Debates of Dec. 15th, 2021

Motion No. 1

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #17

Ways and Means

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, be read the first time and printed.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

The House resumed from December 14 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

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize the passing of bell hooks today. She was a trail-blazing Black feminist author who brought the intersectionality of race, gender and class into the public consciousness, and really helped shape the conversations that we continue to have today. My condolences go out to her family and to countless people across the world, especially the Black women she touched through her writing. May she rest in power.

The conversation on Bill C-5 is one that I have been having a lot throughout my life, since my university days when I was studying criminology and throughout law school when I was studying the justice system. In the past six years, as a member and the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the question and purpose behind what our justice system is meant to do and what our prison system is meant to do really help guide guide the moral framework of communities and societies.

Access to fair justice is a vital pillar of our due process. While we have made progress over the past six years, the fact remains that our justice system is not yet properly equipped to provide access to everyone. We see that in Black and indigenous communities and among people who struggle today to find a job, make a living and build a better life for themselves. It is because of their interaction with the justice system.

There are Canadians suffering from addiction and dying from overdoses or withdrawal because the law states that drug possession means jail time. This is not fair justice. Studies show us that mandatory minimums for lesser offences like this do not solve anything and often do more harm than good. They force first-time offenders into a cycle that prevents them from building a better life for themselves.

When people talk about the supposed success of these programs, they are bringing individual lives down to a statistic of those who are being imprisoned. They are too busy trying to appear tough on crime to stop and ask whether these policies are actually accomplishing anything productive and accomplishing what our justice system is meant to accomplish. The supposed success of the mandatory minimums they point to is the over-incarceration of people in Black and indigenous communities. As far as I am concerned, that makes them a failure.

It is time for a better approach. That is why I am pleased to participate—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would ask members to have conversations outside the chamber, please.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to participate today in the continuing debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A great deal of time has already been spent describing the objectives of the bill, its proposed reforms and the expected impacts of it. I support these changes and really believe they will make a significant, positive contribution to our criminal justice system and contribute to efforts to address the disproportionate impacts that existing criminal laws have had on certain communities in Canada.

We know certain communities in Canada and in other countries are involved in the justice system at higher rates than others. In Canada, the over-incarceration of indigenous persons and Black Canadians is very well documented. Many of these reasons are systemic, including our laws on sentencing. It is clear the issue of over-incarceration must be addressed by revisiting our existing sentencing laws. That is exactly what Bill C-5 proposes to do.

Canada is not alone in recognizing the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, has proven to be a costly and ineffective approach to reducing crime. Indeed, many jurisdictions around the world are moving away from this approach to the criminal justice system. While MMPs can be a forceful expression of government policy in the area of criminal law, we know they do not deter crime and can result in unjust and inequitable outcomes, which contradicts the purpose of our justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada has very been clear about these issues.

Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum. Evidence-based policy is informed by relevant research, including comparative studies from other countries. By examining a particular policy's successes and failures, we can develop reforms that build on what we know works and addresses what we know does not work.

For instance, while the United States, both at the federal and the state levels, has historically made great use of MMPs, in the last decade many states have moved toward reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on non-violent and drug-related charges. These trends reveal a shift motivated by, among other things, a need to address high levels of incarceration and the corresponding social and fiscal costs. This is being done by governments of all political stripes in the United States, and I encourage all parties in the House to recognize the true impacts of MMPs and work to continue to improve our justice system.

Some in the U.S. have termed the removal of MMPs as being a “smart on crime” movement. This approach recognizes the need to address high levels of incarceration of young Black and Hispanic Americans who are disproportionately negatively impacted by the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the U.S., particularly, as I have noted, for non-violent, drug-related offences.

Some have also pointed out that mandatory minimum sentencing actually encourages cycles of crime and violence by subjecting non-violent offenders, who could otherwise be productive members of society, to the revolving door of the prison system.

Recently, the President of the United States indicated his intention to repeal MMPs at the federal level and provide states with incentives to repeal their mandatory minimums as well.

Other countries have made similar changes. For example, in 2014, France repealed certain MMPs, predominantly citing evidence showing the reconviction rate had more than doubled between 2001 and 2011, increasing from 4.9% to 12.1%.

When we examine the trends in like-minded countries, we can see a clear policy shift toward limiting the use of mandatory minimum penalties to the most serious of cases and restoring judicial discretion at sentencing.

While international comparisons cannot be the only lens through which we develop sentencing policy in Canada, particularly given our unique cultural traditions and diversity, such comparisons provide a useful backdrop to which we assess the adequacy of our own sentencing laws.

Currently, the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provide MMPs for 73 offences, including for firearms offences, sexual offences, impaired driving, kidnapping, human trafficking, sex trade offences, murder, high treason and drug-related offences such as trafficking, import/export and production of certain drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Thirty offences have been amended in the last 15 years, almost entirely by the Harper government, to increase existing MMPs or to impose new ones.

Bill C-5 would reverse that trend and in so doing it would make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all. It would repeal MMPs for 20 offences, including MMPs for all drug-related offences as well as for some firearms ones.

