legislation in order to stop crimes from escalating, because they were not dealt with appropriately enough at certain stages. That caused a very successful outcome, where they had less crime in the city. Would he like to comment on the eventual outcome and what he would see at the end of this legislation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to get a really good understanding of what the legislation is proposing, he can familiarize himself with it, as I have done. He can also listen to what the Minister of Justice has said on the legislation, as I have done. He can even listen to the Conservative critic on the legislation, who no doubt has had some role in the creation of the speaking notes provided to the Conservatives.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I think about the community I have been elected to represent, I think about Community Justice Initiatives, which uses restorative justice to create a just society. I think about Youth in Conflict with the Law, which is working with young people to ensure they have better interactions and better outcomes. I think about Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.

I would like to hear from the member as to what people are doing in Winnipeg to ensure we are building leaders rather than creating criminals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, restorative justice is a wonderful opportunity for victims meet with the individuals who victimized them. If we can get the two sides working together, we often will get a very positive outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to put some facts on the table. With respect to addressing the issues of systemic racism, in 2018 and 2019 I had the opportunity to go to many communities across Canada, and one thing that came up over and over again as we developed the national anti-racism strategy was the impact of mandatory minimum penalties on racialized communities, particularly indigenous and Black communities. If we look at many of the court decisions that have resulted in this bill, we see court after court striking down many of the mandatory minimum penalty provisions in the Criminal Code.

That is why we are here today. We are responding to the facts of systemic racism within the criminal justice system. It is a very important step in ensuring that everyone is able to get justice, particularly those who are racialized and who have been impacted disproportionately by the overall criminal justice system.

I ask my friend opposite to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spoke about court decisions. Well, perhaps he should read the Hills decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal. That decision upheld as constitutional subsection 244.2(3) on the reckless discharge of a firearm. Notwithstanding that it has been upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal, the federal government saw fit to include it among the mandatory sentences that it is repealing.

This is not about judicial decisions. It is about an ideological agenda from an ideological government that simply believes criminals ought to be given a free pass.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my neighbour from St. Albert—Edmonton was very interesting to me. I will agree with him on many points he made, particularly around the fact that the Liberals have not done enough to stop the illegal importation of guns into this country. However, I did not hear a lot of solution building from his comments today, nor proposals on what would be done if the Conservatives were to form government. When I look back, I see that the Harper government made cuts to the CBSA of almost $150 million. The member stood up today and talked about what the Conservatives would do to protect people from the illegal importation of guns, but when they were in government, they did not do anything. In fact, they made the situation much worse.

How can we trust that they would not make things worse if they were in government again?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did put forward a recommendation. It was that we would support legislation like the bill introduced by my former colleague Bob Saroya, Bill C-238, to increase penalties for gun smugglers and those who are in knowing possession of smuggled firearms. Also, we have advocated for increasing funding for the CBSA. It is vital, and it was in our platform.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that it would help dangerous criminals. It would help drug pushers and drug dealers who are killing Canadians every single day.

By contrast, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac introduced legislation that would help marginalized persons, with work on a framework to reduce recidivism and pilot projects to look at best practices to establish a Canadian strategy to reduce recidivism. That is a concrete measure that can make a difference in the lives of vulnerable persons who are caught up in the criminal justice system, unlike this soft-on-crime Liberal bill.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and did not hear him talk much about border controls to stop illegal firearms, such as machine guns and handguns, from being brought across the border. There are some vulnerable areas that the government chooses not to control, for example, in some communities near Montreal.

Fewer guns and drugs could be a solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. There are significant problems along the Canada-U.S. border, problems that have been well identified and that the government has failed to solve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member kept saying this bill is not as advertised, when during his speech, he kept saying that we would be rolling back sentencing. He used the term “roll back” so much that I almost thought his speech was a Walmart commercial.

Can the member explain to us why his speech was not as advertised? In reality, this is not about rolling back sentencing. It is about giving more power to judges to make decisions. The member would lead people to believe that we are actually reducing sentencing when that is not the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member serious? Has he read the bill? It is quite obvious that this legislation does roll back sentencing. It eliminates a whole series of firearm and drug offences, which I detailed. Perhaps he should read the bill.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, given the Supreme Court's recent decision in the last few years regarding the timing of trials, the Jordan decision, and considering information that we know, there is a high proportion of repeat offenders in Canada's criminal justice system.

Could the member comment on the potential issue that this legislation could lead to our justice system being overwhelmed by repeat offenders, basically exacerbating the situation in our trial system, which is quite overwhelmed?

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

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that when we let dangerous offenders out to do house arrest rather than putting them behind bars where they belong, there is a greater risk they are going to commit other offences. This will contribute to perpetuating the backlog in the courts. I think the member is absolutely right and raises a valid point.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the opioid crisis: the tragedy of hundreds of people dying every week and every month across this country, especially in British Columbia and in my riding. He talked about the need for a solution-based attitude toward this. If we listen to the experts, the Vancouver Police Department, the City of Vancouver and the Province of British Columbia, they are all calling for the decriminalization of small amounts and safe supply, which would keep people alive, get them into the right programs and get rid of the property crime that is associated with addictions.

Would the member agree with that, as the Conservative who ran in my riding during the election did?

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Conservatives put forward a comprehensive plan to deal with mental health and addictions, including investing in drug treatment centres so that persons who are suffering from drug addictions can get the help they need and can be rehabilitated and re-enter society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said that the Conservatives essentially want to lock people up and throw away the key. I would respectfully depart from that analysis and say we are seeking sentences that promote a just sanction, which is right in the Criminal Code.

That was my first point. My second point is that, if the point of rehabilitation and empowerment is the one that is trying to be made, the rehabilitation and empowerment can come when we elect to prosecute someone summarily, in which there is no mandatory minimum, or by indictment.

At the end of the day, would the member support an amendment that would allow for exceptional circumstances so that a just sanction could be levied of imprisonment in a mandatory minimum, or where there is an exceptional circumstance, as we are hearing about so many times today?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to amendments, I will not comment right now in advance of the committee being able to do the work to study it. We have members on that committee who can study that and look into it. I think that is not just good practice, but probably the best way for me to proceed on this.

I understand the member was a former prosecutor. Does he not have faith in the judges, who he used to stand before, to make the decisions that affect the lives of the individuals he brought forward to be prosecuted? Does he not believe that those judges can actually make the decisions we would empower them to make?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my hon. colleague was here earlier, but the opposition House leader read statistics in her speech on gun violence. In fact, she tried to blame Liberals for an increase in violence. However, it is actually under the very legislation Conservatives enacted on mandatory minimums that we saw an increase in crime rates.

Could the member speak about—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Let us get the question done. Let us get the answer done. Then we will have another couple of questions and another couple of answers.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the House, one of the most important aspects is that we are being honest and not telling falsehoods. What the member is leaning toward in her question is completely false. The legislation was brought in by a Liberal government under former prime minister—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the debate, but the member for Pickering—Uxbridge has the floor and is asking a question.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wear it with a badge of honour, but I do not know who upsets the opposition more, me or the member for Kingston and the Islands.

The Conservatives had failed policies when it came to the criminal justice system. Could the hon. member comment on those failures?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to the member for Foothills calling my colleague from Pickering—Uxbridge a liar. He would know that, although he may not have used those words, he certainly did call her so indirectly. What we cannot do directly, we cannot do indirectly.

I apologized earlier for doing the same thing. I am sure he will rise on a point of order after I am done talking to apologize to the member for Pickering—Uxbridge.

However, she hit the nail on the head. This is what I have been saying my entire speech, which is that Conservatives are not interested in actually rehabilitating people. They just want to lock people up and throw away the key. That is what their philosophy has always been when it comes to incarceration and Corrections Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I was in Anjou where I joined many families in a march against gun violence in the wake of the recent death of young Hani Ouahdi, who was gunned down.

People were obviously very concerned about young people accessing guns, the flow of firearms and the fact that we have to do more to limit access to guns. People also talked a lot about the lack of community infrastructure and sports and cultural activities for young people and the fact that street gangs are recruiting them.

Crime is complex, contrary to what the Conservatives think. It cannot be attributed to just one thing. I would like my colleague to share his opinion since we obviously have to address this from every angle.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what the Conservatives will have people believe, like the member for Portage—Lisgar did earlier, that there is this big desire within the Conservative movement to help people before they get to the point of being incarcerated, to make them better. However, when the Conservatives were in government we saw them build megaprisons throughout the country. Why did the Conservatives not use some of that money to actually do some of the things that the member from the NDP has asked me about, such as investing in youth, investing in cultural hubs and places where people can actually be productive members of society?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciated my colleague's speech, I find it interesting that the one element she forget to mention was that many of these mandatory minimum sentences the Liberals are taking away were actually implemented by former Prime Minister Chrétien. That was a Liberal government, not a Conservative movement.

I have a quick question on comments the member made. She said the government wants to focus on people who do not pose a risk to public safety or do not pose a risk to reoffend: low-risk offenders or less serious consequences.

Does my colleague really believe that robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, extortion with a firearm and firing a firearm with intent are offences with low risk?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I believe is that judges have the ability and knowledge to sentence criminals to jail and we need to give them the discretion to do that. We are not removing penalties. We are not removing penalties from these crimes. What we are doing is promoting the judge's discretion.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member. Around 60% of people who are arrested are intoxicated at the time of their arrest. We need to be doing more about mental health and addictions. Sadly, the majority of people who end up in our prison system are either poor or subject to abuse, and have experienced intergenerational trauma or mental health issues and addiction. We need to be putting money into the system before people are in prison, while they are in prison and when they leave prison to ensure those addictions and mental health issues are dealt with.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, would the member agree with the NDP suggestion to bring this bill before committee before the vote at second reading? We could expand the bill and make it a solutions-based piece of legislation.

We want this bill to be something that would tackle problems such as decriminalization, and make sure that addictions are a health issue and not a criminal issue. We want to make sure there is a safe supply. We want to have the records expunged of all the people who have minor criminal records for cannabis possession.

These are things we really have to tackle, and this bill would have been the perfect place to do that. We can only do that if we bring this forward before the vote at second reading so we can expand this bill and make it really worthwhile.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the committee will have ample opportunity to amend the bill. There is more than enough opportunity when it is at committee to make a number of these changes. The member mentioned pardon reform. That is something we have committed to in our platform. We were going to bring forward legislation on that. I think it requires a multipronged approach, and I look forward to the committee studying this bill and bringing forward amendments that are appropriate.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I have a simple question for her.

Minimum sentences have been in place for more than a generation now, and in that time we have seen an increase in the use of guns and in the incarceration of Black and indigenous people. Is it time for something new? Should we try a new approach to really address the problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for the work he has done on this issue. I agree with him. It is definitely time that we started looking at things differently and stopped dictating, as politicians, what sentences should be for crimes. We believe that judges should have that discretion within a range set by Parliament.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I found her ideas to be consistent with the NDP's progressive vision.

I took part in a march last Saturday in Montreal, with families wanting to condemn gun violence on the streets. Concerned parents have said that their children hear gunshots in the neighbourhood almost daily. A 20-year-old man died recently. Street gangs are recruiting children from elementary schools to act as lookouts and do other similar tasks.

No one brought up mandatory minimum sentences. I do not believe that is the solution to improve safety. I heard mostly about access to guns and the fact that the Liberal government is not doing enough at the borders to keep guns out. I also heard about the lack of community, cultural and sports infrastructure, and the fact that young people are being neglected.

We therefore need to act in several areas to be able to reassure people and keep our neighbourhoods safe. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie for giving me the chance to elaborate on the subject and to reiterate that firearms and drugs are not just a justice system issue, but they are also becoming a public health issue.

This issue often involves people who have mental health problems or who are in need of a program or a different type of support. The community-based approach is essential. I mentioned it in my speech. I have a background in community-based services, and I talked about all manner of alternatives. I also talked about the importance of investing more in our health care system, with more money being directed to community organizations so that they can guide young people. That is important and essential.

Mandatory minimum sentences have not proven to be effective, even in the case of firearms. As my colleague mentioned, we have to address the actual problem. For example, the Bloc Québécois suggested the joint task force as a way of truly addressing the issue of border security and firearms. It is therefore important to look at this as broadly and as comprehensively as possible. Mandatory minimum sentences are not necessarily the solution.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for her years of community service to the benefit of her community. There is saying that when the only tool one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Mandatory minimum sentences look like a hammer looking for a nail.

Could she comment on the need for flexibility? I know she mentioned it in her speech, but communities are all different and judges within those communities know what is best to deal with the problems in those communities. This legislation would help them to do that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which gives me the opportunity to address another aspect of the issue that I was unable to mention in my speech, and that is jurisdictional flexibility.

Quebec is already looking at several measures. We do need to keep in mind how important it is to have judges who are able to render decisions, but communities must also have some leeway. As I mentioned, Quebec is looking at these issues as part of its Bill 32, which aims to give municipalities more resources.

To answer the question, I would say yes, absolutely, but above all we must remember how important it is to respect jurisdictions. Quebec also has great initiatives to address the issue and help people out of situations like this. We must let Quebec do that by respecting its jurisdiction.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to a lot of debate and presentations in the chamber today and no one really has mentioned the victims in all of this. I just heard my colleague from across talk about a hammer and a nail, but what about the victims? What about the victim of a grocery store robbery where someone used a firearm and gets a lesser sentence. That victim then has to walk down the street and see the assailant all the time? Should we not take a bit of that into consideration during this debate and talk about the people who have the crimes perpetrated against them? I would like to have my colleague's comments on that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my party's status of women critic, I started my speech by making a specific reference to femicide.

The member asked about victims, and last week we commemorated the École Polytechnique massacre, but the problem is that there is no evidence that mandatory minimum penalties actually work. The Bloc Québécois believes that the only way to help victims is by taking gun control seriously, which our colleagues in the Liberal government have not yet done. I think further consideration of our proposals is necessary. For example, the Bloc Québécois proposed a very good idea for a joint task force.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

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

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

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

What does my colleague think about that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Montarville for his question, which gives me a chance to remind the House that mandatory minimum sentences are not without cost.

There is indeed a cost to all this, and it has to be paid. He put it well when he said that a prison has a cost. It costs more money to detain people in the justice system than it does to support them in other ways. They could be reintegrated, take their place in society and contribute to it, and receive more support to leave that life once and for all. There is a cost to prison sentences.

In the case of a first offence, the person will cost a lot less if they are in a restorative or alternative justice program and get out of the system rather than going to jail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member reflected on the philosophical differences between parties. I appreciated what he and other members of the Bloc as well as the Liberals and NDP have been saying, that the data does not support the idea that mandatory minimums have the impact the Conservatives would like them to have.

I am trying to wrap my head around why the Conservatives still have this philosophical idea that there should not be a component of rehabilitating individuals to make them productive members of society. Could the member comment on why he thinks they might still be coming from the position that it is a requirement and needs to happen even though, as he indicated, the data does not support it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am new here, so maybe I can be perfectly honest.

There are ideological differences between certain parties, and I am prepared to accept this and participate in debate. However, I do not want partisan differences to taint the debate. Partisan differences, or at least partisan obsessions, muddy the waters and make it difficult to debate. Intense partisanship has no place in a discussion on feeling unsafe.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware that when the Liberals removed the mandatory minimum sentences for people who transport firearms without a permit that gang violence went up in places like Toronto and Vancouver? Obviously, it is something that the members from Toronto do not realize about their own communities. He could comment on that.

As well, can the hon. member comment on whether he thinks part of sentencing is punishment and not just rehabilitation?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about punishment, but I do not think that is relevant here.

I want to take a broader perspective on the question and point out that, notwithstanding the ideological difference I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois does not support abolishing mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences. We support maintaining these minimum penalties. It is important to understand that there is a big difference between a minor offence and a serious one.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from across the way. I must say it is refreshing to have a philosopher in the House who is not afraid to use his practice. One item in his speech that I wonder if we could ask for clarification on is the role of the federal government working in provincial affairs. It seemed to me that he said the federal government should take a stronger position on this in the provincial legislatures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I would just like to clarify one thing. I stated that the federal government should exercise its prerogatives in its jurisdictions. Gun control is a federal jurisdiction.

I do not believe that this responsibility can be delegated to a province. It is a power of the Crown and it belongs to the federal state.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is clear with respect to the opioid crisis is that dead people do not detox. The Conservatives talk a lot about treatment, but we first have to make sure people stay alive. The best way to do that is to decriminalize possession and provide a safe supply. Would the member agree with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree.

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

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, though I have been on my feet a number of times in this Parliament it is my first formal speech, so I would like to take a moment to give my thanks. Representing the people of St. Catharines in this place has been the greatest honour of my life. I want to thank the voters, my supporters and everyone who helped on the campaign.

For all of us here there is one name on the ballot, but we know it takes dozens of people behind the scenes. Though we all have differences of opinion, I know that everyone comes to this place to work hard for the betterment of their constituents, and I commit that to my constituents and the people of St. Catharines.

Even though there are far too many people to thank, I want to say a special thanks to my team: Sam, Sara, Zack, Romy and Cass, who were there with me behind the scenes. They are an incredible team and I am so fortunate. The people of St. Catharines are fortunate to have them working for them. I would be remiss if I did not also thank a standout volunteer on my campaign, Alice, who did some incredible work for us and helped us get to where we are. I thank her so much.

