Debates of Dec. 13th, 2021

Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[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?