Debates of Dec. 14th, 2021

Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[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?