Debates of March 24th, 2021

Criminal Code

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the presumptions upon which the hon. member bases his question are completely false based on the evidence. If people are Black or indigenous, they are more likely to be stopped by the police. They are more likely to be charged with a crime that carries a minimum mandatory penalty.

The point of bringing back discretion for first-time offenders, offenders who do not pose a risk to society, is precisely to keep them out of the criminal justice system. Serious offences will be punished seriously. We are giving back discretion at the lower end of the spectrum so judges, for example, can take into account a Gladue report, which tells judges they should be accounting for very particular circumstances, such as residential school or history of intergenerational trauma.

This is precisely what we are doing. It is true to the common law, but it is also true to better justice policy and it has been a call from every major commission in Canada over the last number of years.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, what we have heard from the minister on a very important bill, Bill C-22, has certainly been educational so far. I think the minister and everyday Canadians probably have a very different idea of what is a serious offence and the types of offences whereby criminals should be held accountable.

I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-22.

When this bill was first introduced, I read the news release on it, heard the minister's comments and, like many Canadians, took the government at its word about what this bill would do. Unfortunately, when we actually saw the text of the bill, we saw that this was not about simple possession of drugs; that this was not about minor crimes, as the minister just remarked in his statement; and that it was not about minor offences.

I want to highlight the text of the bill and what it actually would do. I think most Canadians would be alarmed by the approach the government is taking.

First, I will talk about mandatory minimums and the elimination of mandatory prison time for what the government is saying are minor offences. What are these minor offences? They include robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking. What do all those mandatory prison sentences have in common? They predate the previous Conservative government. Most of them are one-year minimums that were brought in by Liberal governments. We did not hear the Liberal minister mention that in his press release, and it would have been good of him to do so.

I think Canadians would be surprised that the bill in fact would do away with minimum sentences on all those offences, and that was certainly not made clear by the government. In fact, the government's messaging was primarily framed as turning a page on Conservative justice policy. There are two things that are worth raising on that.

I am proud to support strong sentences and prison time for individuals who conduct drive-by shootings, robbery with a firearm or crimes like weapons trafficking. This is impacting Canadians from coast to coast. Whether people live in an urban centre or a rural area, they deserve to be safe from crime. In fact, I think most Canadians would agree with that, which is why the Liberals will not talk about what offences they are actually repealing mandatory prison time for. We just heard the Minister of Justice speak. He did not list the firearms offences, like I just did, that would have their punishments lowered under the bill.

Second, the former Conservative government certainly did bring in some mandatory prison sentences for violent offences like the ones I just listed. It is worth noting, though, that if we trace the mandatory prison sentences back, we can trace many of them to 1995 and beyond, under former Liberal governments. In fact, we can even trace the mandatory prison sentence for using a firearm in the commission of an offence back to former Primer Minister Trudeau in the 1970s. Many of the mandatory minimums being maintained by the Liberal government, being kept in the Criminal Code were implemented and strengthened by a former Conservative government.

This is all to highlight the fact that this is largely the Liberals leaning heavily on warped communications to make reforms to the Criminal Code to weaken penalties for crimes that most Canadians would say deserve mandatory prison time.

Now I will touch on the mandatory prison time being eliminated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Liberals would have us believe this is just about simple possession of drugs. In fact, Bill C-22 tells us it is just the opposite.

Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance schedule I or II, for example heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. People would be forgiven if they were confused, because the federal government's news release does not mention that it will be eliminating mandatory prison time for drug traffickers. It does not mention that they will be eliminating mandatory prison time for those importing or exporting drugs. Nor does it mention that Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory prison time for the production of drugs like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

I hypothesize that the government's news release does not mention any of this because it recognizes that Canadians would not support eliminating mandatory prison time for drug traffickers. To be clear, these are not people in simple possession of drugs. These are people who are preying each and every day on addicts, on people who need help. These are the individuals taking advantage of them in our communities. These are the people involved in criminal activities and are actively preying on those who struggle every day with addiction.