I was in the House yesterday and listened to some of the debate. I was reminded of a dinner I was at, probably about 10 to 15 years ago. A children's mental health organization in our region was presenting its first ever hope award to a local member of the community who was outstanding in terms of delivering on mental health and addiction. I believe the recipient that year was Dr. Robin Williams, who is a long-time pediatrician. She was my pediatrician when I was young. She eventually became a medical officer of health and is a passionate advocate for mental health, especially children's mental health.

At that time, the House of Commons was debating significant changes to the Criminal Code. A “lock them up and throw away the key” approach had unfortunately made its way through, and Dr. Williams was concerned by this. I remember her looking down from the podium, after accepting the award, at the Conservative member of Parliament at the time. She said, “Please give me a fraction of what you intend to spend on building prisons and I promise I will lower the crime rate. Locking them up and throwing away the key does not work”.

The same member of Parliament Dr. Williams pleaded with was later sitting in committee. In one of our first studies at the justice committee after the 2015 election, we were discussing the overrepresentation of indigenous people in federal prisons. I believe more than 20% of the prison population is indigenous people, yet indigenous people are 5% or less of the Canadian population. I expressed some concern. That same member, when he had an opportunity to question a witness, said that the system was working: People in jail meant the system was working. It was not.

We have fought the war on drugs for a long time now. Almost for my entire life we have been fighting this war, and we have lost it. I do not know if there is a member here who can stand and say that this has been a successful public policy adventure for any level of government in any country. It heartens me a bit when I finally see Conservative members get up to talk about the opioid crisis and about a three-digit suicide phone number that people can call, but there is no connection. That is a great initiative and I truly hope to see it in the immediate future, but there is no connection to broader policy concerns. There is no connection to the systemic racism that exists. There is no connection to our criminal justice system in which people with mental health disorders and concurrent disorders, that is addiction and mental health disorders at the same time, are overrepresented.

Members of the Conservative Party call for more mandatory minimum penalties and say that they are effective tools of government. If we look to the United States, it is a laboratory for mandatory minimum penalties. Canada has done it and it has not worked. Let us look to the United States and pick whatever state hon. members want to. It has not worked. If mandatory minimum penalties worked as a significant tool of deterrence, the United States would be the safest country in the world. I do not know that anyone here is willing to stand and say that, in terms of drug or firearms offences. It is significant.

We even see right-wing politicians in the United States finally saying enough is enough. As significant percentages of their states' budgets and the federal prison budget are exploding and not producing public safety, questions need to be asked: Why is this not working and what is happening here? Judges in the United States often have zero discretion in terms of what they do, but I know in Canada we have a significant respect for our judiciary.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I don't even know what I'm saying.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I know the hon. member wants to take off his mask to heckle. He is so upset by the discussion of this topic and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when somebody has the floor, the member deserves the respect to be allowed to give his speech so hon. members are able to draft their questions when it is time for questions and comments. I would ask that there be no heckling or yelling across the floor.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has three minutes remaining.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies would remove his mask to yell and heckle. It is not his opportunity.

I do not know what the animosity is. We have failed. Liberal and Conservative governments have successively failed on this file. It is time to right the wrongs on this. It has not worked. It does not make us safer. Time after time it has been promised to Canadians that mandatory minimums will make us safer, and they have not. In the speeches I have heard from members of the Conservative Party, we have not heard the decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada that have struck down mandatory minimums along the way because they lead to a lack of judicial autonomy.

We have a great deal of respect for the judiciary in this country. Even as a lawyer in St. Catharines, I commended the Harper government at the time for the quality of the judges it appointed in Niagara. I know there is some criticism of the types of people who get appointed to the bench, but I have never seen anyone stand in this place and say the individuals appointed by the minister of justice were unqualified. We have a high-quality bench, and judicial discretion needs to be at the heart of things. Things come up. We cannot focus on every aspect of an event or every likely outcome, so why do we not leave that trust in judges?

All members of the House want their communities to be safe, and mandatory minimums seem counterintuitive. We think they have to work: I am a law-abiding citizen and I do not want to go to jail for a set period of time. They work. Study after study shows that they do not. There is a suggestion on the other side that Liberals do not want this, but I think every member of the House believes it. It is insulting to say we do not. If people commit serious offences under the changes that are proposed to the Criminal Code, they will receive serious penalties. That is fundamental and part of judicial discretion. Aggravating and mitigating factors are important parts of our sentencing structure, even when mandatory minimums do not exist. Though it may not seem like it, mandatory minimums actually reduce sentences. If we look at the studies, judges see them as a ceiling, not a floor.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am doing work on human trafficking, and the parliamentary secretary mentioned the mandatory minimum and states in which it seems to be working.

We had a round table in Oshawa with representatives from Texas and the FBI, and one of the things that is very concerning with these perpetrators of human trafficking is that it is modern slavery. If we do not have similar types of penalties across the border, it actually seems to be attracting more bad “business” on this side of the border. I am very concerned that these penalties are being removed and we are going to be seeing more human trafficking.

If they are going to be moving forward in this direction, what will be a deterrent against these international human traffickers, the slave traders?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again we have a suggestion that human traffickers will get off and not receive a strong penalty. It is a serious offence, and the hon. members are suggesting our judiciary is stupid in terms of not seeing a serious offence like human trafficking and not providing a penalty that will fit the crime. This is about judicial discretion. We do not appoint stupid people to the bench. They will impose a serious penalty for a serious crime.

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

Madam Speaker, mandatory minium penalties have clearly not proven to be effective over the years. As an ethicist, I worked with police officers and prisons. In both cases, I was able to observe two types of inmates: repeat offenders for whom not a lot can be done, and who are serving what is likely an appropriate sentence, and first-time offenders who are serving time because they made a mistake.

If we vote in favour of doing away with mandatory minimum penalties, we still need to think about maintaining such penalties for firearm-related offences, including the trafficking and possession of firearms.

Does the hon. member agree with me on that?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into specific details and I look forward to the committee's study on this, but if we keep carving out issues, we are not addressing the serious problem.

I take the member at his word that he was involved in the criminal justice system. He knows that if people commit serious offences, they receive serious penalties. This legislation would not stop that. Unfortunately, the questions I have heard consistently from the Conservatives do not address that systemic racism problem we are looking to address here. I look forward to the committee's study on it and making the bill better, and I hope this bill passes very quickly.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe and hope all members of this House want to deal as effectively as we possibly can to save lives with regard to the opioid crisis we know is hitting very hard in Canada. While I appreciate that this bill would eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences for all drug offences, we have seen proof that we need a safe supply; we need decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs, and we need to expunge records to actually deal with the opioid drug crisis.

Will the member speak to that and to the idea that the Liberals still have work to do to make sure we are dealing with the opioid crisis properly?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all have work to do at all orders of government. There is no silver bullet to solving the opioid crisis. This legislation will not solve it. Safe supply is another piece of the puzzle but will not solve it. We have to talk about things like housing and poverty reduction. We have to talk about so many things, because this is a crisis that has been decades in the making. We need significant, complex, real solutions to solve it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, doing away with mandatory minimum penalties is a good first step, particularly when it comes to the possession of drugs. As to firearms, we still need to discuss what should be done.

It is a good first step, but it is not enough, because it will not fully put an end to the overrepresentation of first nations and Black people in prisons. Once again, we need to be proactive. Providing judges and police officers with training to prevent racial prejudice is important. We also need to invest in social and support structures for these people.

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that I agree with the hon. member in her assessment of the situation. It was not long ago that we were debating the notion of additional training for judges to deal with gender issues that might come up. Again, that was so the judgments were appropriate not only to the criminal justice system, but also for the unique circumstances that the individual before the court is presenting.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the frustrations I hear from people in my riding, especially firearms owners in my riding, is that the government always seems to be making more hoops to jump through for law-abiding Canadians. It seems to be making things more difficult for hunters and sport shooters, but when it comes to fighting criminals and standing up against organized crime specifically, the government is looking at reducing mandatory minimums and making things easier for criminals.

It is difficult for us on this side of the House to understand that approach. I am wondering if the member opposite could explain further how he feels that reducing minimum sentences would do anything to help stop organized crime.

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

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

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

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said this bill treats using substances for personal use as a health issue, but it actually does not do that, far from it. It is not even a half measure.

We have heard from police chiefs and we have heard from medical health professionals. Our own shared province of British Columbia has been calling for decriminalization and safe supply as first steps to address the opioid crisis. This bill still criminalizes people. It may leave it in the hands of judges and police officers to decide whether they are going to move forward with charges, but it is not even close to what the Health Canada expert panel on substance use recommends, which is full decriminalization and expungement of all records.

Do my colleague and his party support decriminalization? When will they honour the request from British Columbia for an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for simple possession and allow decriminalization?

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

Madam Speaker, in practical terms, the police are not arresting people for simple possession. Certainly, in British Columbia, where Crown counsel has to approve all charges, they are not approving charges. For all practical purposes, that is not happening.

Decriminalization, in my personal view, does not go far enough. We need to ensure there is a safe supply. We cannot leave the provision of dangerous drugs, the profits and the production in the hands of criminals. I would be prepared to work with my hon. colleague to see that come about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member opposite's speech.

In my riding, many people are suffering due to the opioid crisis, and a lot of people are working hard to help these victims from a health perspective. Given a situation like the opioid crisis, would my colleague agree that we need to approach a crisis like this from a health perspective, not a Criminal Code perspective? Should we not try to find more solutions from that angle?

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

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what I was saying at the beginning of my speech when I quoted my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton.

When we talk about opioids, we are talking about fentanyl. Let us not forget that there are criminal networks of dealers importing and selling these substances. Traffickers mix opioids, cocaine and other drugs, and the concentration becomes too high, which is why every day, 20 Canadians die from an opioid overdose. It is a major problem.

In our view, in my view, we are not going to solve this problem by rolling back sentencing for drug traffickers. On the contrary, we have to deal with trafficking at the source and ensure that no opioids are sold to Canadians on the street.

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

Madam Speaker, I will focus on some of the myths that my colleague stated as facts.

The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles may not identify with some of the positions taken by the Bloc Québécois, but I can assure the House that as Quebeckers, we do not identify whatsoever with the positions taken by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles.

He claims in no uncertain terms that Bill C‑5 gives more rights to criminals. Firstly, I would like to know his definition of criminal. Does he make a distinction between a career criminal and an occasional criminal? Does he believe that occasional criminals can be rehabilitated?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and I congratulate him on his election. We did not win his riding.

I do believe in the concept of occasional criminals and career criminals. There is nothing to be done for some criminals, while others simply have bad luck.

However, lighter sentences will work in favour of new criminals, youth, who will say to themselves that if they commit an offence, they will get off easier because the good old Liberal government reduced these sentences. This will spread the notion that crime can pay, and that is something we must not do.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of my colleague from Charlesbourg. He talked a bit about how indigenous people did not see this as a solution. However, we know that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 32 recommends that minimum mandatory sentences be stopped.

Therefore, I would like him to comment on the fact that the TRC has called for this. How can he stand in this place and say that is not accurate?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. That is part of the ideological debate, the position we should take on matters of public safety.

As I mentioned, being indigenous, Black, white or other is irrelevant. We are all human beings with two hands. When we decide to commit a crime with a gun, for example, we have to pay the price.

I know that the notion of indigenous group or race was mentioned in the report. However, I believe that we must look at what has led to the problem and find solutions to help indigenous people not commit crimes. The notion of public safety must be the same for all human beings, no matter their race.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, in the last election, constituents in my riding of Prince Albert wanted to see us get tougher on gang crime, criminal activity and rural crime. It appears this legislation would do the opposite and would send the wrong signal. I am curious what the his constituents would say to him with respect to what the priority should be when dealing with criminals, illegal guns and things like that. Would the bill do that or would it send the wrong message?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

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

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

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I also thank him for congratulating our colleague from Trois-Rivières. Winning by just one vote is still a win. We are very happy to have him here.

As far as I know, there are no studies showing that mandatory minimum penalties have any effect whatsoever on someone's decision to commit a crime. Since my colleague is claiming that mandatory minimums do have this effect, does he have some information that we do not? If so, could he share the sources with us?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously, I do not have the information with me. However, one thing is certain: Law and order follow a certain basic logic in our society.

Do we want a society where people know that, if they commit a crime, there are practically no consequences, or do we want a society that makes sure that people who decided to commit a crime, either once or repeatedly, will face suitable punishment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the heart of this bill recognizes that our judges, who are independent and have the legal background and understanding of the circumstances surrounding a crime, are in a far greater position to deal with the circumstances for a sentence. Does the Conservative Party not have the confidence in our judicial system, that the dispositions of judges would be fair without having mandatory minimum sentences, which can cause other issues, such as systemic racism?

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

Madam Speaker, every week, we hear from Canadians who do not understand why a certain judgment was handed down, why a person who committed a crime received a short sentence or a third of a sentence. We often hear questions about judgments.

The most important part of our job is creating laws. The administration of justice is the purview of judges. Of course, we need to provide the justice system and judges with the best tools possible.

However, when we start reducing sentences, when we remove criteria, judges will have to work with the tools Parliament has given them.

As legislators, we need to decide how much we want to reorient our justice system and Criminal Code so that judges can do their job based on the decisions made by the people's representatives.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard from mayors, provincial governments, including British Columbia, health care professionals, frontline service workers, police chiefs and public health officials. They are calling for the decriminalization of the personal possession of drugs.

The opioid crisis is happening. Will my colleague listen to health professionals and police chiefs and not let politics stand in the way of saving lives?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I actually did mention in my speech that I was not talking about drug users. Drug use is a problem that needs to be managed.

In this case, we are talking about criminals like drug dealers and drug traffickers. That is where we think we need to continue to focus and step up our efforts, not the opposite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to question my colleague on a few things, one of which is our absolute faith in judges, who are going to be wide open to give a bunch of good rules. The rules we set for our laws in Canada are very wide already, and judges have discretion, within a certain breadth, in how to deliver sentencing. The rules are not strict. However, judges do need a set of laws, rules and guidelines about how they apply sentencing. Regardless of the person in front of them at a point in time, there is a victim of crime as well, and all victims need to see there is crime and punishment and an outcome with a cost.

Would you suggest there is an objective here that you are not looking at, as far as the outcome goes, that will lead to something worse in society as opposed to something less worse in prisons?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not going to suggest it, so I would ask the hon. member to put his questions to the member through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously this bill will be worked on at committee in order to really look at all the different ways it will have impacts on society. Currently, our justice system does not necessarily work. There is an overrepresentation of certain communities, and that is because judges do not necessarily have the discretion they should have. As I mentioned in my speech, people can still go through an appeal process if ever the judge's decision is deemed not to be the right one.

We do have faith in our judges, so we believe that this bill would only help improve the situation. Of course, when it comes to simple drug possession, nobody is really worse off except the person who has committed the crime, so a rehabilitation program is obviously a much better solution.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, actual research has shown that mandatory minimum penalties are not always useful. We all agree on that. We will talk about firearms later.

That being said, I want to return to the matter of prevention. There are reasons why young people turn to crime. We need to be able to respond to these young people and their families from an early age, namely by investing in health and social services and social housing structures. I am not talking about affordable housing; there is a world of difference between the two.

When will the government do something about prevention?

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

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member. I am a teacher, so I am well acquainted with the importance of prevention. I know how impressionable young people are and how important it is that they make the right choices.

I think this bill is taking us in the right direction by eliminating the minimum two-year sentence. That could help us get young people on the right track and send them to rehab instead of prison.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

I thank the member for mentioning that the Liberal government acknowledges indigenous people are over-incarcerated and has trust in the judicial system. However, removing mandatory minimums instead of decriminalizing the personal possession of drugs makes sure that people with addictions will still end up in the criminal justice system rather than the health care system.

Why is the government only taking a half step toward reducing the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians in the criminal justice system?

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely a lot more work needs to be done, and this is only a mall step in the right direction. It is, however, an important step in this direction. We want to make sure that we take all of the right steps without moving too quickly and endangering Canadians. For sure, there is a problem of overrepresentation of indigenous and racialized communities, and this is one of the reasons the bill is being presented.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House today and debate Bill C-5. This bill proposes legislative measures that would repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties and give prosecutors the discretion to deal with simple drug possession as a health issue rather than a criminal one.

I would like to begin by telling you what I think is the most fundamental aspect of this bill that provides for the independence of the judiciary with respect to sentencing.

Before I had the privilege of serving the voters of Kings—Hants in the House, I was a lawyer, so I can say with assurance that the circumstances of each case are usually different. For these reasons, when it comes to sentencing, I think that not allowing judges to use their discretion is a problem.

I had the privilege of listening to this debate on the same bill before the House in the 43rd Parliament, about the aspect of judicial independence and judges' discretion. I want to make a link to what I believe to be generally a Conservative principle, namely that we allow local decision-makers to use their discretion when available. It is the idea of decentralizing decisions to local governments, provincial governments, when available and necessary. My friends from the Bloc Québécois would certainly appreciate that as well, with respect to the devolving of powers.

I also see that in this legislation. We sit here as parliamentarians. I have heard the Minister of Justice and other members of this House provide circumstances and cases that could be used to talk about how this bill could impact sentencing and judicial outcomes. The reality is no one in this House knows the particular circumstances of a case that is going to happen three or four years from now. At the end of the day, we want to allow our judges, our judiciary, to make those decisions and weigh both mitigating and aggravating factors. As I mentioned before, in my time as a lawyer, not all circumstances of a case are the same. Fundamentally, this allows our judiciary the discretion to make those decisions.