These reforms should not be viewed as a signal from Parliament that drug and firearms offences are not serious or are not noteworthy of important denunciatory sentences in appropriate cases. They can be very serious, and I have full confidence in our courts to impose those appropriate penalties.

I realize that I am running out of time, but I have a lot more to add to this. It is a very interesting debate and I look forward to this discussion continuing.

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

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

My question is a narrow one. The mandatory minimum penalties sought to be repealed includes section 95 of the Criminal Code, which is one of the most serious firearms offences, because it is an unlicensed individual possessing a restricted or prohibited firearm. The Nur decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which my colleague referenced, talked about the seriousness of that offence, endorsing language from the Ontario Court of Appeal, saying:

At one end of the range, as Doherty J.A. observed, “stands the outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade.... [T]his person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public”.

The vast majority of people may fall into this.

We have heard from the government that we do not want to capture people who may not fall into that on a first-time basis. Why then is the government repealing the mandatory minimum for subsequent offences for the people for whom that first time does not apply?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to remind the member that it is up to the judges, and the removal of mandatory minimums gives them the discretion to say that these are the circumstances in which a crime has occurred and that they will ensure the penalties are fitting to the crime. That discretion to the judge helps to build that pillar of equitable justice, which we are seeking through this bill.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

Earlier this week, I too had the opportunity to give a speech on Bill C-5. As I studied the bill, several things came to mind and jumped out at me.

Unfortunately, this feels a bit like a kitchen sink bill. The government is combining two very different subjects, when diversion and decriminalization are two very sensitive issues. It is also combining crimes involving the possession of firearms with simple drug possession offences. Having worked for an organization that tries to help people turn their lives around, I am very familiar with that subject.

My colleague even touched on the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for sexual assault in the context of the rising rates of femicide.

Is the member aware that Quebec is also in the midst of a crisis involving gun crime, that the mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec are asking—

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

Order. I must allow the hon. member to answer the question, and we have to be able to hear other questions.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

My colleague is absolutely right. What we need to understand is that with Bill C-5 and with the removal of mandatory minimums, providing punishment and mandatory minimums is not enough to create the equitable justice we are looking for. We need to find and build that proper framework around society to provide supports for victims of, for example, gender-based violence as the member referenced, and to provide support for those who are suffering from addictions. That fulsome and wholesome approach is the way we will have a more equitable and more fair society, not by punishing people for simple non-violent crimes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, my community is facing these two interconnected public health emergencies: COVID-19 and the toxic drug supply. Too many people have lost their lives or lost loved ones to drug poisoning, and it is fundamentally because the government refuses to stop treating this as a criminal issue and follow the evidence to treat this as a health issue.

B.C. has taken the important step of applying for the federal government to remove criminal penalties under section 56. Full decriminalization would help reduce the fear and shame associated with substance use.

Will the member push her party to accept British Columbia's application? This bill is a half measure. Getting rid of these mandatory minimums is important, but is the member not disappointed—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. We have issues with translation.

Is there a problem with interpretation?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the interpreter cannot hear the member properly.

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

Apparently the member's sound is not very clear for the interpreters to catch. The connection is not terribly good, even with respect to image.

I will give the hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills an opportunity to comment on the question the hon. member just asked.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the last Parliament, the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam's private member's bill addressed the issue of decriminalizing those who were seeking those safe injection sites, and good on him for doing that. One bill is not an answer to addressing a systemic problem. There needs to be a lot more cognizant effort by our government and by all parties in the House to ensure we address this issue.

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

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, Health; the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Veterans Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, because this is my first speech in the 44th Parliament, I hope the House will indulge me to spend a minute to thank the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for again putting their trust in me and sending me to this place for a third time. It is a privilege to be here, and I carry that trust on my shoulders every day. I could not be here if it were not for an amazing campaign team, an army of volunteers and the support of my family. Being here, I really feel the weight of the responsibility of being the voice for approximately 100,000 people on beautiful Vancouver Island.

I am very pleased to be rising today to speak to Bill C-5, which tries to start the conversation on serious criminal justice reform. It is a conversation that we have been waiting for in Canada for quite some time, and it begs a question: Why are we here as members of Parliament?

I am not here to make a fancy video for an email fundraiser. I am not here to launch serious attacks against the government or for a great clip. When it comes to a subject as weighty as this, we each have a responsibility to treat the subject matter before us with the seriousness and responsibility it deserves.

In the 42nd Parliament, I was honoured to serve as my party's justice critic. When dealing with subject matters involving the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Criminal Code of Canada, and when we know that the decisions we make and the reforms we pass in this place have real-world consequences for people, it adds another layer of gravity to the debate and the deliberation.

When I look at Bill C-5, I see the intent of the government. It also had an intention in the previous Parliament, which was interrupted by an unnecessary election call, but it honoured that part of its mandate to bring forward criminal justice reform. As to whether it goes far enough, that is the question before us. I would argue no, it is indeed an important first step, but this bill makes me realize there is so much more that could have been done.