There is a component in the bill that codifies principles that police officers and prosecutors should follow when determining whether to lay charges, but the fact is that police officers already have the ability to use their discretion when determining to lay charges. Further, the director of public prosecutions previously issued a directive to prosecutors telling them to avoid prosecuting simple possession charges unless there are major public safety concerns. This change, in practice, will therefore have little impact.

The Conservatives believe that those struggling with addiction or mental health issues should get the help they need. Many Canadians struggling with addiction should have access to treatment rather than prison if their crime was non-violent. However, the bill before us would do absolutely nothing to address that.

I will now move on the to the conditional sentencing component of the bill.

Bill C-22 would make a number of offences eligible for conditional sentencing, which means a person would serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home. Again, the government's news release does not outline what those offences are. The minister referred to them as minor offences. Well, here are some examples of offences for which a conditional sentence would be available under Bill C-22: manslaughter, discharge of a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a firearm, robbery, breaking and entering a dwelling-house, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house, assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm, sexual assault, abduction of a person under 14 and kidnapping. The government did not mention any of these specific offences in its news release. It completely brushed over this point and referred to them as minor offences. I think almost all parliamentarians and Canadians would agree that those are in fact serious offences and that people should not be serving a sentence from the comfort of their own home if they have just finished burning down one of ours.

The government has said that removing the section of the Criminal Code that prevents conditional sentences from being issued for the offences I just listed would allow for more effective rehabilitation and reintegration by enabling individuals to maintain employment or to continue caring for children or family members. Quite frankly, I do not think someone convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, manslaughter or the many other offences I listed should be eligible for house arrest, and I think most Canadians agree on that point.

The Conservatives support reducing recidivism, but Bill C-22 is not the way to tackle it. In fact, my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, has introduced Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. This bill would set up a framework of measures to help reduce recidivism, reducing the number of people coming into continual contact with the criminal justice system. I hope members on all sides of the House will support it.

We have seen a trend from the government in its failure to respond or stand up for victims of crime. In November of last year, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime called on the government to proceed with the in-depth parliamentary review of the Canadian victims bill of rights, as required under the legislation, so that further means to protect victims of crime could be identified. This has yet to happen.

This is an opportunity to strengthen the act and ensure that supports are made available for victims. The federal ombudsman for victims of crime said that based on the data available to her, it appeared the objectives of the act established in 2015 have not been met. Her office released a series of recommendations in a progress report that should be reviewed more fully in the parliamentary review that the government should proceed with quickly to ensure that victims and their families receive the support they deserve.

A few days after the report from the federal ombudsman was released, a decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down a section of the Criminal Code allowing for consecutive life sentences. This was the case of a man who murdered six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017—

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

My apologies, but we have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I had the chance to do a background review on my hon. colleague, and I see that he was a lawyer before his time in Parliament. I was too, and I know there are going to be different ideologies on this legislation through and through. When I look at it, I do not see how I, as a parliamentarian, should have the discretion to decide sentences.

The member talked about discretion a lot in his speech. As he is someone with a legal background, does he not believe that we should be giving judges and the people who can hear the facts and particular circumstances of a case the discretion to put sentencing in place, as opposed to allowing parliamentarians, without any context, to set mandatory minimum sentences?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that judges should have discretion when it comes to sentencing, but this is also the role of Parliament. We are the ones who decide, through the Criminal Code, what is a criminal act, and we set out the parameters for a minimum sentence or a maximum sentence. That is part of our job and it is not a partisan thing. Many of the minimums being eliminated by the Liberal government were introduced by previously Liberal governments. This is about ensuring that there is an appropriate sentence for someone who commits a very serious crime.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fundy Royal for his speech. This is not about reducing sentences but tailoring them. This also does not mean that some offences are not necessarily serious.

When the member said that police officers can use their own discretion when determining whether to lay charges, sometimes the reality is that charges must be laid because the actions were serious, even though the external circumstances would justify a different penalty.

In the end, as the previous speaker stated, that is why this bill seeks to put power back into the hands of judges. Does the hon. member not believe that judges have adequate training?

If we simply needed people to look at a chart of minimum sentences and tick one off, could we simply do without judges and their many years of training?

Is the member questioning judges' training?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the bill does not deal with minor and insignificant offences. It deals with what I would say are very serious offences, such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. Parliament, in its wisdom in the past, has assigned to offences not only maximum sentences, which impact a judge's discretion, but also minimum sentences. This has been done with Parliament's wisdom. It is up to us and within our power to change that, but it has always been the case that Parliament sets out the parameters whereby judges sentence people.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's intervention was very interesting. I was very happy to hear him talk about support for those struggling with addictions and struggling with the possession of small amounts of drugs.

I am wondering whether he supports emergency exemptions for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act concerning personal possession and supports the full decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use, potentially even going so far as to support safe supply. We have listened to health care providers, front-line service workers, police and public health officials, and we know this is the way to save the lives of people struggling with addictions. Is he supportive of those initiatives?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think a lot of us were quite surprised about this when we read the bill. This has nothing to do with the simple possession of drugs. In fact, it has everything to do with the people who are preying on addicts in our communities. For trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, and even the production of schedule I and schedule II drugs, minimum sentences are being removed. We are lessening the sentences of those who are preying on victims. That is moving in the exact wrong direction. I agree—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking this afternoon to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Liberals have advertised this bill as a response to the disproportionate number of Black, indigenous and other marginalized Canadians caught up in Canada's criminal justice system. They have advertised this bill as removing what they have characterized as unfair and disproportionate mandatory jail time for what they claim to be minor offences. The Liberals have repeatedly advertised in that regard that Bill C-22 eliminates mandatory jail time for simple possession. On its face, it all sounds pretty good. The only problem is that Bill C-22 is not as advertised by the Liberals.

The bill has very little to do with helping marginalized Canadians and persons who are struggling with drug addiction, as the Liberals have advertised. It has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating mandatory jail time for simple possession, because there is no mandatory jail time for simple possession. Rather, Bill C-22 is about the government advancing a radical, ideological agenda that is not evidence-based. It is based on putting the rights of criminals first. Through its false advertising, this cynical government in a cynical and dishonest way is seeking to change the channel from what the bill is really all about. Quite frankly, I believe the more Canadians learn about Bill C-22, the more alarmed the vast majority of Canadians will be.

It is true that this legislation does eliminate mandatory jail time, but it does not eliminate mandatory jail time for so-called minor offences. Rather, the bill removes mandatory jail time for some extremely serious offences, including serious firearms offences.

What sorts of firearms offences does this legislation eliminate mandatory jail time for? Those offences include robbery with a gun, extortion with a gun, discharging a firearm with the purpose of inflicting injury, weapons trafficking, using a gun in the commission of an offence and possession of a gun obtained in the commission of an offence. I could go on.

I say this to the government, through you, Madam Speaker: How does that benefit or help marginalized Canadians? The simple answer is that it does nothing in that regard. Instead, it helps give a free pass to dangerous criminals.

This is quite ironic because this is the government that talks a lot about getting tough on guns and gun crime. When the Liberals talk about getting tough on guns, what they really mean is getting tough on law-abiding Canadians who own guns. We see this in Bill C-21, which was introduced three days before the Liberals introduced this deeply flawed piece of legislation, which imposes onerous new restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners and threatens law-abiding firearms owners with jail time if they fail to comply.

There we have it, in terms of the Liberal approach. If someone happens to be a law-abiding firearms owner, the Liberals are coming after them and threatening them with jail, but if they happen to be a serious criminal who commits serious offences with guns, the Liberals are here to help them stay out of jail. Talk about a mismatched set of priorities on the part of the government. Talk about putting ideology ahead of common sense and public safety.

This legislation would not just eliminate mandatory jail times for serious firearms offences. This bill would also remove mandatory jail times for serious drug related offences, as my colleague, the member for Fundy Royal, pointed out. These include drug trafficking, exporting and importing drugs, and possession for the purpose of trafficking. I could go on.

That is very inconsistent with the false advertising of the government, which says this bill is about helping people struggling with addictions. In fact, what this bill is really about is helping those who prey on some of the most vulnerable Canadians, including Canadians who are struggling with addictions. It is simply a further example of the dishonest approach the government has taken with respect to selling this deeply flawed and ideological piece of legislation.

The difference in the approach of the previous Conservative government, compared with the approach of the current government to Canada's criminal justice system and holding dangerous criminals accountable, could not be more stark. The previous Conservative government worked tirelessly to strengthen Canada's criminal justice system by holding dangerous criminals accountable under the law.

Among the measures taken by the previous Conservative government was ending house arrest for some very serious offences. Bill C-22 would eviscerate the measures that were introduced by the previous Conservative government by allowing persons convicted of some very serious offences to serve their time in their homes, perhaps next to you, Madam Speaker, instead of behind bars where they belong.

Offences that could be served in the community if this legislation is passed include manslaughter, prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, kidnapping a minor, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000 and arson for a fraudulent purpose. That is just scratching the surface.

Bill C-22 would put the rights of criminals ahead of victims, public safety and safe streets and communities. It is why we, on this side of the House, will vigorously oppose this legislation every step of the way.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, my father, who was a political commentator, once referred to a Conservative minister of justice as the “minister of crime and punishment”, and I am very proud to be speaking on behalf of a government that has a minister of justice.

The Conservatives have several times referenced the discretion of the police in the justice system, and it is clear that Conservatives trust the police more than judges. I will let them explain that.

Extreme crimes would still get extreme sentences. That is clear. This bill deals with mandatory minimum sentences, and is focused more on prevention than on punishment. The former governments' approaches, Liberal and Conservative, clearly have not worked. The situation is getting worse. It is getting more violent and there are more victims. The status quo is unacceptable.

Every time we talk about prevention, whether it is gun control or new investments in housing, child care, education, health care or recreation, Conservatives vote against prevention. There is no evidence, none, that mandatory minimum sentences prevent crime. There is none.

If there is no evidence mandatory minimum sentences prevent crime, what are Conservatives prepared to do to stop a crime before they respond to it with more punishment? Why are they more interested in building jails than building housing, saving people rather than saving—

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

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I regret to interrupt the member to advise him that he is supposed to be wearing a tie during his interventions and he is not.

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

The member is quite right. I am sorry I did not notice that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

My apologies.

We will give the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton the opportunity to respond.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say respectfully to my colleague that I disagree with the premise of his question that mandatory jail times do not work. Mandatory jail times have always been part of Canada's criminal justice system. If the hon. member talks about prevention with respect to, for example, firearms offences, surely that hon. member would recognize that 80% of firearms offences in Canada occur as a result of guns smuggled into Canada. That is why I was very surprised that the hon. member, who represents a downtown Toronto riding that has issues with gun violence, would have voted against the hon. member for Markham—Unionville's bill—

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Point of order. Point of order. That is not an accurate representation of my vote. If you—

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

Would members respect the fact that I have to give them the opportunity to speak? If the member for Spadina—Fort York has a point of order, he needs to ask for it.

Does the member have a point of order?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do have a point of order. If the member opposite would care to check the record and check the facts, he would see that I actually supported his colleague's motion. I spoke to it in the House and was thanked by many of the member's colleagues for standing on that principle, not because it is a preventative measure, but because I do not think guns should be coming into this country.

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

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member unreservedly for my error with respect to his vote, but it is unfortunate that his colleagues did not take his lead.