The member for St. Catharines, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in his remarks earlier today talked about the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has found that mandatory minimum penalties, in some cases, are unconstitutional. It is up for debate in this House, but they are not effective at actually reducing crime. I have heard conversations among colleagues in this House about how we tackle crime and how we can challenge some of those points. I agree that there needs to be work done outside of this legislation. This legislation is not a silver bullet to solve that, but this is legislation that would help provide that discretion to judges and reduce the systemic challenges that indigenous and Black Canadians face.

I have mentioned many times in the House that I have the privilege of representing the three indigenous nations of Kings—Hants: Sipekne'katik, Glooscap and the Annapolis Valley First Nation.

While talking with the leaders of these communities, I heard about how the structure of the criminal justice system can create inequality, and how first-time offenders can become lifelong criminals after spending years in prison for simple drug possession, instead of receiving rehabilitation services or the necessary support to turn their lives around.

As opposed to trying to work to rehabilitate individuals and look at certain circumstances, we are putting people in jail for a minimum period of time, even if the circumstances do not warrant it. That is the reality.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The members opposite can have their views, and I would welcome their questions when I am done, but I would like to keep the floor.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members one more time that when somebody has the floor they deserve respect. If the hon. members who are not speaking wish to ask questions and make comments, then I would ask that they hold off until then.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly welcome the questions once I have finished.

The statistics have been borne out. Again, I really think fundamentally that this is about judicial independence and discretion. The facts are quite stark. Five per cent of the adult population in Canada are indigenous. They represent 30% of our incarcerated population, and 42% if one considers women; 7.2% of our incarcerated population is Black, despite the fact that they represent only 3% in this country. This bill means a lot to my indigenous communities and my Black residents in Kings—Hants.

What I heard in the debate, and perhaps what some of the members opposite were trying to intervene with is “a crime is a crime”. I hear that. A crime is proportionate. It does not matter what a person's background is. At the end of the day, we need to look at the circumstances behind the behaviour. I agree that serious crime represents and should represent serious punishment, but at the same time, by imposing mandatory minimums and taking that discretion away from common law principles in terms of sentencing, we are not giving that discretion for the judges to be able to look at the best-case scenario. The same applies to prosecutors in terms of their ability to look at the circumstances and provide recommendations that will keep our communities safe.

Again, I would agree with the idea that this piece of legislation alone would not solve the issue. There has to be a focus on investment in social support systems, in housing and in recreation. All of that is important to reducing crime, writ large, in communities across the country. This is important to creating challenges for individuals for whom there may perhaps be better programs and supports than just imposing a mandatory minimum penalty.

I want to also mention the point around encouraging diversion for simple drug possession. I know we have a challenge in this country. I would be naive to stand here in the House and say that drugs are not a problem in Kings—Hants. They certainly are. The opioid crisis is something that is often mentioned in the House, particularly by our colleagues from British Columbia. It is just reasonable, sensible public policy to allow and give further discretion to police officers to be able to use their discretion to treat these instances as a health issue versus a criminal issue, and to try to make sure those supports are in place.

I know the members of the NDP would be asking for a step even further. There are circumstances where the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice are able to work to allow municipalities to go further. I do not have the section at the moment, but I know those are going to be things our government will consider in the days ahead.

I do not know how much time I have, perhaps two or three minutes, but I would suggest this in terms of my conclusion.

All members of this House agree that serious crime and activity deserve a serious penalty and that we should not be light on crime in that sense. However, looking at the mandatory minimum penalties in place, in some cases they have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. We know they have a detrimental impact on visible minorities in this country. They take away the discretion for judges to be able to look at the circumstances of a case and move forward. Indeed, many members of this House have said that the mandatory minimum penalty almost provides a cap in terms of what the courts will award, as opposed to maybe looking at the circumstances, recognizing that there is an aggravating factor and saying that this individual in question actually deserves a higher sentence. Sometimes the courts will simply look at the mandatory minimum and put that in place, and that is really problematic as well.

We need to be able to move forward. I will certainly be in support of this legislation. It is reasonable, and I look forward to taking questions from members opposite in this House.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to share the perspective of the constituents I represent in Lakeland.

I come from a family of law-abiding firearms owners. I represent many law-abiding firearms owners: hunters and sports shooters of all nationalities and all backgrounds. They are confused about the Liberals' approach to gangs and gun crime, even while shootings increase in places like Toronto and Vancouver. Residents there deserve to have a government that will protect their safety and make their neighbourhoods and streets safe.

I wonder why the member then does not agree that there should be prison time for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting unauthorized firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, all kinds of illegal possession of firearms and discharging firearms with recklessness. Law-abiding firearms owners—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the hon. member to answer the question. I have other members with questions.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, nowhere in my speech did I ever mention that there should not be jail time or criminality for those types of behaviours. In fact, all I said is that we should not be imposing a mandatory minimum. We should allow the judiciary to make the decision on an appropriate sentence.

With all due respect, this type of fearmongering is problematic for important debate on being able to reduce systemic barriers in our criminal justice system. I believe that serious crime deserves serious time, but I also believe that we should give that discretion to judges to make the choice; it does not belong to us as parliamentarians here in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she had a chance to ask her question. If she has other questions, she can attempt to be recognized again as opposed to talking over the hon. member while he is responding.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, allowing judges and police officers to make decisions is important, because they are the ones who are very familiar with the subjects and the people.

Earlier I heard a colleague say that they were going to abolish all sentences. That is not at all true. As I understand it, sentences could be two years, as is currently the case, but they could also be five years, or six months with rehabilitation.

Can my colleague tell us again about the importance of clarifying Bill C-5 with respect to prevention and rehabilitation measures for minor crimes?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I definitely agree with her when it comes to the discretion of judges and the courts. I think that it is important that both aggravating factors and mitigating factors be taken into account when examining a file. Rehabilitation and other measures can be considered as a solution to help the person move away from crime.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague stated in his speech, and we know that the Liberal Party in government has said on many occasions, that he acknowledges that drug use and addiction have to be treated as health issues and not criminal ones. However, the bill before us would retain the criminalized attitude towards drug use; it would simply change the sentencing.

Can the member perhaps explain to the House and help members understand how the bill, by keeping drug use and addiction in the criminal sphere, would honour the concept of treating addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, we are moving in terms of our understanding in this country about how we treat these particular issues. I believe the member's riding covers the Lower Mainland, where the opioid crisis is quite severe. I would say that although it would retain the criminal powers, the bill would certainly give discretion to be able to treat this as a health issue, which is extremely important. We know there are other measures through the Minister of Health, whereby we can treat issues around the opioid crisis as a health crisis and be able to put measures in place.

I look forward to working with the member in the days ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House to speak to a bill that is not only a long time coming and not only important to many Canadians, but is one that touches upon a very real and profoundly important issue that touches every community in our nation.

The bill deals with the issue of mandatory minimums and the initiative of the government to remove mandatory minimums for a number of prescribed sentences. It would remove mandatory minimum sentences for all drug offences under the Criminal Code and then some others with respect to tobacco and firearms provisions.

I was in the House when many mandatory minimum sentences were put into the Criminal Code by the previous Harper Conservative government, and our party opposed that approach then and we oppose it now. We do so for a number of reasons. The New Democrats have long opposed the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences in our Criminal Code for all but the most serious of crimes. These are some of the reasons for that position.

First, it is a very blunt tool. It removes the discretion of a judge to shape sentences to suit the specifics of every case. I happen to have been trained as a lawyer, and I spent 16 years litigating cases in the labour setting. I would posit before the House that every single case that comes before a judge is unique. It touches upon unique individuals with unique circumstances and it occurs in very specific circumstances and conditions. The essence of justice is to fashion a resolution that suits the particular circumstances that come before a court.

Politicians should not be sentencing people from this chamber. In our system of government, we have separation of powers, the judiciary separated from the legislative branch, separated from the executive branch, separated from the police force. These are core elements of our modern democracy and they are very important ones.

I am always suspicious of attempts by politicians in the House to try to reach into the courtrooms of our nation to tell judges what to do in a particular situation. What is particularly wrong with mandatory minimums is that they purport to tell judges to sentence a person irrespective of the person before them and the circumstances of that case.

Second, mandatory minimum sentences are routinely ruled as unconstitutional in our country. I think we could safely say that in most cases, mandatory minimum sentences do not comport with our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Third, the evidence is crystal clear now that mandatory minimums are a major factor that contributes directly to the overrepresentation of the incarceration of the most marginalized Canadians, including indigenous, racialized and poor people.

As an example, indigenous people make up about 4.9% of our population, but if we were to walk into our prisons, we would find that 30% of the people in prisons are indigenous. With respect to indigenous women, it is even more shockingly appalling that 42% of the women in prisons are indigenous. A major factor contributing to that is the use of mandatory minimum sentences.

Finally, mandatory minimum sentences do not work. I need only point to the United States as the best example for that. The United States locks up the highest percentage of its population of any country in the world, and it has done nothing to reduce the crime rates or the rate of violent offences in the United States. If it were true that the use of mandatory minimum sentences reduced crime, then there would be empirical evidence of that in our neighbour to the south, and it has been proven to be quite the opposite.

In fact, the State of Texas, one of the most tough-on-crime jurisdictions we will find on this planet, has publicly stated that mandatory minimum sentences have not worked. All that has happened is that it has locked up an incredibly high percentage of the population in that state, with no impact on crime rates.

Therefore, I support this measure and I support the bill. Discretionary sentences and diversion from prison are distinctly preferable to mandatory minimum sentences that lock up more Canadians, for longer time, with no positive effect.

However, make no mistake that the bill would do nothing, zero, to address the core problem with our drug policy; that is to treat drug addiction and substance use as health issues, not criminal ones. That is the root cause of the problem with our drug policy. Substance use and addiction are health issues, not criminal ones. They are not moral failings. They are not issues of character. They are pure issues of health. Addiction is a complex biopsychosocial illness. It results in compulsive behaviour that is rooted in trauma. Substance use disorder is listed in the “DSM-5”, which is a diagnostic manual that our medical professionals use.

This is one of those issues where I will say that the general population is far ahead of the politicians of our country and, dare I say, many politicians in the House. That is because no family, not one, is untouched by addiction or substance use disorder. Everyone has a mother or father, a sister or brother, an uncle or aunt, a cousin, a grandparent or maybe even himself or herself, who has suffered from substance use, whether that is alcoholism or addiction. These families know something that is important to acknowledge in the House: Those people who are suffering are not criminals; they are sufferers, they are patients, they are people struggling with an illness.

Dr. Gabor Maté, whom I consider to be an authority of global stature in our country, a great Canadian, has found that the basic cause of addiction is trauma. He is on record as saying that after treating people in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver for many years, he never treated a single person who did not have significant childhood trauma.

Therefore, what does criminalizing those people do to them? Criminal sanctions are society's way of imposing maximum trauma on citizens. They get accosted by the police. They go through the trauma of arrest. They go into the very serious, intimidating context of a court. They go through a trial. They go to jail. This system is designed to impose the most serious pressure society can possibly impose. In other words, what we do when we criminalize drug policy is we re-traumatize people whose main issue is that they suffer from trauma. That is completely counterintuitive. In fact, it is cruel and it does not work.

If criminalizing drug use worked, we would have eliminated it years ago. We have spent billions of dollars, incarcerated millions of people around the world, harmed tens of millions of people, and achieved nothing. Today, Canada is setting, year after year, record deaths in opioid overdose. Every year since the government was elected in 2015, the death rate has gone up. Since 2016 until 2020, over 17,000 Canadians have died. In B.C., six and a half people die every day.

I will conclude by saying that stigma, shame and punishment are the core emotional issues of those suffering from substance use disorder and criminalizing their behaviour exacerbates and deepens that shame and stigma. We do not need to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences; we need to decriminalize drug use, bring in a regulated low-barrier safe supply, focus on education prevention and a treatment on demand through our public health care system. Then we will make progress on drug policy and use in our country.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's support, with a caveat, for this bill. I agree with him that, and I think we all know, mental health and addiction issues are health issues and as such we need to treat them in that manner.

However, there is a fair bit of debate as to what those next steps would look like. We know that decriminalization of simple possession of drugs is one path forward, but it is important that there be enough supports in the communities around treatment, harm reduction and other sorts of things. There are models, like in Portugal and the Scandinavian countries, that, with certain debate, are effective in some manner.

I would be interested to learn from the member his thoughts on what steps need to be taken beyond just decriminalizing simple possession of drugs.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, in terms of a mandate from Canadians, I fundamentally believe it is there. Most Canadians right now want their government to decriminalize drug use and to treat it authentically and comprehensively as a health issue.

The government has said on many occasions that it is guided by evidence, as it should be. The Liberals say that quite consistently. They have said it throughout the COVID crisis. Why do they not follow the evidence when it comes to drug policy? There is a consensus, from public health officers to the Canadian chiefs of police to addictions experts to people with lived experience to drug researchers, that we must fully decriminalize drug use and provide a different approach to this.

What we are asking for in the House is leadership.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noted that the member spoke primarily on mandatory minimums for drug possession as opposed to what this is. The bill would allow judges further discretion to deliver minimum sentences or define where they fit in that spectrum. The member is right on drug minimums, that we need to a law that decriminalizes a lot of these activities.

However, the actual exhortation of the bill is to give more authority to legal people to determine what those are as opposed to Canadians who elect people to determine what those penalties should be or the breadth of those penalties. We are here to give that role, but we are usurping that role right now to somebody else.

How will we represent Canadians on what they expect in the criminal justice—

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

I have the give the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway a chance to make a comment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, I go back to what Canadians expect us to do here and I think they expect us to be guided by evidence, to be legislating with wisdom and passion, and to be coming up with good public policy.

The fundamental question for us in the House is this. We either fundamentally believe that drug use and addiction are health issues or we do not. If we do believe it, then they have no place in the Criminal Code. On tinkering with the sentencing, it might be preferable to have non-mandatory sentences, but it is still in the Criminal Code and we still use the sanction of criminality on something that fundamentally is inappropriate to do so.

As it says in the big book of AA, “Half measures availed us nothing.” This is a half measure and it will avail us nothing.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his sensible and measured speech. It is good to hear reasonable people speak in the House.

I would like to hear what he has to say about a specific issue. We know that the Bloc Québécois is also amenable to the idea of doing away with mandatory minimum sentences in general. However, there are certain exceptions, including repeat offenders, violent crimes involving firearms, and illegal arms trafficking. That is a huge problem right now.

What is the NDP's position? Is it prepared to examine these positions and adopt a more nuanced bill?

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

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, 15 seconds.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his kind words. He is quite right that I focused my entire remarks on the aim of the bill to eliminate mandatory minimums when it comes to drug sentences. I am aware that there are other sections of the Criminal Code where mandatory minimums may be taken away.

When the bill goes to committee, those sections deserve closer scrutiny. I am sure I speak for my colleagues when I say that they will give every consideration to make wiser—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the voters of Ottawa South. This is my seventh consecutive election. I am honoured and privileged to represent such a magnificent riding, a very diverse riding, with over 82 languages spoken and over 160 countries of origin. I like to describe my riding as “the United Nations of Ottawa South”.

A great deal of time has already been spent describing the objectives of Bill C-5, its proposed reforms and expected impacts. I support these changes, and I believe they will make a significant positive contribution to our criminal justice system. They will also contribute to efforts to address the undeniable and disproportionate impacts existing criminal laws have on certain communities in Canada.

We know that certain communities in Canada and other countries are involved in the criminal justice system at higher rates than other people. In Canada, the over-incarceration of indigenous persons and Black Canadians is well documented. The reasons for this are systemic, and they include our laws on sentencing. It is clear to me that the issue of over-incarceration must be addressed by revisiting our existing sentencing laws. That is exactly what Bill C-5 proposes to do.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, has proven to be a costly and ineffective approach to reducing crime. Indeed, many jurisdictions comparatively around the world are moving away from this approach to criminal justice. While MMPs can be a forceful expression of government policy in the area of criminal law, we know that MMPs do not deter crime and can result in unjust and inequitable outcomes. The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear about these issues.

Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum. Evidence-based policy is informed by relevant research, including comparative studies from other countries. By examining a particular policy's successes and failures, we can develop reforms that build on what we know works and address what we know does not work.

For instance, while the United States, both at the federal and state levels, has historically made great use of MMPs, in the last decade many states have moved toward reducing or outright eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on those for non-violent and drug-related charges. These trends reveal a shift motivated by, among other things, a need to address high levels of incarceration and the corresponding social and fiscal costs. One could speak to a California legislator about how expensive it has been for the state of California over the last several decades.

This is being done by governments of all political stripes in the United States, and I encourage all parties in this House to recognize the true impacts of MMPs and work to improve our criminal justice system. Some in the United States have termed this the “smart on crime” movement. It is an approach that recognizes the need to address high levels of incarceration of young Black and Hispanic Americans, who face disproportionate negative impacts because of the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the United States, particularly, as I have already noted, for non-violent, drug-related offences.

Some have also pointed out that mandatory minimum sentencing actually encourages cycles of crime and violence by subjecting non-violent offenders, who could otherwise be productive members of society, to the revolving door of the prison system.