We talk about low-hanging fruit. This fruit is almost on the ground compared to what could have been achieved. The Liberals should find it in themselves to seize the moment and be bold, because I do not think they realize that a significant percentage of Canadians out there are asking us as parliamentarians to seize that moment, to make that once-in-a-lifetime change that would have a significant effect on people's lives.

I want to walk through sections of Bill C-5, and I am going to start with the part that deals with mandatory minimum reform. I have sat through a significant part of the debate on Bill C-5 on Monday, yesterday and today, and I have to disagree with the Conservatives' position. I am hearing terms like “hug a thug” or “criminal-first agenda”, and they not do justice to the seriousness of the subject matter before us.

If we here to follow evidence-based policy-making, the evidence all around us, in peer-reviewed journals and examples from countries all around the world, shows that mandatory minimums simply do not achieve their stated objective. They do not deter crime. They do not reduce rates. In fact, they have been such an abject failure in terms of expanding prison populations, many states around the world have started to roll them back, even in Texas. Texas has decided that system does not work.

We do not know what motivates people to commit crimes. The reasons are as varied as the individuals themselves. Do we think that someone who is about to commit a crime will stop for a single moment to think they had better not do it because they could possibly being put in jail for 14 years as punishment? No. The punishment is not a deterrent. The heat of the moment is often what motivates people to commit crime.

I think that the approach of mandatory minimums, its philosophical underpinning, is a lack of trust in judges to make the right decision. In our corner of the House, we believe that judges are the only ones who understand the facts of the case, the unique circumstances of the individuals and the factors surrounding the crime that was committed.

The Criminal Code, lest we forget, already has provisions which allow judges, through subsection 718.2, to take aggravating factors into account. Judges can look at the severity of the crime, whether it was perpetrated because of racially motivated hatred or whether it was against a person with a disability. They can take all of those factors into account and can increase or reduce the sentence as necessary.

We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach to criminal justice because no two cases are the same, and no two individuals who appear before a judge are the same. I have every faith that, if a hardened criminal who has not learned his or her ways and is again appearing before a judge for a similar crime, that the judge is going to be fully capable of looking at the individual's record and doling out the appropriate punishment.

I will leave it at that because the part I really want to focus my attention on is the part that would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Bill C-5 would add a declaration of principles, and a warning and referrals section. In my mind, these are good, important first steps, but they come nowhere near the importance of actually moving towards full decriminalization.

My home province of British Columbia is the epicentre of the opioid epidemic. Communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, particularly Duncan, are seeing the effects of this every day. It is an epidemic that, over the last six years, has left a wake of carnage. It has destroyed families, and loved ones are gone forever, for something that we had the power to prevent through good policy-making, but have so far failed to do so. That is what I was talking about when I referred, in my opening remarks, to missed opportunities and not seizing the moment to implement bold policy.

Warnings, referrals and a declaration of principles is in no way a replacement for the decriminalization that we need to go. I am very thankful that I am in a caucus with members such as the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who today introduced a bill to do just that, because, if the Liberals are not going to go that way, we are going to show Canadians the path we could have taken had they elected a New Democratic government.

The reason this is a problem is that, last year, the public safety committee released a report on systemic racism in policing in Canada. The bill before us would give far too much discretion to police officers, and there are so many racialized Canadians, Black and indigenous people in Canada, who have a fundamental distrust of the police. They are still having problematic interactions with the police. However, the bill would give police officers the ability to make the decision as to whether to engage in a warning or a referral, or to press criminal charges. I do not believe that is right. The City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia, the City of Toronto and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police all support decriminalization, and they are calling for this bold move.

To conclude, I would like to see the government take the bold step of referring Bill C-5 to committee before we get to the second reading vote, which would allow the committee to study the bill and possibly expand it beyond its current mandate. If we have a second reading vote and then refer the bill to committee, the mandate of the committee will be severely limited. I am asking government members to allow this to happen so we can hear from the experts, expand the scope of the bill and truly get ahead with the bold criminal justice reform this country so desperately needs.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on my friend opposite's last comment respecting the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA. The amendments to the CDSA would allow prosecutors to also offer diversion. So, there is pre-charge, as well as post-charge, diversion in the bill.

I also want to speak about his reflections on the CSOs provided for here and whether he can give us some insight into how he feels this would impact the overall criminal justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, I will have to ask the parliamentary secretary to repeat the last part of his question. I did not catch the part about CSOs.

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

Madam Speaker, concerning the conditional sentencing orders, what are the member's reflections on the provisions that allow for the expanded use of these orders for inmates?

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

Madam Speaker, that follows the remarks in my speech where I said this is generally a positive thing, as it is allowing for more discretion. I think it fits within a philosophy that we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach to justice.

Where the circumstances warrant, and when a judge or Crown prosecutors believe that someone would be best served with an alternative to jail time, then we should give them the freedom to do so because they understand the facts of the case, the individual and the circumstances in which the crime was committed.

We have far too many racialized—

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

I will have to allow time for other questions.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.