Debates of Dec. 14th, 2021

The Environment

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague knew anything about tree planting, he would know that we need to grow the seedlings for between two and three years. I have planted trees—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Environment, go ahead, from the top.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, anyone who has planted trees would know that it takes between two to three years to grow them so they can be safely planted. I have planted trees. I have even been known to hug trees from time to time.

Our government is engaged in fighting climate change. We have invested $100 billion in the last six years, with more than 100 measures, and we will keep going.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was very concerned with the comments that were being made during extreme heckling from my Conservative colleagues. Could the environment minister tell us how long it takes to actually make a tree?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member, but that is not a point of order. The member will have to ask that question at the next question period.

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.

Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[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.