Recently, the President of the United States indicated his intention to repeal MMPs at the federal level, where he has jurisdiction, and provide states with incentives to repeal their own mandatory minimums as well. Other countries have made similar changes. For example, in 2014, France repealed certain MMPs, predominately citing evidence that the reconviction rate had more than doubled between 2001 and 2011, increasing from 4.9% to 12.1%.

When examining trends in like-minded countries, we can see a clear policy shift toward limiting the use of mandatory minimum penalties to the most serious of cases and restoring judicial discretion at sentencing. While international comparisons cannot be the only lens through which we develop sentencing policy in Canada, particularly given our unique cultural traditions and diversity, such comparisons provide a useful backdrop against which to assess the adequacy of our own sentencing laws.

Currently, the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provide MMPs for 73 offences, including for firearms offences; sexual offences; impaired driving; kidnapping; human trafficking; sex trade offences; murder; high treason; and drug-related offences, such as trafficking, importing and exporting, and the production of certain drugs like cocaine and heroin.

In the last 15 years, 30 offences have been amended, almost entirely by the previous Harper government, to increase existing MMPs or to impose new ones.

I was in this House when those amendments were made by the previous government, and when they were introduced, and I had an opportunity to debate them at the time. I was opposed to them then, and I am opposed to them now. I was particularly struck at the time by evidence that was presented to the House, produced by the criminal law policy division in the Department of Justice, where the director happened to be a former Progressive Conservative member of Parliament. The evidence adduced and presented by the Department of Justice indicated that the amendments the government of the day was pursuing would not achieve the outcomes it desired. It had been warned and forewarned, not only by opposition members at the time, but also by the think tank insider at the Department of Justice.

Bill C-5 would reverse that trend, and in so doing, it seeks to make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all. It would repeal MMPs for 20 offences, including MMPs for all drug-related offences, as well as some for firearm-related offences. This is not a signal from Parliament that drug and firearms offences are not serious and not worthy of important denunciatory sentences in appropriate cases.

Firearms and drug offences can be very serious, and I have full confidence in our courts to impose appropriate penalties. Bill C-5, as I said, would not repeal all MMPs in the Criminal Code. This bill does not propose changes to the penalties for child sexual offences and other sexual crimes, nor would the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment for murder be changed.

Some will argue the government should have done away with all mandatory minimum penalties. Others will be critical of the government's decisions to reform the MMPs that are included in this bill. This bill is an important and balanced step forward, and I know our justice minister is always open to considering further changes in the future.

Despite there being differences of opinion as to the role of MMPs in our sentencing laws, I would not want these views to distract us from our job, which is to examine the important changes in Bill C-5. We have a good bill before us that has been welcomed by a broad range of stakeholders. It would make critically important changes, not just in the area of MMPs, but also with respect to conditional sentencing and the way the criminal justice system addresses simple drug possession.

I will be voting in favour of these changes because I am convinced they will make our justice system fairer and better. I urge all members on all sides of this House to support the swift passage of Bill C-5.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election. He began his speech talking about how certain historically marginalized communities, for instance Black and indigenous Canadians, are disproportionately represented in the prison population.

It seems clear one possible cause of that overrepresentation is that members of certain communities are receiving disproportionately long sentences relative to others for the same crime. It would seem that one way of combatting racism in the justice system is to ensure consistent sentencing. People, regardless of their background or race, for instance, receiving similar kinds of sentences for the same crimes in the same circumstances.

One way of reducing racism would be to have clear sentencing guidelines. Perhaps it is with mandatory minimums, or perhaps it is with sentencing starting points. This legislation, by removing mandatory minimums and widening the range for judicial discretion, does not seem to be combatting discrimination on that basis. Rather, it creates more space for the inconsistent application of penalties for the same crime. I wonder if the member has a comment on that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I am desirous of seeing the kind of consistency the member alludes to, one size does not fit all. When there is a crime being adjudicated in a court, judges have a specific responsibility to adduce and hear all of the evidence; to consider it; and to take into consideration background, mental health and addiction. We have heard repeatedly on the floor of the House that this question of addiction is, on some sides of the House, considered to be a weakness, perhaps even a choice. Addiction is the antithesis of being free. When one is addicted, one is not free to make rational choices.

The answer to the question the member poses is that one size does not fit all. We now see that trying to force fit every case into a box, as the previous government did, has led to evidence of what we know to be the case, which is a small percentage of a population, for example, indigenous Canadians, being widely overrepresented in the prison system.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to hear more about the importance of maintaining discretion and flexibility for people qualified to determine appropriate sentences. A number of factors come into play, such as the circumstances, the individual before them and whether this person is a repeat offender or a young person who was led astray.

I would like to hear more from him on this subject and what he thinks about sentences for illegal arms trafficking. Right now, illegal arms trafficking is one of our biggest concerns.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up, if I could, where I left off, and that is the role and purpose of judges and the difficult role they fulfill when they sit as triers of fact.

I remember when I began my career as a young articling student with a criminal law firm, and I was struck by the difficulty judges face when these cases are presented to them. I was also struck by the connection between criminal activity and mental health and addiction. We know this to be true. We have seen the kinds of complexity which is put before courts and calls for the kind of judicial freedom to be able to assess meaningfully and find other opportunities to deal with a serious situation.

This bill would not do away with all mandatory minimum sentences. I said that in my remarks. There are occasions when that is the case, but we need to make sure that judges maintain that flexibility.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, over 25,000 lives have been lost due to a poisoned drug supply since the Liberal government came into power. Liberals have heard from health professionals, police chiefs, addiction specialists and experts. Even their own expert panel from Health Canada on substance use is giving them clear direction and guidance to decriminalize the use of drugs and provide a safe supply as the first steps, yet they have not responded. Vancouver and B.C. are waiting on their exemption.

I truly believe, and maybe my colleague can indicate if he also agrees, that politics is getting in the way of politicians by not taking bold and courageous action. If the Liberals truly believe this is a health issue, will they treat this as a health issue and listen to the—

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

We have time for a very short answer from the hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, we are treating this as a health issue. Yes, this government remains open to the concept of decriminalization based on evidence and comparative experience, and I would encourage the member to bring that evidence forward to committee when this bill is being studied.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sitting in my usual place, because Standing Order 17 does not apply. Government Motion No. 1 made sure of that, so I am taking advantage of that motion.

This is the first time I am rising in the House to give a speech of some length, although I have risen several times in Routine Proceedings and on some other things, but I want to thank my constituents, the residents of Calgary Shepard, for honouring me with this third term in the House of Commons. I am still in awe of this place. This is the cathedral of our democracy, as was said by one of my mentors who was a former member of Parliament.

I have listened to the debate we have had so far from different members on both sides of the House. Sometimes they are describing the content of the bill and other times they are speaking to its aspirations. I think the government side is getting carried away with the aspirations of this bill, and the hopes and dreams it has put into these words and this piece of legislation.

We Conservatives often get called the “party of law and order”. It is said that we are tough on crime, and that we do not see both sides: of the offender and of the victim or victims involved. Often times what I have heard from the government side is an exclusive focus on the offender or accused. The provisions of this bill only apply to offenders once they have reached the part of the proceedings in court where they are found guilty of a crime and sentencing is involved. Where does it talk about the victims? That is what I do not see here. That is what many of my constituents would say, some of whom are victims of crime. I know some of these victims of crimes. Members of our caucus have family members who have been victims of crimes.

I will add that if members look at my voting record in my third Parliament now, I was one of the members who did not vote for the life means life private member's bill. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan also voted against it. I also voted for, and can name him now because he is no longer a member, Larry Bagnell's bill. He was a great chair of the PROC committee and had to live through my 13-hour filibuster at committee. I promise not to do that here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Never again, right?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Never again? Never say never again here, from the other side.

Madam Speaker, that was on Bill C-235, which Mr. Bagnell tabled in the House. We had a second reading vote on his private member's bill. Fifteen Conservatives voted with him. I was one of them, because I thought an assessment order for those with fetal alcohol syndrome should get them some type of special treatment in the courts and judges should be directed to look at that during sentencing. It was an assessment in that case that I thought was perfectly reasonable.

If we look at my voting record on other bills, members will realize that I am willing to look at bills as they come forward and judge them on the merits of their content, not the aspirations placed behind them. Judges do not look at the aspirational language we use in this place to describe bills.

I have heard members say this bill would help indigenous or Black Canadians get the type of treatment they deserve in the court system so they are not overly given harsh criminal sentences, but the words “race”, "racism" and "systemic racism" are not in this bill. Another member mentioned, aspirationally, that the bill would help to stop minorities from being overly sentenced harshly by the judicial system, but I do not see those words. The Liberals could have introduced an assessment order and a requirement for judges to consider that.

On that point, Liberal members have asked several times if we do not trust judges. Of course we trust judges. The government appoints them to sit on the bench and render decisions on behalf of Canadians. They are supposed to look at both sides, those of the offender and the victim, and determine what outcome would be fair and just for society while including an opportunity for rehabilitation and a punishment that would fit the crime, to ensure that victims also feel that justice has been served in their case.

The Liberals talk about judicial discretion. How do they feel about the discretion of the Attorney General of Canada or those of the provinces? I wonder how Jody Wilson-Raybould would feel right now when we are talking about the discretion of judges. It was the current government, on the opposite side, that got itself involved in a criminal proceeding for favouring a particular party, so how does it feel about attorney generals using their discretion in the pursuit of justice?

I think it is hypocritical of government members to be talking about judicial discretion and the ability of judges to determine a proper sentence. We do not talk about attorneys general who give direction to prosecutors. In this caucus, we have several prosecutors on our side who have actually gone through this and used these sections of the Criminal Code to sentence people.

Many of our comments probably echo the member for St. Albert—Edmonton's terrific verbal dissertation on the merits of the bill's contents. However, I thought it remarkable that one of the offences that is being rolled back in the bill is the production and manufacturing of schedule I drugs, including hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth.

I live in a suburban community that is made up entirely of single-family detached homes, mostly next to a hospital. Just a few years ago, a fentanyl lab was found in my own community in one of the homes closest to Deerfoot Trail. I think two million or three million pills were found, including pill presses. This has been a common story in Calgary. These pill press mills are being found in residential neighbourhoods. In the past six years, this sleepy, suburban community also had two murders committed in it. One of these, if I remember correctly, was connected to the drug trade. Again, this is happening in all of our communities across Canada. We see the daily numbers of opioid deaths, and I entirely agree that it is a crisis.

However, again, the way in which the bill is being framed does not match the contents of the bill. What I see in the bill is a kind of softening of the minimum we can set for people who commit crimes such as robbery with a firearm or kidnapping, which are things that most of my constituents think is absolutely wrong.

Before I get accused of not caring about those who wind up in the prison system, in my riding we have the historic Ogden Hotel, which has been there for almost a century. A CP is located right next to it, and it is one of Calgary's original hotels. This is where Pastor Delaney runs the Victory Foundation for the church: It helps men who are getting out of the prison system to get back on their feet, find jobs and get some training and education.

I have had coffee there with people out of the prison system who are trying to get their lives back on track. I have a beautiful painting in my house from a gentleman who was homeless. He wound up in the judicial system and was charged, but I call him an expert painter from Calgary. He made a beautiful painting of an elk being attacked by a cougar, and he was helped by the Victory Foundation. I have met and interacted with these men and tried to better understand what they go through. Many of them will tell us that they wronged someone and that they have to right the wrong at some point.

There are two sides to the debate we are having here. Where is the voice of the victims who want to see fairness in the judicial system? If we are going to talk about judicial discretion, we have to talk about attorneys general being able to direct prosecutors to actually pursue these cases as well. Also, we set the box within which judges are supposed to rule, and the box shows what the minimum is, what the maximum is and what is reasonable in between.

A member on our side mentioned that it is an expectation of Canadians that a crime committed in eastern Canada, for example in Montreal on the south shore in beautiful Brossard, in the B section where I lived for part of my life, would be treated the same way if it was committed in downtown Calgary. The same crime would be looked at by judges in the same way and would be given a similar type of sentence. We say that every case is different and every case has particular circumstances to it, but that is what we are asked to do here. I am not a lawyer by profession, so I am unburdened by a legal education and can just give a layman's interpretation of what the judicial system should look like. I consider that a bonus, but maybe some lawyers do not.

Before I forget, I have a Yiddish proverb for members to consider: “When you sweep the house, you find everything.” As I have gone through the bill, I have mentioned the fundamental aspects of the judicial system here. As I am sweeping across the bill, I look for those terms that have been mentioned by members aspirationally hoping that it would achieve the goals of not having offenders judged solely by immutable characteristics such as race, but only on the merits of their particular cases. That is a concept that I agree with, but it is not in the bill. There is no assessment order. The government could have taken an idea from our former colleague Larry Bagnell and applied it to the particular thing that they truly care about.

I cannot see how I can support this type of bill. This is the same thing as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, and government members knew we would not support this type of legislation. They had an opportunity to fix it, but they chose not to take it. Between tabling Bill C-22 and the return of this Parliament, they lost the opportunity to find some type of consensus in the House on producing a bill to help Canadians and to help victims of serious crimes.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to hear Yiddish proverbs in this place as a Jewish person. There are not very many of us in the House. It is a language that is close to being lost, so it is always nice to hear some of it.

First, I will make a clarification. In fact, sentences are not being removed. Mandatory sentences are being removed in this bill. Going forward, it proposes to actually confront the opioid crisis from a health perspective. I know that in my community, we have lost many people to the opioid crisis.

Does the member not support safe supply and treating the opioid crisis from a health perspective?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member enjoys my Yiddish proverbs. It is a disappearing language, which is why I refer to them. I will save the member me trying to pronounce it in Yiddish. My Yiddish pronunciation is not very good.

The member mentioned that part of the bill deals with the very serious crisis of people who are addicted to opioids. It is a health crisis, not a criminal crisis. I know people in my community and I have friends who are impacted by it. They became addicted to things like OxyContin and other opioid narcotics. It has a huge impact.

However, this bill also contains things like eliminating the mandatory minimum for offences such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting or knowing of it when it is unauthorized, and discharging a firearm with intent. Why mix the two in one bill?

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

Madam Speaker, does my Conservative colleague realize that Bill C‑5 does not do away with sentences, but simply eliminates the obligation to impose a specific sentence for a specific crime? Does he realize that in committee, we could determine which mandatory sentences should remain in effect?

There are things that we and the Conservatives agree on, including the treatment of violent crimes involving firearms and repeat offenders. However, does my colleague not realize that there are people who are qualified to judge the seriousness of a crime and the level of punishment warranted? A court's duty is more to protect society than to punish perpetrators.

Does my colleague recognize that the sentences can be just as harsh, even if they are not—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course I realize that Bill C‑5 will not eliminate all sentences, only mandatory minimum sentences.

However, for serious sentences, it is up to us, the members of Parliament, to determine what the judge should consider for each offence. That is our decision. We can set the minimum and maximum sentences, but the judge will decide how they will be applied based on the specific circumstances of each case.

I would also like to say that I totally agree with the Bloc Québécois concerning offences involving firearms and minimum sentences. The hon. member is absolutely right, and I am certain that we can take that into account in committee.

However, I would like to see a bill that is properly written from the outset, that the committee will not need to revise.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated working with the member for Calgary Shepard in the past.

Perhaps he could answer a question for me. At the same time as the former Harper government put in place legislation a few years back, it gutted the network of crime prevention centres across the country. Members will recall that $100 million in funding for crime prevention was slashed by the Harper government.

As we know, $1 invested in crime prevention saves $6 in policing costs, court costs and prison costs. It did not make sense that the Harper government eliminated crime prevention across the country, including centres such as the B.C. Centre for Crime Prevention.

Could the member explain why the Harper government gutted one of the most effective tools in combatting crime?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think we have hit the twilight zone in this chamber. The Harper government has not been in power in six years. It has been the government of the member for Papineau for the last six, so we should ask questions about that. This bill has nothing to do with financial decisions or spending decisions, so I cannot answer the member's question.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about an excellent piece of legislation in a previous Parliament that sought to take into consideration the circumstances of people with fetal alcohol syndrome. I note that some of the members from the government who have spoken, the justice minister and the member for Ottawa South, opposed that bill.

Could the member share more about why he supported this excellent private member's bill and why we need to see something like it passed into law?

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

We have time for a five-second answer from the member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, five seconds is not enough. I will have to find another Yiddish proverb.

The member is correct. It was Bill C-235, proposed by Mr. Bagnell from the Yukon. He will forgive me for saying “from the Yukon”. I understand we are not supposed to say that, as it is the Yukon territory. It was an excellent piece of legislation because it carved out special treatment for offenders who have fetal alcohol syndrome. They should be treated differently in the judicial system.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-5.

It proposes important reforms to reduce the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

I am going to spend my time primarily talking about conditional sentence orders. I would like to bring to this conversation today my experience as the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Attorney General of Ontario. As we all know, responsibilities in the administration of justice lie at the provincial level. In my comments, I will share some of the frustrations I felt, when I was in my provincial roles, with some of the changes that were made during the Harper government that are trying to be undone by Bill C-5.

