Evidence of meeting #19 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I will restart then. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can't think of a worse time for this to be put forward, which is to repeal mandatory jail time for serious drug trafficking offences involving schedule I and schedule II drugs. As Mr. Moore noted, those include fentanyl and crystal meth at a time when we have an opioid crisis. About 20 Canadians a day lose their lives due to an opioid overdose. This bill rewards those who push this poison on our streets.
This government talks a lot about helping those who are marginalized and vulnerable. It claimed that is a big part of what this bill is about. In fact, this provision would do the opposite and should be defeated.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Continuing the discussion from my colleagues, I think the introduction of this aspect to Bill C-5 just smacks of the Liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the substantive issue. The substantive issue and the elephant in the room, as my colleague Mr. Cooper has addressed, is the opioid crisis.
I just did a quick Google search of the Liberal platform in the last general election, as follows:
The opioid overdose epidemic has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tragically, in 2020, there were 6,214 opioid overdose deaths in Canada.
To save lives, we need a whole-of-society approach to the opioid epidemic that addresses the main causes and supports...who use drugs with the respect and dignity they deserve.
That particular framework is not unlike the framework of the Conservative policy in the last election. Punish the trafficker, not the addicted. To that, I think, we are consistent. Although that language isn't as clear as I just addressed, when the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada says to address the main causes, the addicted rely upon the traffickers. They rely upon the mules who are transporting the drugs across our porous borders.
What kind of horrible message is the federal government sending to Canadians? The number one priority of a federal government is to protect Canadians, not to continue to cause death. In my view, the Liberal government has blood on its hands. Quite frankly, they are talking a good game when it comes to the opioid crisis. There's very little mention of that in the current budget. They're not doing enough. Let's face facts here. How do traffickers conduct their business? They conduct it from the comfort of their own homes. This federal government with Bill C-5 is now giving licence to the traffickers to serve the sentence in the very same place in which they do business.
We've heard from several witnesses at this committee that conditional sentences do not work, notwithstanding the Liberal government narrative that it assists in their rehabilitation. Traffickers need to be punished. Importers, exporters and distributors of drugs need to be punished. They need to be removed from society, not be given a legal licence to ply their trade where they're conducting their trade before their arrest.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Brock.
Shall Conservative amendment 12 carry? We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 17)
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
On clause 17, we have CPC-13 on page 61 of the package.
Mr. Moore, do you want to say anything on it?
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Because we're on a new clause, I'll say that this is production of a substance. Those substances include crystal meth, or methamphetamine. Schedule I and schedule II include cocaine and heroin. I haven't heard any of this in the discussion led by the government.
In the House of Commons and in their press conferences, you will hear them say that this is about simple possession. That conjures up an image of somebody walking down the street with a joint. It does not conjure up an image of a trafficker outside of a school, someone with a facility that produces crystal meth or someone importing drugs across our border into Canada to devastate lives.
I think Mr. Brock mentioned that he did a Google search. Every day in our local newspapers wherever you live.... I live in a suburban area. Whether you're rural, suburban or urban, this is happening all over Canada. I think it sends a terrible message that this Parliament, certainly without the support of the Conservative Party, would say for production of a schedule I or schedule II drug for importing, exporting and possession for the purposes of exporting, trafficking.... People know what that means.
I think Canadians, when this comes out, and it will.... Everyone is busy in their day-to-day lives. They're very aware of the opioid crisis and other crises involving drugs in our community. I think the more Canadians see of this, the more upsetting it's going to be, because these are the people who are preying on children, all of our children. These are the people who are causing death, destruction, suicide and bankruptcy. We see it all over this country. If this passes, we're saying that, if you produce methamphetamine, if you produce crystal meth, you won't necessarily receive any time if you're convicted of that offence.
That's what we're saying here. I know most of you are probably aware of that, but I think it needs to be said. I think it needs to be very clear, before we cast our vote, that we're saying to our constituents that we think someone who is producing crystal meth, someone who takes that crystal meth and sells it outside of a school to children, we're saying as a Parliament that the person will not necessarily serve any jail time. There will be no mandatory minimum penalty, a mandatory minimum penalty that has existed for years within our Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
We're all aware of it. I think this is very timely in the same way that gun crime is in the news every day. It's in the news because we're dealing with it. The opioid crisis is front and centre. It's an absolute crisis causing devastation.
I don't think it's overstating it to say that this is going to cause incredible damage. When we send the message that we're going soft on traffickers, importers, exporters and producers of crystal meth, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, etc....
I will be strongly voting against this clause.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Shall Conservative amendment 13 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
This is the entire clause 17. Is that correct?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
On a point of order, I'm just wondering if the parliamentary secretary is going to make that clarification before every clause we vote on. We're all experienced parliamentarians here. When you say we're voting on clause 17, it means we're voting on clause 17. Then when you say we're voting on clause 18, it means we're voting on clause 18. I don't think we need that clarification before every vote.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 18)
We have Green Party amendment 42. I'm going to have to rule this inadmissible, as section 9 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not being amended by Bill C-5. It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 20)
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We have Green Party amendment 43. As a note, if Green Party amendment 43 is adopted, NDP amendment 1 cannot be moved, as proposed paragraph 10.1(c.1) in both amendments is identical.
3 p.m.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
I will be very brief with the committee's time.
This is a critical section of the bill. We are proposing an amendment that is similar to NDP-1 with respect to broadening the language and ensuring that the opioid crisis is treated as a public health crisis and not a criminal one. Additionally, it recognizes in the diversion measures the fact that Black, indigenous and other racialized communities have been disproportionately affected by the criminal sanctions imposed in respect of the possession of drugs.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Shall Green Party amendment 43 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Chair, as you noted, the first part of the Green amendment is identical to my amendment, since we used the same drafters. The difference between the two is that the Green Party amendment that we previously defeated included some other things that I think arguably, fairly enough, may not belong in the principles. I understand that people voted against it for that reason.
What the Green Party and I agree on, which I think all experts agree on, is that some people who are involved in what we call the trafficking of drugs are doing so only because of their own addiction, only to support their own habit or only to obtain a safe supply of drugs for themselves. What I'm proposing here is that we add that narrow principle to the other principles in the bill to guide judges so that we make sure penalties aren't falling on people who are addicted drug users and are doing so only because of their own drug use habit.
I would ask members to consider supporting this amendment, which is more narrow than the Green amendment.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Chair, I want to express that we support it in principle, but we feel that it is overly broad and could include high-level traffickers as well. We will not be supporting this amendment.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Shall NDP amendment 1 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Next we have Conservative amendment 14, on page 65 of the package.
Mr. Moore.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Chair, this was recommended to me by one of the provincial attorneys general. Their concern is under “Warnings and referrals”. It would remove the word “consent” to not allow individuals to refuse to go for a referral for addictions treatment, but it would allow them to refuse once they have the referral.
This is to make sure that individuals who are referred to addictions treatment and then consent to addictions treatment would be able to get the help they need.
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand the sentiment behind this amendment, but I think, in practice, we have long waiting lists for referrals of people who actually do want to get into treatment. It doesn't make much sense to hold up one of those spaces on the waiting lists, which exist almost everywhere, for someone who most surely will refuse if they weren't going to give consent. I think in the real world, this actually just pushes people back from treatment who are ready and willing and able to get it. We should in fact just recognize that people who won't consent to this will not consent to the treatment as well.
I think it's an impractical amendment in the real world of shortages of treatment spaces for those with addiction problems.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.