As we all know, a fair and effective criminal justice system is critical to ensuring that Canadians feel safe in their communities, have confidence in their justice system and trust that offenders are being held accountable in a manner that is equitable and transparent and that promotes public safety in Canada. The unfortunate reality is that far too many people face discrimination and systemic racism at all stages of our criminal justice system. This problem has been exacerbated by tough-on-crime sentencing policies, including the indiscriminate and broad use of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment, generally known as MMPs, and added restrictions placed on the availability of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. These restrictions were meant to keep Canadians safe, so to speak, but this missed the point because conditional sentences are never permitted in cases where public safety is put at risk.

These restrictions have prevented judges from imposing non-custodial, community-based sentences, even in cases where these sentences would otherwise be appropriate under the circumstances. This one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing denies the reality that offences can be committed in a broad range of circumstances with varying degrees of seriousness. Someone who steals to feed their family is less blameworthy than someone who steals goods to sell on the black market. One-size-fits-all sentencing has too often used the latter example as the baseline for sentencing laws and this has created problems in our justice system. MMPs also run counter to the fundamental principle of sentencing, namely that sentences must be individually tailored to the particular circumstances of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender before the court.

Bill C-5 is an important step forward to provide alternatives to incarceration where appropriate, including for indigenous people and Black Canadians. One important component of the proposed reforms is a series of amendments to the conditional sentencing regime that would allow the regime to fulfill its original purpose, namely to address the overreliance on incarceration for less serious crimes.

To better explain the importance of Bill C-5's amendments in this area, let me take a moment to speak about their original legislative purpose. CSOs were enacted in 1996, and I believe Allan Rock was the Minister of Justice in the House at that time. They were enacted as part of a comprehensive set of reforms that recognized the need to address Canada's inflated incarceration rate, particularly as it related to indigenous people.

A CSO allows an offender who does not pose a threat to public safety to serve a prison term of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, including house arrest and curfew. The law governing CSOs provides judges with the ability to impose a broad range of conditions that balance public safety against other important objectives, including rehabilitation. For example, a judge can require an offender to attend an approved treatment program, which can help address the underlying reasons that led to offending in the first place. This makes good sense to me. As Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Attorney General of Ontario, I addressed this, because if an inmate or offender is sentenced two years less a day, that person goes to a provincial prison.

In my previous roles, I visited enough jails in Ontario to know they are not the best places to be. For someone who is facing an addiction or mental health issue, jail is not a place where they will get the right care, as opposed to being in a community. Evidence shows that allowing offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, while maintaining access to employment and community and health-related support systems, is far more effective at reducing future criminality than harsh penalties such as incarceration.

Indeed, evidence gathered after the original enactment of CSOs supports this finding. Within the first few years of the implementation of CSOs, recidivism rates declined and the incarceration rate decreased by 13%. Criminal Code amendments enacted by the Conservative governments in 2007, with former Bill C-9, and in 2012, with former Bill C-10, have since severely restricted the availability of CSOs. These amendments made CSOs unavailable for all offences prosecuted by way of indictment that are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life, as well as those punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years if the offences resulted in bodily harm or involved drugs or the use of a weapon. The reforms also introduced a list of ineligible offences to the CSO regime, including for non-violent property crime.

Because of these restrictions, the use of CSOs was significantly diminished. Statistics Canada data shows that the number of cases resulting in a CSO decreased from 11,545 cases in 2004 to 7,022 cases in 2018. Studies have further shown that these restrictions have had a disproportionately negative impact on indigenous people. These restrictions have also resulted in an increased number of charter challenges and calls for reform.

Bill C-5 would return the CSO regime to what existed prior to the 2007 amendments while ensuring that CSOs are unavailable for offences of advocating genocide, torture and attempted murder, as well as terrorism and criminal-organization offences that are prosecuted by way of indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more. They would also continue to be unavailable for any offence carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. CSOs would thus become accessible for all other offences where the sentencing judge determines that a custodial sentence of under two years is appropriate, provided that the court is also satisfied that imposing a CSO would not endanger public safety and would be in keeping with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

This approach would allow sentencing judges to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment for all offenders, consistent with the sentencing principle of restraint, which requires sentencing courts to take into consideration all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders. These amendments strike the right balance between ensuring the availability of alternatives to incarceration where appropriate and recognizing the importance of public safety where serious offending is at issue.

This legislation is a key milestone in our government's ongoing efforts to transform the criminal justice system. I applaud our government for proposing reforms that would realign CSOs with Parliament's original intent, an approach that evidence shows would directly contribute to reducing the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in our criminal justice system, and would afford more opportunity for rehabilitation and better reintegration in appropriate cases.

These are the kinds of things that, when I was the Attorney General of Ontario, we were asking the federal government to undertake. I am thrilled to see that this is taking place through Bill C-5. I am also quite thrilled that in my new role as a member of Parliament, I am able to speak to this bill and will be supporting it. I encourage other members to vote in favour of it as well.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is evident that many members of the government are trying to set up a sort of straw person to argue against in the context of this bill.

The member talked about issues of racism in the justice system. Lowering sentences overall across the board would not address the particular impacts on people from certain communities who get longer sentences. We all agree that judicial discretion is important, but mandatory minimums do not set a one-size-fits-all penalty. They set a minimum that expresses society's moral condemnation and say that at least the minimum for certain kinds of offences should be at a certain level.

I do not think anyone in the House is proposing that people who have addictions problems or who have engaged in personal possession offences should be spending time in prison. I think we can all agree that people in those situations should not be sent to prison. However, let us talk about the core controversy of this bill, which is removing mandatory minimum penalties for violent crime.

Does the member think that mandatory minimum penalties are appropriate for serious violent crimes, yes or no?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has read the bill and knows that serious violent crimes are not included in our removal of mandatory minimum sentences. What is interesting here is that the Conservatives, in their opposition, are the ones who continue to create this straw man argument that somehow, by taking away mandatory minimums, we would be weakening the criminal justice system. No two offences are alike and no two offenders are alike, and the best person to determine what sentence should be allowed for a particular offence is a judge, who has the benefit of all the evidence and all the facts before them, and not parliamentarians of this House.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I would like to congratulate the member on his election.

There have been two great reports: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report and the MMIWG report. Both of them make a call to address mandatory minimums.

Why is the government only taking a half step toward reducing the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and other racialized Canadians in the criminal justice system?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a very valid point the member opposite is making. As I said in my remarks, this is a first and important step forward, but there is far more work that needs to be done. I agree with the member, and I support her and look forward to working with her.

When it comes to the entire implementation of the calls to action in the report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls for justice in the report on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, more work needs to be done. However, I think the bill would set a new baseline for us to work with. By repealing some of the most regressive changes that were made by the previous government, we can move forward and fully implement the recommendations outlined in the reports she mentioned.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the comments by the member across the way, and he said that he has visited jails and they are not very nice places. Well, people are in jail for a reason, and that is why we trust judges' opinions, because they were sent to jail.

I will follow up on the comments by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Does the member not think there should be jail sentences for some of the crimes for which he is now trying to take away the mandatory minimum sentences, such as human trafficking, crimes committed with a firearm and firing a firearm with the intent to harm someone? Are those not some of the crimes that people should be uncomfortably put in jail for?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not advocating at all that everybody be released into the community. I think we have to look at the circumstances of individuals.

I encourage and invite members to go visit jails in their local communities. The reason our jails are not fulfilling the purpose they are supposed to is that we have filled them up beyond capacity. We have put people in them who may have mental health and addiction issues. These are health conditions. Let us get them out into a community setting, where they can get appropriate services, not just put them in jail. Yes, serious offenders should be in jail—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the first time that I have been able to rise in debate in the House of Commons in the 44th Parliament and I would like to begin by thanking a few people.

Throughout my career I have been a public servant and I am honoured to once again be serving the good people of Kootenay—Columbia. The past 20 months have been a difficult time. Many have answered the call to assist fellow Canadians, and have done so quietly and without acknowledgement. Today, I want to acknowledge one of those groups. My sincere gratitude to the constituency and Hill staff employees who have worked tirelessly under difficult circumstances to diligently support every member of this House and the constituents we serve.

There is no elected path to this House, this chamber, that does not involve the tremendous support of family. Today I would like to take a moment to thank my wife, Heather, for her commitment to our family and democracy, and for her unwavering support for the work I do here on behalf of Kootenay—Columbians and, indeed, all Canadians. Pursuit of the greater good always comes with sacrifice. I am so proud to be the beneficiary of her love and support.

Today we will be talking about mandatory minimum sentences as part of the Bill C-5 discussion. I would like to begin by setting the record straight. Colleagues across the aisle have once again taken serious legislation and are using it as a tool for political division. They have created a nice narrative for themselves, suggesting they are hard at work undoing the Conservative mandatory minimum penalties, when in fact the majority of mandatory minimum penalties that Bill C-5 stands to eliminate are applicable to firearms offences that were actually introduced by previous Liberal governments.

For those listening at home, Bill C-5, presented by the government, includes the removal of mandatory minimum penalties for criminals who commit firearm offences, including but not limited to using a firearm in commission of offences, weapons trafficking and robbery with a firearm. The government would rather send criminals who commit these offences home.

Bill C-5 hits close to home both personally and, of course, professionally, as I served on the front lines of the war on drugs and have dealt with violent offenders throughout my career. What I know to be the absolute truth is that it is difficult to come up with solutions to big problems like the ones we are addressing today without hearing from the victims. I have been in the room with parents who have lost a child to an overdose and I have investigated and arrested the most violent criminals. I have first-hand experience with the front lines of these issues and see a clear and widening gap between where this bill currently sits and where we need to get to in order to make changes.

While we come to this House from different perspectives, I do believe that everyone in this chamber has a desire to do right by Canadians. Let me be clear to my colleagues across the aisle. If they want change, this bill will not get them there. In fact, based on my first-hand experience, Bill C-5 will move us further away from where we need to be in our collective pursuit of safer communities.

Canadians need to know and I want to be crystal clear on what the Conservative position is. Convicted violent predators, those individuals who prey on the innocence of our daughters and sons, deserve to go to prison, not to the comforts of their own home, yet the government seems politically determined, at the cost of safe communities, to send these criminals on a backyard vacation.

Through Bill C-5, the government also seeks to eliminate six mandatory minimums in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that target drug dealers. They include trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing, exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting; and the production of heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. The government's own messaging leads Canadians to believe they are simply helping those who struggle with addictions. The minister fails to point out that the mandatory minimums being eliminated are in place for those who target criminals who prey on those with addictions. There are far too many Canadians struggling with addiction. Instead of being focused on removing and reducing consequences for criminals, Bill C-5 should instead be focused on offering the help that is so desperately needed for those who suffer from addiction.

My Conservative colleagues and I believe strongly that those struggling with addictions should be the priority and receive the help that is needed. We have an opioid epidemic across this country and in British Columbia the situation is pronounced. Far too many parents and loved ones are receiving that dreaded phone call, where they are left to process the brutal reality that their child has suffered an overdose.

I would like to take a moment to address the issue of drug use and recovery. The road to recovery, of which I have both professional and personal experience, is very difficult and a long-term commitment. Successful crime prevention starts with our youth and must continue throughout their lives. Education programs can be successful if delivered at the appropriate time. However, with addiction to opioids, for example, the effort and success takes years. We do know the present system is not successful and that it does require change, but we need an approach that is a positive solution for rehabilitation, one that is configured to help those who are addicted, instead of helping those who are profiting from the addiction.

Given the decline in mental health and its connectivity to the issue we are talking about today, I would like to take this opportunity to join my colleagues in calling on the government to commit to an implementation date of funding the national three-digit helpline in this House, unanimously passed in the 43rd Parliament. The government owes it to Canadians to activate that line and create meaningful legislation that will actually serve to make our communities safe. We asked yesterday for a date for 988 to be activated and there was no response.

Contrary to what the minister claims, this is not about reducing mandatory minimum penalties for simple possession. Mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession do not exist. Bill C-5 would do nothing to address that. Instead, it would eliminate mandatory prison time for drug traffickers who commit acts of violence. It would allow criminals who have committed violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest rather than in prison and puts our communities at risk. I would really like to know who the government consulted. Did they talk to the victims?

Organized crime and gangs prey on our youth. A friend of mine had a 12-year-old daughter who was approached in an elementary school playground by a gang member and was tricked into using crystal meth. By the time the girl was 13, she had stolen most of her family's valuables to support her addiction. The organized crime gang forced her into prostitution. To consider reducing minimum sentences for these gang members is not a solution.

The minister says the purpose of the bill is to tackle overrepresentation of indigenous people and Black Canadians in our prisons. According to a recent article in The Globe and Mail, the bill would not meet that objective. The article states that for “a bill that is ostensibly about racial justice, every single provision in this bill is entirely race neutral.” For nearly a year, the government has asserted that the selected mandatory minimum penalties disproportionately affect Black and indigenous people, but has offered no evidence to suggest they will meaningfully redress overrepresentation.

Bill C-5 leaves in place the harshest mandatory minimum penalties and their brutal effects for indigenous women, in particular. According to the 2019 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, a report released by then Minister of Public Safety, almost half of the women sentenced to mandatory life sentences are indigenous and most acted in the self-defence context of lifetimes of abuse and trauma. Clearly these women are victims and not the greatest risk to public safety in Canada, yet Bill C-5 would continue to serve Canada's harshest penalties. All Canadians deserve a more fair and just criminal legal system. Nanaimo, B.C. has a very successful restorative justice program. This is where we need to focus our path forward.

We are left to wonder who the government consulted on this legislation and whether those voices are present in this bill's current form. I am also left to wonder about its understanding of enforcement, as the bill adds to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act a set of principles that peace officers and prosecutors should use for determining whether to lay charges for possession. Surely the minister knew that police officers already had the flexibility to do this.

Conservatives have serious concerns with the government's proposal to allow criminals to serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including sexual assault, human trafficking and kidnapping. This bill would put communities and victims at risk.

In closing, I ask all colleagues in this House consider the real-life outcome that they will be enacting by choosing to make life easier for violent offenders and drug traffickers. It seems apparent that we should instead be holding these criminals accountable for their actions and focus instead on creating meaningful legislation that will help victims and those with addictions to make our communities safer.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election.

I want to pick up on a couple of his comments, especially with respect to evidence of the disproportional impact of MMPs on racialized communities, particularly indigenous and Black communities. There is overwhelming social science research and a number of court cases that have indicated that this does have a disproportional impact. Also, when I was part of developing the national anti-racism strategy in 2019, we heard from so many different communities across Canada on this.

I am wondering where the member is picking up the evidence that there is no impact in removing MMPs on these particular offences that he cited from The Globe and Mail. The overwhelming evidence is that there is a disproportional impact because of MMPs to racialized communities.

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

Madam Speaker, that is not exactly what I said. Just to clarify, it was a comment in The Globe and Mail. I am an evidence-based individual and believe in following the evidence as to how we move forward. I would ask the member to show me the evidence on how this bill would help people who are marginalized right now.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, a very long time ago, a man named Thomas More wrote a book called Utopia. In the book, he basically says that a society's customs and habits can end up supporting crime.

Here is my question today. In some cases, is our society not supporting crime by failing to invest in social systems, by failing to provide support and supervision for young criminals, who could turn away from crime if they received the necessary support instead of being locked up for long periods of time with far more hardened criminals?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely we do need to help our youth. The opioid crisis is a great example. If we were to have a program that could help them and get them on the right track, a rehabilitation program that would get them through this so that they were being helped rather than continuing in the criminal justice system that would be a huge bonus.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about the opioid and overdose crisis. Chief James Ramer from the Toronto Police Department wrote in a letter to Dr. de Villa, Toronto's medical health officer, that the force supports a new approach to decriminalization. He said:

We agree that the current approach to managing drug use does not support safe communities or advance the health of people who use drugs.

He cited that:

Decriminalization of the simple possession of all drugs - combined with the scale-up of prevention, harm reduction, and treatment services - is a more effective way to address the public health and public safety harms associated with substance use.

He said that a decriminalization model should include a safe supply of drugs, something health care workers have demanded for years.

Does my colleague support the Association of Chiefs of Police, medical health officers across this country and experts in their call to action to end the poison drug supply crisis and save lives?

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

Madam Speaker, having been a former member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I am very familiar with where they are going and I agree that right now we are in decriminalization of most drugs because the courts cannot handle that. That is at the discretion of the members and that is where they are working right now.

I believe that we need to do a lot of work to support people with addictions and that criminal prosecution is not the answer in many cases, especially for those who are addicted to opioids, for example.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this being my first time rising to give a speech of this length, I wanted to pause to give some thanks. First of all, I thank my neighbours across Kitchener Centre for placing their trust in me to be our community's voice in this place, as well as the hundreds of people who joined to knock on doors and make phone calls. In particular, there was a core group: Jackie, Devon, Ros, Joanna, Janet, Zoe, Scott, Wayne, Noah, Greg, Brenden and Jenna. As well, I give a special thanks to Mats for all the work over the last three years leading up this point, and of course to Asha, who managed both campaigns. I would not be here without them.

I give a final thanks to my mom, my dad, my brothers Brad and Rob, and my sister Emily. They have been there alongside me every step of the way, including knocking on doors and making calls, all of which has led me to having the privilege to speak in moments like these, in this place, on our community's priorities.

This brings me to Bill C-5. I would like to start with what I appreciate about this proposed legislation, which is the stated goal of addressing systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system. By targeting mandatory minimum penalties, I appreciate that the government is seeking to address the fact that in 2020, despite representing 5% of the Canadian adult population, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates; that the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted with an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty has almost doubled between 2007-08 and 2016-17, from 14% to 26%; and, finally, that in 2018-19, Black inmates represented 7% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the Canadian population.

By removing the mandatory minimum penalties included in this bill, I appreciate the government’s intent to address these injustices. That being said, we need to be honest with ourselves. Mandatory minimum penalties do not deter crime, and all mandatory minimum penalties contribute to systemic racism. However, Bill C-5, as currently proposed, targets less than one in five of all mandatory minimum penalties in full. That is just 13 out of 73, less than one-third in full or in part, or 20 out of 73, and only 10 of the 28 that courts have already found unconstitutional.

In this way, it seems reasonable to assess this bill as one of half measures. I have been in this place for only just over three weeks, and I often hear the word “reconciliation” used. On this topic, I would like to read call to action 32 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which states the following:

We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.

I note, particularly for the members in this place who purport to support every single one of the calls to action, including, I assume, call to action 32, that this does not say one in five.

I would also like to read call to justice 5.14 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which states the following:

We call upon federal, provincial and territorial governments to thoroughly evaluate the impact of mandatory minimum sentences as it relates to the sentencing and over-incarceration of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people and to take appropriate action to address their over-incarceration.

I have heard the members who are concerned about crime, including the most recent speaker in this House. To be clear: Removing mandatory minimum penalties is really about placing our trust where it should be, which is in the judiciary.

In place of mandatory minimum penalties, sentencing judges would still be required to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence, taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors. This includes the risk to public safety. It also includes the individual and all relevant circumstances of the case in front of them, including acknowledging and redressing the realities of colonialism and systemic racism in the lives of indigenous people, Black Canadians and other racialized groups.

A final point I would like to make is that this bill misses a significant opportunity, which is that even with mandatory minimum penalties removed, people across the country would still be going to jail for simple possession of illicit drugs and would continue to die from addiction and from a dangerous supply. We would continue to be applying an outdated understanding of drug use from the 1980s instead of applying the very clear public health advice from experts, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which we have in front of us. That advice is to decriminalize illicit drugs, to offer a regulated safe supply, and to treat this like the mental health and addictions crisis that we know it to be.

So far this year, in my community alone, we have lost 120 community members to a poisoned drug supply. Since January 2016, across the country, over 25,000 lives have been lost, each one a preventable death. For this reason, I support the calls made by others in this House, encouraging the minister to move this bill to committee before second reading so its scope can be expanded to include decriminalization.

In closing, I would like to offer two considerations to the government. The first is to consider expanding the list of mandatory minimum penalties to be repealed by this bill to address the government's stated intent of addressing systemic racism. The second is to consider offering clear evidence that the small fraction of mandatory minimum penalties currently included to be repealed by Bill C-5 would in fact reduce the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in federal prisons.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome our new colleague from Kitchener Centre to the House. I congratulate him on his election.

With respect to the bill itself and to conditional sentencing orders, what does he think the overall impact of that will be on ensuring that we have off-ramps for those who are just getting involved in the criminal justice system? Could he comment on its potential impact on the overall incarceration of racialized people?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his re-election.

We heard a significant amount from a previous member on CSOs. I would rather focus the commentary, whether it is now or in committee, on expanding the number of mandatory minimum penalties that should be repealed. Doing so would be the effective way. We have seen in the research that it is by repealing the mandatory minimum penalties that we have the best chance of reducing the overrepresentation of Black, indigenous and racialized inmates in incarceration.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the offences of possession of a controlled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, where in section 4 of that act does it speak to any mandatory minimum penalties? You spoke about automatic jail sentences. I would like clarification—

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

I remind members that they are to speak through me, please. I did not say anything. The member may complete his question, but just speak through me and not directly to the member.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member to inform me where in section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act it speaks to mandatory minimum penalties.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, the point I was making is that for all mandatory minimum penalties, when they are repealed, sentencing judges would still be required to impose a sentence proportionate to the degree of responsibility, and I trust in the judiciary to follow through appropriately.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, what people know of St. Anne's Residential School is that it was where children were tortured in an electric chair. What they know is that the justice department suppressed thousands of pages of police evidence.

We just had a new report by a justice, a total whitewash, in which it says that the adjudicators who rejected claims of survivors who were tortured in the electric chair were right because, at the time, torturing indigenous children in an electric chair was considered a form of entertainment by the priests.

If we have that view in 2021, that justice is the right of the government to suppress evidence when it comes to indigenous rights, and that it is okay, how can we expect that anyone in this system who is indigenous will ever get justice in Canada?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is why I am so glad to have members like the hon. member for Nunavut in this place, so that the voices of indigenous peoples are increasingly being heard directly in this place. I included citations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the national inquiry, because this place is better served when the voices of indigenous people are heard directly and their calls are answered appropriately, as they should be.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it truly is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill today. It is unfortunate that we are already seeing the government's soft-on-crime approach come up at the first available opportunity.

Bill C-5 is the unfortunate perfect example of this approach. This bill would do nothing to make our communities safer for Canadians. Instead, it would reduce punishments and accountability for drug dealers and for those who commit violent gun crimes. This bill would see the individuals responsible for harming our communities serve their time in our communities alongside victims, rather than in prisons where they truly belong.

Bill C-5 would be responsible for eliminating a large number of mandatory minimum sentences for some of our most serious crimes, like robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent and extortion using a firearm. These are just a few of the crimes that would no longer be served with mandatory minimum sentences. If this bill is passed, it clearly would not achieve the result of making Canadian communities safer.

The crimes this bill would affect are incredibly serious offences. Canadians would be alarmed to learn that the mandatory minimum jail time for the possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking would all be reduced by this bill.

The government must assume Canadians lack common sense if it thinks this bill would stop gun crimes by reducing the mandatory minimum prison sentences for criminals. The Liberals propose that this bill would help those struggling with addiction to find the treatment they so desperately need. Canadians who are struggling with addiction should be able to access treatment. Instead, this bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for the criminals who traffic and import or export these deadly substances under schedule 1 or 2.

To be clear, the Liberals are proposing to let drug traffickers and manufacturers off the hook, while at the same time claiming this would help people suffering from addiction. This pandemic has shown us just how serious the opioid crisis is in parts of our country. Now is the time we should be cracking down on those who are poisoning our communities. The Liberal solution is to take away the mandatory prison sentences those fuelling this crisis should face.

We have heard a representative of the government state that it would be getting rid of the minimum penalties put in place by those nasty Conservatives. Many of those laws were put in place during the mid-90s, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was prime minister, by the Liberal government of the day. The Liberals blaming Conservatives for the laws of a previous Liberal government is a little steep.

The Liberals try to convince Canadians they are helping addicts and communities, but what they are actually attempting to do is reduce the sentences and eliminate accountability for those who traffic and manufacture the drugs that fuel crime, addiction and death in this crisis that we are seeing in communities across our country. Instead of punishing gangs, they are attempting to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners.

We have a very thorough system in place in our country for law-abiding firearms owners. The firearms community, hunters and sport shooters are all in agreement that we need a robust system. Background checks are already in place. They are proven to be very effective. It should be no surprise that we do not understand how this bill would tackle firearms offences by eliminating mandatory prison sentences for the gangs and criminals who do not follow the already robust system.

It should not be a surprise that during the last Parliament, the government had its members vote against a Conservative private member's bill that would have seen punishment for those who traffic weapons strengthened. Now we see the government proposing to weaken the punishments. The disconnect could not be more obvious.

I have seen what these types of offences can do in my own community of Oxford. Canadians are seriously concerned about the rise of violent and drug-related crimes in their communities. It is extremely concerning to see the government taking a soft-on-crime stance and not one that stands up for victims and their communities.

As a former police chief in my community, I have witnessed the struggle that officers have had to continue to go through in keeping our communities safe. Instead of providing officers with the expansion of resources, the Liberal government would like to see fewer protections for our victims and softer punishments for criminals. We are talking about criminals. These are people who have been convicted in our courts, convicted of crimes such as robbery with a firearm, trafficking firearms, and the production of schedule 1 or 2 substances, such as heroin, cocaine or fentanyl. These are the people the government would like to see let out of their sentences earlier.

Further, the government would like to see the expansion of the use of conditional sentences. Kidnapping, sexual assault, human trafficking or the abduction of a minor are all crimes the government would like to see criminals serve on house arrest in the communities where these crimes were committed.

We keep hearing the government say that it wants to help those struggling with drug addiction. We know the justice system and police in our country already have the ability to utilize discretion in dealing with folks who are struggling with addiction, such as for a simple possession. The government needs to get serious about the expansion of support for people who are struggling with addiction and their mental health.

Canadians have elected all of us to the House to take action. Where is the action on the call that was passed in the House for the institution of a national three-digit suicide prevention hotline? This would be an example of concrete action. It is unfortunate that it seems the only reason the government is dragging its feet on this action is because it was one of my Conservative colleagues who proposed it.

We heard the Prime Minister state that one of his reasons for calling a $600 million election in the middle of a pandemic was because of a lack of co-operation with the opposition parties in the House. Where is that co-operation from the Prime Minister's government? It took two full months, after what the Prime Minister called our most important election in Canadian history, to get the House back to sitting. Now that we have reconvened, the government takes one of its first opportunities to introduce a bill that is seriously concerning to Canadians. Drug and gun traffickers and manufacturers belong in prisons, not in our communities.

This bill is what sport fishermen would call a “catch and release”. It really is not going to help our communities.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member touched on the fact that he was a former police chief in his community, and I would like to thank him for his service. I suspect in the lead up to becoming the chief of police, he would have served on the front lines. He has mentioned, of course, some of the diversion elements of the bill that try to treat individuals who have an addiction to drugs and who have simple possession and to pursue other means.

When he was on the front lines and dealing with individuals who had addictions, did he see that through a criminality lens or did he see that as people who had health issues and perhaps have different ways to help solve their challenges?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, police officers see it from a variety of lenses. The biggest single lens they see it through is the individuals before them. It may be someone who has committed a criminal act, but needs help and will not go to prison. It is also trying to help the victims to see that justice is being served by having help provided to the individual. The member is absolutely right. There are a variety of resources in our communities, but we need a lot more of those resources. Letting the traffickers and people who manufacture drugs get a one-way ticket to freedom is not right.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have been concerned today hearing the Conservatives' view about their labelling criminals, and criminals being criminals. I do not think criminals are born criminals. They become criminals because of the system in which they live.

Does the member recognize that criminal records for personal possession of drugs is a significant barrier to employment and housing? Both are necessary for recovery from addictions based on the situations they have been forced to live in many for years, decades and maybe even generations, especially given the communities in which they live. All we have heard today is that most over-incarceration rates are racialized communities. Qujannamiik.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, in actual fact, there are so many reasons crime occurs, but getting a record for simple possession is not one. Police officers have not been laying those charges for an awfully long time. It goes back into the sixties perhaps, but I do not think we will find those charges being laid in the last 30 years.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the province of Ontario, where the hon. member is also from, we had a very unfortunate circumstance a few years ago. An indigenous inmate who was 24 years old was held for four years in solitary confinement in a prison in Thunder Bay, Ontario. My colleague spoke about various mental health conditions, supports and considerations that must be taken into account when we deal with legislation that is put forward.

Could the member comment on that from his perspective as a former police chief? Could he also comment about the irony of the fact that we have a Liberal government introducing this legislation when it was the Liberal government under which this unfortunate circumstance in Thunder Bay took place?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with that situation, but it sounds horrendous. It should never have occurred. That is a mental health issue, but this bill would not help that situation. It is abominable that someone would serve four years in solitary confinement in any institution.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague spent time as a police chief. His time in the House has been extensive and he has a lot of experience to share. Does he see anything in the legislation that would actually prevent, restrict or reduce crime?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely not. One factor missing in all of this are the victims. Nobody is asking who the victims are and where they are getting their help from. One thing we need to do as a society is to help victims, and we are not doing that.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-5.

This bill was introduced during the previous Parliament. It is very important for all Canadians, but especially for Black Canadians and indigenous people. It is also important for the safety of Canadians in general, because Bill C-5 seeks to address two problems with our system.

First, it is important to do away with minimum mandatory penalties in the penitentiary system. Second, the bill provides for more flexibility, more latitude, which is a good thing when it comes to conditional sentencing.

I therefore hope that all members will not only support the bill, but also add measures that are in keeping with the spirit of the bill, so that we can do even more. In my opinion, it is extremely important that my colleagues support this bill.

I want to begin by talking about mandatory minimum penalties.

It makes no sense to keep incarcerating people and eliminating the flexibility that every judge and court needs.

Judges have a responsibility to judge a situation and enhance Canadians' safety. They also propose a sentence that reflect the severity of the crime that was committed.

Removing flexibility and having parliamentarians set an arbitrary duration makes no sense. This does not help keep Canadians safe and, in many cases, it also punishes people because they receive the wrong sentence.

Members of the House of Commons enjoy two remarkable benefits. The first is that we have the right to visit any Canadian Armed Forces unit; the second is that we have the right to visit prisons or penitentiaries.

In 2015, after my election, I did that very thing. I would not say it was a pleasure, but I can say that it completely changed the way I look at Canada's penitentiary system. I had the chance to visit institutions where the incarcerated were serving maximum, minimum or medium sentences.

It was remarkable and it really opened my eyes. I saw the conditions people were living in. I must say, in all sincerity, that I do not think those conditions are conducive to rehabilitating incarcerated people. I soon came to the conclusion that we have to leave prisons for people who truly pose a risk to Canadians.

People may have mental health or addiction issues for any number of reasons: not having been able to keep a job, learning survival of the fittest on the streets of Canadian cities. These people do not need to be incarcerated. They need access to other options, such as addiction treatment. These are people who may never have felt a sense of belonging.

As a father of three and grandfather of two, I know just how crucial that sense of security and belonging is to young people. Some never have that with their family, so they find it with a gang because there are no other options.

I feel it is our duty as parliamentarians to find and fund ways to make sure that these people have other options before throwing them in jail. As I said, prison is the worst possible place to put people if we are hoping to mould them into model citizens. That is not how it works. I would encourage my colleagues to visit a prison during their time in politics. They should see how it works with their own eyes.

I am hearing some people say that because handgun use is skyrocketing in my hometown of Montreal and other Canadian cities, this is not the right time to introduce a bill like this. They are saying that they do not want to lighten the penalties in place, that it is not the right time. I have to ask, though, when will it be the right time?

Let us look at the situation logically. In the current environment, where these minimum sentences exist, we are seeing an increase in the use of handguns. Nothing has changed. For a generation, we have been tightening up and toughening up penalties, but the result has been the skyrocketing use of handguns. Let us then try something different. We cannot keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. That does not make sense.

I think we need to start looking for a new model, a new way to respond to the current situation. We have to trust that judges will use their judgment. We need to invest money to give these young people options other than street gangs. Bill C‑5 is a step in the right direction.

I hope we will be bold enough to do things differently and provide a solution that can finally keep Canadians safe.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I was struck by the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments when he said that sentences are getting stiffer. I would first ask him what empirical evidence he has to back up that proposition.

In my experience as somebody who worked in the correctional system in penitentiaries, and in the community in the federal correctional system, I would agree with him that rehabilitation can be challenging. One of the comments he made was that these types of penalties should be restricted for the most serious of offences and those people, as I understood his comments through translation, who are a danger to the public. Would he agree that people who target other people with shootings are a danger to the public as well?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for being elected to the House of Commons.

From the comfort of our living room at home, wherever we might be in Canada, we believe that incarcerating people and toughening sentences will magically make Canadians safer. However, that is just not true, as the data collected over a generation has shown us.

We need to focus on another approach, specifically helping people, giving them the chance to be part of a community, and working in every way possible with community groups in each region to ensure that people see there are alternatives to violence.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague's comments about providing funding for support and rehabilitation. This could be accomplished in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada through a health transfer for support and social programs.

The government could do both. It could eliminate mandatory minimum penalties, which do nothing to reduce crime, and let judges decide, while also transferring 35% of total health care costs to Quebec and the Canadian provinces, as they are calling for. Why will the government not do that?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. We had the opportunity to work together before this past election and I truly appreciate her wisdom.

We agree on the basic premise of her question. We want to reduce mandatory minimum penalties, so I commend her on that. We also want to increase funding for the community groups that help these people; we do not want to needlessly incarcerate them. We do share the same values.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have struggled today to listen to the debate in the House and hear many members talk with the assumption that this is a level playing field and that people come to be involved in crime from a place of equality. I appreciated that the member took some time today to talk about that not being accurate. There is uniqueness to each story and each individual, and that needs to be accounted for.

I also appreciated that he said today that Bill C-5 is part of the solution. The problem is that it is only a part of it. We know that individuals who are suffering from the opioid crisis need access to a safe supply and that decriminalization is the best way to move forward. This is keeping people in the criminal system.

Would the member not agree that decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use is a better strategy?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the member from Edmonton for her work and support on these files. I certainly have heard her throughout the last Parliament advocating for this.

I will be very, very quick. We do not all start off with an equal playing field. We do need to make sure that we invest in ways that can respond to the individual needs of the people and not a cookie-cutter approach, which we have tried for the last 30 years, and which has clearly failed on any measure. I will not let—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-5, a seriously flawed and dangerous piece of proposed legislation. My commentary and opinion on this are shaped by my experience as a lawyer for almost 30 years, the last 18 years as a Crown attorney for the Province of Ontario.

A week ago today, members in the House stood in solidarity to honour and remember the victims of the Montreal massacre. Fourteen women were murdered, and 10 women and four men were injured. That day was an opportunity for the House, and especially the Prime Minister and his government, to stand strong against all forms of gun violence and to inform Canadians in very clear terms that they would take immediate steps to curb the ever-increasing tide of this criminal behaviour. What is most disturbing is that, less than 24 hours removed from this commemoration, the justice minister introduced Bill C-5, which was a tone-deaf and ill-timed response from this government.

The Prime Minister in the last election promised peace, order and good government. He said that Canada needs leadership that would not back down in the face of rising extremism and that he would take action to put an end to gun violence in our communities. Bill C-5 is the complete opposite of this pledge and proves to be another example of virtue signalling to all Canadians.

Bill C-5 is identical to Bill C-22, which was first introduced in the last Parliament. That bill never made it past the second reading before the unnecessary federal election was called. The bill would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for 14 of the 67 offences in the code, 13 for firearm offences and one for a tobacco offence. Notwithstanding what we have heard over the last week by the justice minister and his government, this dangerous bill is not targeted at less serious gun crime.

As an example, let us take a look at section 244(1) of the code, which reads:

Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person

I would ask any member of the House to somehow convince me that that would constitute a less serious gun offence.

The bill would also eliminate all six mandatory minimums for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These include the very serious offences of trafficking, importing and exporting, and the production of controlled substances. I invite members to think about that for a moment. This soft-on-crime, ideologically driven Liberal government believes that those who traffic and produce fentanyl, the most deadly and lethal form of street drug, which is being sold to millions of addicts, is causing an opioid crisis, and results in daily overdoses and deaths, should not expect to receive a minimum period of incarceration. It is utterly shameful and dangerous.

As a rookie member and political aficionado in Ottawa, I have repeatedly heard a false narrative from the Prime Minister and his government that Prime Minister Harper is to blame for everything that has gone wrong in this country. Perhaps it is about time for this government to engage in some self-reflection.

Contrary to the justice minister's talking points about the government “turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy”, the fact remains that it is keeping the other 53 mandatory minimums in the code intact and keeping most of the ones introduced by the Conservative Party. The justice minister needs to be reminded that it was former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1977 and prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1995 who introduced several mandatory minimums for firearm offences.

These penalties have been rooted in our criminal justice system since the early 1890s. Legislators, over the decades that followed, have relied upon mandatory sentencing tools to mitigate inconsistencies in the exercise of judicial discretion. A key feature of our system of government is that Parliament constantly reviews all legislation and passes new legislation to ensure its laws, including sentencing laws, properly align with the demands of justice. Those demands of justice speak very clearly that there is a tremendous increase in gun violence across this country.

Conservatives believe that serious violent offences committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison time. If government members will not take our word on this subject, then perhaps they will listen and reflect on what eloquent jurists have said about gun violence in our communities.

Firearm use and possession is not a momentary lapse in judgment. Heavy regulation of firearms and ammunition mean that those who possess them had to make a concerted effort to do so. A person does not stumble upon an illegal handgun. There is a process of purchasing from a trafficker and secreting the handgun to avoid detection and prosecution. There is a high degree of deliberation and contemplation. Loaded firearms, especially in public, add a dimension of heightened risk.

Hear the words of Justice D. E. Harris:

A person with a gun in their hands has a god-like power over life and death. Virtually all that is necessary is to point at another person and to apply a few pounds of pressure on the trigger in order to end a human life.... The ease of killing with a gun...is an exigent danger to us all.

He said, “Such immense power with so little reason must be opposed with everything at our disposal.”

Listen to these chilling words from Justice Molloy in the decision of Ferrigon:

A person who loads a handgun with bullets and then carries that handgun, concealed on his person, into a public place is by definition a dangerous person. Handguns are used to shoot people. A person who carries a loaded handgun in public has demonstrated his willingness to shoot another human being with it. Otherwise there would be no need to have loaded it. That person is dangerous. He is dangerous to those with whom he associates; he is dangerous to the police and other law enforcement personnel; he is dangerous to the members of his community; he is dangerous to innocent bystanders, including children, who may be killed or maimed by stray bullets.

According to Public Safety Canada, violent crime involving firearms is a growing threat to public safety in our communities. Gun violence is on the rise: an 81% increase in violent offences involving guns since 2009; one in three homicides in Canada are firearm related; and 47% of Canadians feel gun violence is a threat to their community. Gun violence impacts people and communities across Canada. It happens in urban, suburban and rural communities across every province and territory, in all age and socio-economic groups and, last, among those who own guns and those who do not.

This is a moment in time to strengthen our gun laws to emphasize the principles of denunciation and deterrence. This is not the time to advance a soft-on-crime bill that puts communities and victims at risk.

Mandatory minimum sentences are an important tool for ensuring, not inhibiting, justice in sentencing. Rather than eliminating a judge's ability to assess a proportionate sentence, mandatory minimums set a stable sentencing range for an offence, permitting citizens to understand in advance the severity of the consequences that attend the commission of that offence.

The justice minister stressed that Bill C-5 was not aimed at hardened criminals but at first-time low-risk offenders. He was quoted on December 8, stating:

Think about your own kids. Perhaps they got into trouble at some point with the law. I bet you would want to give them the benefit of the doubt or a second chance if they messed up. Well, it is a lot harder to get a second chance the way things are now...

That is such a disturbing message from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I cannot think of any other example of being tone deaf to the obvious. We are indeed focusing on serious violent offenders and not misguided, mischievous youthful first offenders.

The Liberal government claims the bill is to address racism in Canada's criminal justice system. As noted by the Alberta minister for justice, Kaycee Madu:

While Ottawa’s new justice bill...contains some reasonable measures, I am deeply concerned about the decision to gut tough sentencing provisions for gun crimes....Removing tough, mandatory penalties for actual gun crimes undermines the very minority communities that are so often victimized by brazen gun violence. I also find it disingenuous for Ottawa to exploit a genuine issue like systemic racism to push through their soft-on-crime bills.

As a former Crown attorney, I am very much aware and wholeheartedly accept that there is a disproportionally higher rate of incarcerated indigenous and Black Canadians. We as parliamentarians have the tools necessary to put into place measures to address this problem. We already have principles that mandate jurists to consider the background of indigenous offenders.

The Liberal government last year committed $6.6 million to produce better informed sentencing decisions based on an understanding of the adversities and systemic inequalities that Black Canadians and members of other racialized groups faced.

Furthermore, Parliament has an opportunity to put into place a safety valve known as a constitutional exemption that would allow judges to exempt outliers for whom the mandatory minimum would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

This flawed and dangerous bill would also substantially alter the conditional sentence regime, which would now allow such a sentence to be imposed for sex assaults, criminal harassment, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson and abduction.

What I found most ironic is that yesterday we heard from the justice minister that this legislation would reduce a significant amount of charter challenges and speed up the disposition of criminal cases. What he failed to address was how the changes to the conditional sentence regime would result in a plethora of increased litigation as the proposed amendments were lawfully unavailable.

A condition precedent to the availability of the conditional sentence is that a justice must be satisfied that serving a sentence at home would not endanger the safety of the community. Offenders convicted of sexual assault, criminal harassment, kidnapping and abduction are indeed dangerous.

Furthermore, section 752 defines the above offences as a serious personal injury offence, which the provincial appellate courts have consistently excluded from conditional sentence consideration.

The number one priority for the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. The Liberal government has been derelict in its responsibility. This soft-on-crime, ideologically driven bill needs to be defeated.

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

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments after Oral Questions.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government understands that judges play a very important role in providing additional discretion when looking at the circumstances while sentencing. Why does the Conservative Party not have faith in our judges in Canada?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had actually listened to my speech, he would know that at no point in time did I indicate that we, as the Conservative caucus, have no faith in judicial discretion in levelling appropriate sentences.

As a Crown attorney for the last 18 years, I was in front of judges every single day. My point was that sufficient tools already exist within the Criminal Code for judges to exercise that discretion. They certainly do not need any further assistance from the Liberal government.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened intently to the member's speech. His experience as a Crown prosecutor in Ontario excellently lends itself to the debate.

There are changes in the bill to conditional sentencing. Obviously, if any mother were to see that someone who is charged with kidnapping could be given a conditional sentence, as in house arrest, they would find it egregious and wrong. Are there other offences that the member believes should not be subject to a conditional arrest?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. In my respectful opinion, everything in Bill C-5 concerned with removing those offences, which are currently delineated under section 742, the conditional sentence regime, all relate to serious violent offences.

To the member's point, kidnapping, sexual assault, criminal harassment and abduction are all serious personal injury offences. In my speech, I was trying to indicate that there are absolutely zero references to amending section 742 to highlight that those offences the bill is delineating can still be substantiated by way of a conditional sentence.

A condition precedent to section 742 is that justice must be satisfied that an offender serving that sentence in the community does not pose a risk. Those offenders convicted of a sexual assault, criminal harassment or kidnapping most definitely pose a community risk. Moreover, section 752 of the Criminal Code talks about excluding any offences where there is a serious personal injury offence. Kidnapping certainly qualifies for this, as do sexual assault, criminal harassment and abduction.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of people talk about what is missing in this bill and the shortfalls in this bill, especially when it comes to dealing with the health crisis of the overdose and opioid crisis. We have heard many people calling for decriminalization.

As a judge, does the member agree with the police chiefs association, medical health officers, social workers, those in science and those leading experts in dealing with the overdose crisis that we need to decriminalize personal possession and ensure that everybody has a safe supply.

I would love to hear his perspective as a former judge, given that this is becoming a well-rounded support from right across the country, including the requests from Toronto, British Columbia and Vancouver for an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague personally for the elevation of my past career. I was not a judge of the Ontario provincial court or Superior Court. Rather, I was a Crown attorney.

To address the important issue the member raised, there already exists a regime that vests federal prosecutors, as it does with provincial prosecutors, in exercising their discretion appropriately to deal with individuals struggling with substance abuse, and to be very creative in how they wish to prosecute or what sort of representations they make to a justice to deal with the rehabilitation issue.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge privilege and honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-5.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the people of Courtenay—Alberni for re-electing me for the third time. I am deeply honoured. I also want to extend my thanks not just to my supporters but to my family as well, especially my three children, who have been there supporting me on this incredible journey to fight for our country and for their future.

When it comes to Bill C-5, we are hearing a lot from the Liberals that this is a silver-bullet approach to addressing racial injustice and the overdose crisis by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences and a few other firearms and tobacco offences. This is naive, and it is misplaced.

As New Democrats, we support removing mandatory minimum penalties for all but the most serious offences. This means that we support the removal of mandatory minimums for all drug offences, expanding access to alternative incentives for personal possession and diversion programs. Decriminalization of personal possession remains the preferred option for minor offences, as it would remove police, prosecutors and courts as barriers to addiction treatment.

When it comes to the crisis we are dealing with, we need to ensure that we are taking action quickly. The idea of making conditional sentencing more widely available for court sentences for minor drug cases is just not enough to address the runaway public health emergency, this opioid crisis, that is taking place, which is in parallel to the COVID crisis.

A simpler and less costly approach is the full decriminalization of possession of drugs for personal use and the expungement of previous criminal records for personal possession, combined with access for drug users to get a regular safe supply, treatment and supportive housing. We are talking about a comprehensive strategy to address the overdose emergency and save lives. This needs to happen urgently.

We could be debating a more comprehensive strategy, but instead the government has put very little effort in the bill before us, choosing instead to reintroduce almost exactly the same bill from the 43rd Parliament, which could have been passed. Instead, they held an unnecessary and costly election. The Liberals have failed.

Canadians who use drugs must be free from the threat of criminalization and the fear of losing their liberty and access to substances on which they depend. Criminal records for personal possession must be expunged to remove an often insurmountable barrier to employment and housing. We must assure the right of users to a safe supply of low-barrier, regulated drugs as an alternative to the poisoned substances, which are resulting in an epidemic of overdose deaths. Access to treatment therapies that address the root causes of drug use must be available as a component of public health in our system, and supportive housing, complete with the wraparound services essential for maintaining healthy lifestyle balance, must be made available.

New Democrats are not alone in calling for a comprehensive approach to addressing the overdose crisis and the implementation of these measures. We are in good company.

First and foremost, Canadians across the country support the overall decriminalization of possession for personal use. With every passing month, the calls for decriminalization become louder, as Canadians are confronted with the evidence of the overdose public health emergency in their communities.

Every one of us in the House dreads the call from a constituent who has lost a son, daughter, parent or friend to an overdose from a poisoned drug supply. I have received this call far too often over my six years in the House, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the majority of my constituents know a family affected by the tragedy of overdose.

I hear from them about drug users hiding in the shadows in fear of apprehension and criminal prosecution. In fact, my daughter was just at the funeral a week and a half ago of her friend, an 18-year-old young woman who died from a poisoned drug supply. Sadly, this situation is not uncommon to hear about in the House.

In addition to hearing from everyday Canadians, we have heard from public health experts from across the country. Dr. Bonnie Henry, the B.C. provincial health officer in my province, continues to call for decriminalization. Most recently, Dr. de Villa, the medical officer of health for the City of Toronto, as well as the former medical officer of health for Yukon, who now sits in the House, and their colleagues from one municipality and provincial jurisdiction to another, from coast to coast to coast, are pleading for simple possession to be decriminalized.

It is not a matter for the criminal justice system. It is a health issue. We keep hearing the government say it is a health issue, but it is still treating it as a criminal issue. In this bill, the government is continuing to do that.

These are the same public health experts that I just mentioned, who guided our response in the COVID-19 pandemic. We listened to them and heeded their professional advice often, and now we are ignoring them when it comes to the opioid crisis. They are saying the same thing, that we need evidence-based science to lead us out of this terrible crisis, and they are being ignored by the government. They are calling for decriminalization of possession of illicit drugs. This bill could have done that.

Standing with the public health community are Canada's police chiefs, who also called for decriminalization. They know first-hand the failure of the criminalization of drug use. They know first-hand the deadly consequences of exposure to an increasingly toxic supply of street drugs across this country. Increasingly, we are hearing the same message from local and national media across the country. It is like Groundhog Day. Every day we read another editorial by journalists who are hearing from their readers and seeing the evidence of a public health emergency that requires the decriminalization of personal possession, the expungement of criminal records, access to a safe supply of low-barrier regulated drugs, therapeutic support through treatment programs, and supportive housing for those in need.

We are in good company in calling for these measures. Public health experts, law enforcement officials, the media and everyday Canadians across the country, persuaded by overwhelming evidence, have determined that exposure to death by overdose must stop now.

The evidence that is underpinning this call for a comprehensive approach is an 87% increase in opioid overdose deaths in Manitoba last year over the previous year. In British Columbia, as we just heard, there were over 200 deaths in one month. That is the most on record. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it worse, forcing the closure of harm reduction locations and driving users further underground. Currently it is estimated that eight people are dying every day in Ontario, over six in B.C., and 20 across our country. In fact, the overdoses have increased in all regions of this country. We are seeing how it is disproportionately impacting Black, indigenous and racialized Canadians.

In October, B.C. chief coroner Lisa Lapointe noted that illicit drug toxicity killed 201 people, the same number as an entire year of deaths 10 years ago. She is calling for a regulated safer supply and decriminalized possession of small amounts for personal use. Just last week, she said that a comprehensive plan to ensure access to safe supply is essential. Shifting from a punishment and stigmatizing regime to a decriminalized, health-focused model is a critical step in reducing suffering and saving lives.

Again, we keep hearing from the Liberals that they are treating this as a health issue. We have heard the overwhelming advice from police chiefs and health officials that we need to take the first steps, which are decriminalization of personal possession and providing a safe supply.

Why has the Liberal government chosen not to listen to its own health professionals? To end the stigma, the government needs to act, but the stigma starts with the Prime Minister. He has not taken action. He is ignoring his own health experts. He is ignoring parents. He is ignoring the moms and the dads, the parents who have lost loved ones.

I am going to go straight to Gary Mason, who wrote this in The Globe and Mail:

I feel a sense of hopelessness. Giving out free drugs such as heroin to “addicts” just seems to be too big a leap for governments and society generally. Allowing people to die from their addictions is easier to accept. Which is just crazy when you think about it. Imagine seeing more than 8,500 people die from a drug overdose in just over five years as easier to accept than making a courageous effort to do something that could really make a difference.

At this point, what is there to lose?

I guess the answer is votes.

It is true that politicians are in the way of saving lives right now, and people are dying as a result of the inaction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member opposite about the conditional sentencing orders that are being introduced here in Bill C-5, to see how that will impact his community and ensure that there is more fairness in the criminal justice system.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time hearing the question, but I will say that this bill does not even come close to going far enough. Right now they are talking about leaving it in the hands of judges and police. This is not going to prevent people from coming out of the shadows and from using small amounts of drugs.

We heard the evidence. The government's own expert panel on substance use from its own department suggested decriminalization and safe supply as first steps. Why is it ignoring its own expert panel? Why is it taking so long? Every day it does not take action, lives are lost in this country, over 20 a day. Why? Why is it taking so long?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I will also just recognize the impact that the opioid crisis is having. We are seeing a record number of people dying. I presented a motion in the last Parliament regarding steps we could take, including recovery programs, investments and so on.

Some of the debate here seems to be a little off as far as debating Bill C-5. I am thinking about mandatory minimums. I think of a girl called Heather Thomas, who died. She was suffocated and killed when she was 10 years old, and her body was thrown into a lake not far from where I live. The criminal was also stalking someone I love.

I wonder about mandatory minimums for people who do these sex crimes against young people. Can the member comment?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it absolutely clear that we are not talking about supporting or removing mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious offences. Judicial discretion gives judges the ability to ensure that those who have committed heinous crimes pay the price. The member is very wrong to say that I am delineating away from the bill. The bill is talking about still criminalizing people for personal possession of drugs.

I wonder why the Conservatives are going to sit on the sidelines. They have not brought any comprehensive ideas forward that will save lives right now. They are part of the problem. They are failing to take the bold and courageous action that is necessary, to listen to the science and to listen to the experts across this country, including the police chiefs and medical health officers. They are failing.

We need to do more. We need to work collaboratively together. We need to let science, our health officials and our police chiefs guide us through this terrible tragedy that is taking place in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns about diversion. Obviously, drug use is a health issue that we must do more to address, and it is not a legal issue. We are not going to heal people by sending them to prison.

That being said, I have already expressed my discomfort with the fact that the government is proposing to reduce or abolish minimum sentences for firearms offences while these firearms are circulating illegally on our streets in Montreal.

Would my colleague agree that the government should address the problem of the illegal circulation and importation of firearms before proposing to reduce or abolish these minimum sentences, if not at the same time?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague and good friend. That was a good question.

Right now in the Criminal Code, section 718.2 allows judges to increase or decrease sentencing depending on aggravating circumstances, so it still does give judges the discretion to ensure that they are taking action on these serious offences.

In terms of the conversation I have been having a lot around decriminalization, safe supply and taking action on the opioid crisis, I hope my colleague and the Bloc will support the work we are doing in this House, so we can all work collectively together to listen to those experts, especially the expert panel on substance use here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate Bill C-5. I have to say that this is not a straightforward subject; it is extremely complex.

As I am not a lawyer, I, too, have to make sense of it all. I want to thank the office staff of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who have really helped clarify this issue. Bill C-5 addresses two extremely important issues. I believe it would be worthwhile to have two separate debates, and I will move a motion about that a little later.

Debating both issues at the same time is complicated because we might be against abolishing mandatory minimum sentences and in favour of decriminalization. This complicates the debate a little. In the case of mandatory minimums for offences committed with a firearm, we are looking at 20 specific mandatory minimums. In the case of simple drug possession, we are looking at decriminalization. I think we need to look at these two issues separately.

As I said, I am not a lawyer. However, I have heard lawyers on the same team debate this subject and it is hard to have a simple opinion. It is hard to choose black or white, because there are several grey areas in all of this. We will try to untangle it all together and weigh the various arguments.

There are several arguments in favour of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, and there are several against it. In my opinion, it is important that we consider all the arguments.

The Liberal government promised to quickly reintroduce Bill C‑22 from the last Parliament. It also promised to reintroduce what we referred to as Bill C‑236. By merging these two items into one bill, the government is giving the impression that it wants to act hastily. However, when we try to move too fast, we often make mistakes or do things wrong. I think the impression we give people is important.

In the current context, Bill C-5 sends out a peculiar message. Let me explain: Canada is in the midst of a gun violence crisis. My colleagues have likely heard me talk about firearms and the situation in Montreal and other major urban centres during the various question periods. Almost every day, we hear about a new firearm death.

The circumstances and timing are therefore not really appropriate. We have been calling on the minister for three weeks to take the first real step to combat the trafficking of illegal firearms, and to tighten gun control and border measures. Ultimately, the first step the government took was to introduce this bill, which proposes eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearms offences.

The message that sends is a bit odd. It does not really reassure anyone. Montreal families are worried, especially mothers who have lost a son and are waiting for gun control measures to be tightened. People are afraid to go out in the evening and take a walk in their own neighbourhood, which used to be safe. I doubt that these people feel reassured when they are told that the only thing the Liberal government has done so far to combat gun trafficking is to abolish the mandatory minimum sentences related to such offences.

The context is different and we, as parliamentarians, have to consider that. Everything is changing. The context is changing. When Bill C‑22 was introduced, the context was different, even though this was a problem across the country. I think that we have no choice but to take that into consideration.

I am talking specifically about firearms because I am very familiar with this file. It should be noted that some mandatory minimum sentences that are set to be eliminated have to do with drug possession while the opioid crisis is raging both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. It is rather odd to be introducing this bill at this stage.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois is usually in favour of the principle of rehabilitation and crime reduction in a different context.

There is a tendency to have a fairly high degree of trust in judges, and I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and the flexibility needed to decide what sentence to impose for an offence.

It is important to keep in mind that if certain mandatory minimum sentences were to be abolished overnight, that does not mean that someone who has committed offences will not be charged. It means that we are leaving it up to the judge to decide the best way to ensure public safety.

If a mandatory minimum sentence exists, the judge can impose a harsher sentence if they feel that that is the right thing to do. However, the judge cannot go below the mandatory minimum. That is my concern. If individuals can be punished for their offences, but rehabilitated in ways other than being sent to prison, I think that can be beneficial. People often become more criminalized as a result of entering this cycle. Other options need to be considered. That is a pretty strong argument, I think, for abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

Another argument is that it has long been accepted that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter certain kinds of targeted crimes. For example, it is a well-known fact that mandatory minimum sentences have virtually no effect on drug trafficking. Research in the United States and Malaysia has proven this. Both countries have strict minimum sentences for drug trafficking. However, this has not led to any change in drug use within the population. Rather, this only puts more small dealers in prison. Unfortunately, the focus is on the bottom of the ladder, when these individuals are often not irrevocably on that path. We could remedy all that and not necessarily send them directly to prison.

As for the effects of mandatory minimum sentences on firearms, no credible study has established that sentences have a deterrent effect on firearms offences. I think that someone who is planning to commit a crime or who commits a crime that is not premeditated does not say to themselves that they will not do it because there is a mandatory minimum sentence for that offence. Those who commit gun crime are either not aware of the consequences or they do not care about them and will commit the crime anyway.

I believe that even though the context is problematic, we agree that abolishing mandatory minimum sentences can be a good thing. However, it is not just about the context. Some details warrant further study.

In this case, Bill C-5 abolishes several mandatory minimum sentences for second and third offences. As I was saying, mandatory minimum sentences for a first offence may impact social reintegration, but keeping certain mandatory minimum sentences for second or even third offences could be justified to uphold the credibility of our legal system.

For example, the use of a firearm or imitation firearm to commit an offence is currently punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of three years, which also applies to a second or subsequent offence. Under Bill C‑5, this would be scrapped.

However, an individual who uses a firearm or imitation firearm for a second or third offence deserves to be held accountable for that, in my view. It is worth considering.

My time is running out, so I will not have time to go into the second item that this bill addresses, diversion. What I would suggest to the government is that it simply split the bill. The government should withdraw Bill C‑5 and introduce two new separate bills. I think that would be a good solution.

The first bill would deal with diversion, which is represented by the part entitled “Evidence-based Diversion Measures” in the current Bill C‑5. The House could vote on the principle of the bill at second reading.

The second bill would deal with mandatory minimum sentences and would be sent to committee before second reading. That would give members a chance to examine the principle of the bill prior to second reading and propose amendments that would change its scope. Immediate referral to committee before second reading would allow for a full study on the subject.

That is the Bloc Québécois' proposal to the government. I hope it will be well received.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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

First, I would like to say that on the issue of gun violence, nothing in Bill C‑5 removes penalties for those involved in serious gun crimes.

My question is simple. With respect to the discretion that judges have to assess the specific circumstances of a case, does my colleague agree with me that judges are in a better position to have that discussion than members of the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, and I did talk about that.

Judges are best equipped to do that, and they need the flexibility to decide what penalty best fits the crime. The good thing about mandatory minimum sentences is that sentences can be greater; unfortunately, they cannot be lesser. That is the problem.

There has to be a way to offer another solution, such as reintegration or other alternatives that would enable us to get incarcerated individuals out of the cycle of crime.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend a couple of questions. First, does the Bloc Québécois stand for the proposition that all mandatory minimums under the Criminal Code and CDSA ought to be eliminated?

If her response is yes, I would ask her this. Because she feels that judges are best equipped to render appropriate sentences, does she feel all judges across this great country all think alike and will all deliver sentencing to appropriately deal with all of the sentencing principles with respect to gun offences, such as denunciation and deterrence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not go so far as to say it is a panacea. We cannot lump everything together because every case is different, as evidenced by the fact that Bill C‑5 covers 20 specific mandatory minimum sentences. I have expressed reservations about some of them, especially gun crimes, so I think we need to keep things in perspective.

Judges have all the skills to determine which response to a given offence will keep people safe. Two different people commit the same offence, but the response to each can be very different.

We cannot lump everything together and say that all mandatory minimum sentences should be abolished tomorrow morning. I think it has been shown that they can be beneficial in some cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the speech by the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia because I am trying to understand the Bloc's position on this bill. She very eloquently laid out the arguments against mandatory minimums and talked about how they in fact do not accomplish what people think they do.

Then she said the timing was awkward. I cannot imagine why there would be bad timing for anything that would take away one of the main measures that results in more indigenous people, Black people and people living poverty ending up in prison, so I am confused. Why is that an objection to the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that it is fairly simple. We support abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, there are shootings practically every week in Quebec and Canada.

We have asked the ministers and the government to take a first step to show that they are serious about this issue and that they can tighten gun control. However, the government's first step was to introduce Bill C-5, which will eliminate certain mandatory minimums for firearms offences. That sends a peculiar message.

I understand that there is never a right time to introduce any legislation, but we have to move forward with this type of bill. The proposal to split the bill would make it possible to take the time to better study each element.

We should remember that the situation in Montreal is difficult right now. We are asking the government to take action to control gun trafficking, but Bill C‑5 does not seem to be the appropriate response.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start with this. Someone who is battling an addiction does not need a jail cell: they need treatment. They should not be judged. They should be helped. I think there is universal acceptance of that statement. There is not a Canadian or a member in the House who does not know, by a degree of separation, somebody who has been impacted by battling addiction.

Here is the sad part of where we cannot agree. Violent criminals, drug dealers and traffickers should be held accountable with mandatory jail time for preying on vulnerable people. I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5 in the last Parliament, and in my opinion it is a terrible bill that protects drug dealers and people who are trying to profit from and prey on those battling addictions as opposed to protecting the victims of crimes.

Here is what Canadians are not being told by the government in this legislation. There is not mandatory jail time for simple drug possession. That does not exist. Sadly today, what also do not exist are anywhere near enough treatment beds to get people who are battling addiction the help they truly deserve.

The government called an unnecessary election a couple of months ago. It took 62 days for the House to come back, and one of the government's first bills here does not give more beds or a program to create more beds across this country to help those battling addiction. Rather, on page 10 in the Speech from the Throne, there is a simple line that says, “there is more work to be done on mental health and addiction treatment”. That is it. There is no plan or strategy, but rather eliminating mandatory jail time for very serious crimes.

The Minister of Justice said earlier in question period, and I heard my colleague from the NDP say a little while ago, that there are still serious consequences for serious crimes. I think they have a very warped definition of what a serious crime is in this country.

Let me specifically say that Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory jail time provisions relating to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, and using a firearm in commission of offences. There is also the expansion of conditional sentencing, where the bill would allow greater use of conditional sentencing orders such as house arrest.

Some of the new eligible offences in the bill would include arson for fraudulent purposes. Somebody who commits arson by burning somebody's home or property down may be eligible for house arrest in their own home. The height of irony of that knows no bounds.

The bill does not help people in this country who are battling addiction to opioids or other drugs, whatever they may be. What we know is that police officers already have the ability to use their discretion when determining whether to lay charges. One of the most profound and impactful opportunities I have had in my two-and-a-bit years as a member of Parliament has been to do ride-alongs with the Ontario Provincial Police and the Cornwall Police Service in my community of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I saw first-hand, late on a Friday night and early into the morning, the amazing work that our front-line police officers do. I also saw, thankfully and confidentially, their ability to use that discretion on the front line. I saw that discretion was being used. What was not there was the availability and ease of getting treatment for somebody who clearly had an addiction issue, so they could get past their problem. Over and over again, we talk to law enforcement about tackling this issue and getting better service for treatment. Getting people the help that they deserve needs to be top priority, not letting off drug traffickers for gun crimes or violent criminals with the opportunity for more lenient sentences after they have been convicted.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has previously issued a directive to prosecutors to avoid prosecuting simple drug possession cases unless there are major public safety concerns.

That is clear. This bill would do nothing to change all of that rightful practice that is in place. Instead it would give breaks and the opportunity to provide breaks to people who are trying to destroy the lives of people battling addictions and profiting off it.

In my riding, there have been several news stories of how the opioid and addiction battles, not just in eastern Ontario but across this country, have unfortunately only gotten worse during the pandemic. I look at a news release that came from the Cornwall police service and the Eastern Ontario Health Unit, warning about increases in drug-related overdoses in Cornwall and area from April of this year.

Inspector of field operations for the Cornwall police services, Chad Maxwell, says, “Opioids are endangering the lives of vulnerable members of our community and we are dependent on everyone to take this messaging seriously.”

I look at the headline in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, “A hidden pandemic in the Cornwall region—opioid overdoses and deaths”; or the headline in the Morrisburg Leader, “Opioid overdose numbers rise during pandemic in EOHU region.” The Seaway News shared the same news back on April 9.

As we wrap up Parliament in the next few days for the year, having been back for a few weeks, when I go back home, I have the opportunity to liaise, as I mentioned, with the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, the Cornwall police service and the Akwesasne Mohawk Police. I also have the tough job of having to hear the stories of parents who have lost a child or sibling to addiction. I go back to them this week to tell them that there is no more money for residential treatment beds for people battling addictions, that there is no plan to address it or to fill that massive gap we all heard about in the recent election and that we know exists. However, I will have to tell them that there is a bill on the table that would lower the bar for convicted violent criminals.

Whether it be in Morrisburg, or Cornwall or Crysler, addiction impacts every community in the country. I would encourage members from the Liberal and NDP side, who are strongly promoting this bill, to ask their constituents if they want an increased number of residential treatment beds as a priority for this Parliament or if they want the list that I exhausted earlier of all the mandatory jail times where leniency can be given upon conviction for these serious crimes.

I will wrap up today by quoting something that was in our Conservative platform earlier this year, “Canada’s Conservatives will treat the opioid epidemic as the urgent health issue that it is.” The last thing those suffering from addiction should have to worry about is being arrested. Any interaction the government has with them should be focused on keeping them safe and helping them recover. We believe that law enforcement should focus on dealers and traffickers.

We need more residential treatments. We need a better plan at the federal level and in every part of our country to get people the help they need and deserve. Bill C-5 would not go after dealers and traffickers appropriately. It would lower the bar and open the door. That is wrong. Our opposition will stand every step of the way against this terrible, misguided bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague might not be aware that for the first time in Canadian history, there is a cabinet minister whose primary objective and role is for mental health and addiction. It would be a far stretch to suggest that this government does not take mental health and addiction extremely seriously.

The problem is that the member is trying to conflate two issues as though they are exclusively together. He talked about police officers having discretion. Police officers have discretion on whether to charge or not to charge. They do not have discretion as to what the outcome, or rehabilitation or various measures might be if charged and found guilty.

Could the member please explain why he thinks the discretion is okay with a police officer, but not with a judge?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands does like to pack a lot into the question.

Appointing a minister to say that the government is going to do something is not a result. We hear this time and again. There are so many examples of the government saying that it is spending x number of dollars on this or that they have appointed so and so to study this. Nothing happens in terms of changes on the issues. Again, a minister has been appointed, but there is no plan before us to tackle the very issues I addressed in my comments.

When we talk about discretion, there is a difference between the discretion for simple possession and supporting and having a universal process and agreement on it. Even further, on some challenges, there should be mandatory jail times for robbery with a firearm, prison breach, sexual assault, kidnapping, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000. When it comes to that, there is a difference between simple possession and all these things that are included in Bill C-5.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for delineating between what should continue to have mandatory minimum sentencing and what should not. I would like to hear an explanation on why it is important that we tackle and address the mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offences.

In my community of Edmonton Griesbach, for example, we know how far that kind of policy would go to help marginalized people, particularly indigenous and Black community members in my riding, in getting the access to rehabilitation services that are so desperately needed. Would the member elaborate on how that kind of process would be beneficial for his community as well?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we talk about delineating things in the bill. The government is talking about help for opioids and addiction and is lumping everything into this bill that would not address that. There is a massive difference between a simple drug possession of a minor nature and somebody committing robbery, arson, kidnapping of a child and so forth. There need to be serious consequences. The government says that its definition is serious. I am not even sure what that is defined as now.

What is not in the bill and what continues to be ignored is a real, tangible plan that we get more residential treatment beds, that the focus be on recovery and on assistance to get people with addictions out of a bad cycle, on the right path and given the supports they need. There is nothing in the bill and there has been no news from the government on that key part of addressing Canada's addiction battles.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is all the time we have for now. The hon. member will have one minute of questions coming to him when we come back. We will have to work that in.

It being 4 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, December 6, I now invite the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement.