Debates of April 13th, 2021

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Conservative approach to the justice system is that they assume every offence is exactly the same, when there are always complicating individual factors. In the Criminal Code, there exists already section 718.2, which allows a judge to increase a sentence depending on the severity of the case.

Why do the Conservatives not have faith in our judges to dole out the appropriate punishment when the Criminal Code already has a section that allows them to do just that?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would provide a very simple answer like I started originally. It is the responsibility of us, as members of Parliament and legislators, to give guidelines. I believe that is one of the fundamental roles that we have. In my time as mayor of a small city, there were two things that I took very seriously. One was the management of the finances of my little city and one was the safety of my citizens. Those two were paramount. As a member of Parliament, I believe the safety of my citizens, of my riding and this country is paramount, and I believe it is our job as members of Parliament to set the guidelines, to establish the rules and laws to which those guidelines must submit.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a wonderful job, as always, in the Speaker's chair.

I would just like to say I am coming from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.

When I heard there was a bill coming up with some of the content here, I was really supportive of it. I asked if I could speak to it to show my support. There are five items from my riding, my area or my perspective over the years, which I am very supportive of.

First, the reduction of overrepresentation of indigenous people in our jails. Parliament has wrestled with this for a long time, trying to come up with solutions to this. Two parties have already mentioned in this debate that roughly 5% of people in Canada are indigenous, yet they make up about 30% in federal jails.

Second, I would like to see movement towards the success Portugal has had in its dealings related to drugs as a health issue.

Third, the bill would make society safer, and I will go into the reasons why.

Fourth, it will lower costs for government. Almost every member of Parliament has ideas where that saved money could be spent, or it could pay down the debt.

Finally, it will reduce the number of victims.

I will explain how the three elements of the bill would do this, from my perspective. I have not written these down in a speech. I have just scratched out some points to make.

First, on the mandatory minimums and the effect on indigenous people and racialized people in our justice system. A large number of those particular people are in jails because of offences that have mandatory minimums.

Second, related to mandatory minimums—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Sorry to interrupt, but I believe the parliamentary secretary forgot to indicate that he is going to split his time with the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I did forget that and I thank the member.

I will now go to the three main elements of the bill and explain how they would fill the objectives of which I am supportive. I mentioned the unbalance of people in federal institutions. Certain mandatory minimums have also been found unconstitutional because they are excessive. They do not reasonably match the crime and the criminal with the punishment. People can get off unreasonably and I do not think others would want that if that happened.

Another item related to the mandatory minimums is it leads to longer trials and often more cases end in acquittals, that many would not have occurred if people were not facing an unreasonable option as an end result. Another reason, from my perspective, is for first-time offenders on minor offences. The evidence has shown that often it is less safe and has less positive results when first-time offenders are put in jail as opposed to some of the alternatives like diversion and other types of programs and treatments.

We are all social animals. If people do not think they are, they can try to go against their own political party members on a particular issue.

I call jail the university of crime. If we put people in jail for the first time, they will learn from the people they deal with every day, and they will learn from every day on how to become more hardened criminals, rather than from dealing with their problem.

Some people say that putting criminals in jail makes communities safer. It does not if they are making more hardened criminals. The point people neglect to mention when making that case is that virtually almost everyone gets out of jail, so we want them safer when they get out and we want them rehabilitated.

Another reason to remove some mandatory minimums is that we cannot really trump other provisions of the justice system, like the Gladue provisions and other such provisions on racialized reports, by having a mandatory minimum. There is a conflict there. A number of people from various parties have raised the fact that it limits a trained judge from the individual tailoring of a sentence to the severity of the crime and the background of the criminal.

The second major item in the bill is related to the greater use of conditional sentences. For people who want evidence-based policy and legislation, it has been proven time and time again that people are far less likely to reoffend if they have the appropriate rehabilitation. A conditional sentence can be very hard with the treatment that can be assigned with it. It is not easy for someone, but it is much more effective.

I remember when we were dealing with this and debating it about 10 years ago. A big supporter of this was Conservative Senator Vern White, who had been the police chief in Whitehorse and then in Ottawa. At that time, recidivism rates were around 40% to 60%, and the conditional sentencing rates were 10% to 30%. Much progress has been made in many cases.

I appreciate the Bloc's view on this from the experiences it has had in Quebec with diversion, conditional sentences and other forms of dealing with people, especially young offenders. I remember in February 2001, Michel Bellehumeur from Berthier—Montcalm was really passionate about this. In fact, I think he spent most of his term in the House of Commons passionately making that case about more appropriate treatment of people. In that case, it was young offenders, but also more progressive and successful treatment of first-time offenders.

Also, I want to clarify what some have talked about with respect to safety and conditional sentencing. Once again, that is only allowed if the person is not a “danger to society ”, which is the term for use by the judge and only for a sentence that is less than two years. There have been a number of successful stories of women who were not put in jail, but were given conditional sentences to stay with their family and their social network, and go to treatment.

The third element of the bill relates to the possession of drugs. In the majority of crimes, people are either on substance or are trying to get money for a substance, including alcohol. Therefore, I personally would move more toward what Portugal is doing. It is a step in the right direction. If people have an addiction, the last thing they need is a criminal record. It is harder for them to get a job, which is what may have caused the addiction in the first place, to feed their family, etc.

Finally, the federal economic statement, which I hope we will be voting on this week, has support for some of the items that people have mentioned, such as support for the Gladue report, the race and cultural assessments and community justice centres, all of which can deal with the root causes and the situations people are in. From my perspective, this is a move in the right direction on a number of fronts to make it safer, to reduce the number of victims, to reduce the costs and to have a fairer justice system.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate him for his speech.

I am hearing a lot of comments about sentencing. We know that harsher sentences do not result in fewer crimes being committed. Prisons are overcrowded, and people from racialized or indigenous communities are overrepresented in our prison system. We are hearing a lot about good will. We are also hearing a lot about protecting victims of serious crimes.

However, I have not heard anything about a solution for the root cause of the problem. It is not necessarily by reducing sentences, eliminating minimum sentences or encouraging convicted criminals to undergo therapy that we are going to find a solution for the root cause. Racialized communities and indigenous people continue to account for a large proportion of the prison population, and I would like my colleague to tell us how to solve this problem.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does deal with them, but unfortunately only once they are in the system. Then we try to ensure they do not go back into the system.

The member is exactly right. We have lobbied and made the case for years that we have to deal with the root causes as to why people come into the system in the first place. That is why we have the biggest housing fund in Canadian history. It all starts with housing first. If people do not have a home, how can they deal with other problems, such as addictions or anything else that might lead them into the justice system?

That is why we have increased the homelessness programs. I think we have more than doubled those. We have increased money for mental health, because a number of people in the mental health system end up in hospitals or jails when there should be mental health supports. That is why we have increased the special contributions to every province and territory for mental health. It is why we have supported indigenous and other cultures to ensure they are included in our policies and laws so they do not feel disjointed, which could add to them getting into the criminal justice system.

All these items relating to poverty and addiction need to be dealt with to reduce the root causes. Then we would not need to have a major debate like this.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament representing a riding in Alberta, I have been horrified by our provincial government's response to the opioid crisis that is devastating our province and other regions of the country.

The lack of understanding, the lack of empathy and the lack of common sense shown by the UCP in regard to this issue has meant that Albertans, more than ever, are depending on the federal government to step up and protect our loved ones, and to treat addiction and substance abuse as a medical issue, not a criminal issue.

Sadly, this bill simply removes the mandatory minimums, but individuals who struggle with substance issues will still end up in the criminal justice system.

The member spoke about how he possibly did not agree with this, but I wonder how he can support legislation that does not go far enough, that does not take people struggling with addiction out of the criminal justice system.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should let the perfect be the enemy of moving forward, of having some success. We have to take steps. This is a move in exactly that direction. It will reduce some. I would like to move as far as Portugal has.

As the member very appropriately said, it is a health issue. A majority of crimes in Canada are caused by someone with an addiction or someone raising money to support an addiction. That is where the support needs to be to deal with that. It is not a criminal issue. Criminalizing people with addictions just accentuates the problems that would put them in jail. I agree.

It is a move in that direction, maybe not as far as some people want, but we have to take as many steps and opportunities as we can to move in that direction.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I join you from the traditional territories of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe people and the treaty land of the Williams Treaties First Nations to speak to Bill C-22, particularly on the issue of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The importance of equitable sentencing laws in the criminal justice system cannot be overstated. Indeed, imprisonment represents one of the most grave intrusions by the state into the lives of individuals and, as such, sentencing laws must be carefully reviewed to ensure that they reflect the values that Canadians hold dear. Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies with the current sentencing regime provided by the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that disproportionately impact indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

Bill C-22 proposes to repeal the particular MMPs that have shown to have the most significant impact on these communities, while ensuring that the courts can continue to impose sentences for violent and serious crimes that respond to their seriousness and the harm caused.

When considering the appropriate sanction for an offender in a criminal case, a judge must effectively balance the principles of proportionality, parity and restraint. The principle of proportionality requires a sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The principle of parity requires it to be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. Perhaps most importantly, the principle of restraint dictates that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions can be appropriate under the circumstances.

Balancing these principles is a highly individualized process that demands an assessment of all relevant factors, including personal characteristics, life experiences and the individual standing before the court. However, when an offence carries an MMP, the minimum punishment is prescribed by law, which removes a certain amount of discretion from judges and means that they cannot impose sentences below the legislated minimum, even in cases where they find that a shorter period of imprisonment or no imprisonment at all would be an appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the offence.

While proponents of MMPs would argue that this ensures consistency and fairness in sentences for the same crime, the reality is that for some crimes this cannot and does not yield a fair result, which has negative impacts on the justice system at large, as well as on the victims. MMPs can be inconsistent with the direction of the Criminal Code requiring judges to use imprisonment with restraint and to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

Between 2007 and 2017, data shows that indigenous and Black individuals were more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP than were other Canadians. In fact, the proportion of indigenous adults admitted with an offence punishable by an MMP almost doubled between those years, from 14% to 26%. Similarly, in 2018-19, Black persons represented 7.2% of the federal inmate population, but only 3% of the Canadian population.

Indigenous people and Black Canadians are particularly overrepresented for firearm and drug offences carrying MMPs. Specifically, Black Canadians comprised 43% of individuals convicted of importing and exporting drugs in 2016-17, while indigenous people comprised 40% of those admitted for a firearm-related offence in the same year.

Bill C-22 responds to this data by proposing to repeal MMPs for all drug offences in the CDSA, as well as for one tobacco-related offence and 13 firearm offences in the Criminal Code.

MMPs would remain for offences such as murder, sexual assault, all child sexual offences and for certain offences involving restricted or prohibited firearms or where the offence involves a firearm and is linked to organized crime.

While MMPs have been in place since the Criminal Code was first enacted, they were largely the exception until relatively recently. Over the last two decades, there has been an increased reliance on MMPs to further denounce crimes, deter offenders and separate them from society. The proliferation of MMPs has resulted in an increase in successful charter challenges at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court, culminating in two significant decisions. The first decision was Nur, in 2015, involving three- and five-year MMPs for illegal possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, and the second was the Lloyd decision, in 2016, involving a one-year drug MMP. Both cases make it clear that the use of MMPs for offences that cover a broad range of conduct is susceptible to charter challenges. More charter challenges mean more trials, increased costs and delayed justice, outcomes that are good for no one.

It is my understanding that as of February 8, 2021, out of 560 ongoing charter challenges in Canada tracked by the federal Department of Justice, 47% are challenges to MMPs. The proposed reforms will therefore improve the efficiency of the justice system by lowering the volume of charter challenges in the courts, which put additional pressures on their already limited time and resources.

The MMPs being repealed in this bill have failed to achieve their purported objectives: deterrence and the protection of public safety. Research has shown that increases in the severity of sanctions actually increase the likelihood of recidivism, thus failing to deter crime or protect the safety of the public. We know that a justice system that provides a one-size-fits-all response to crime can be ineffective and lead to unjust results for victims, for offenders and for Canadians in general.

Courts must have the flexibility to order sentences that reflect the circumstances of each case. In some cases, jail will be appropriate, and this bill would not change the ability of judges to sentence offenders to incarceration when it is warranted. However, in other cases, sentences that more effectively address the root causes of the offence and that better address the harm caused may be more appropriate. I might add that they would be more effective in ensuring public safety as well, because they reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-22 would ensure that the courts are still able to impose tough sentences for violent and serious crimes, while restoring their ability to consider the systemic factors that disproportionately impact indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and marginalized people, and impose non-custodial sentences or sentences of imprisonment below the MMP when satisfied that the sentence would be appropriate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the gravity of the offence.

The reforms would also respond to recommendations from many stakeholders in the area of anti-racism and the criminal justice system, including key stakeholders in my riding of Newmarket-Aurora, whom I had the pleasure of bringing together for a conversation with the Minister of Justice back in October.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has also called for the elimination of indigenous overrepresentation in correctional institutions over the next decade, including through amendments to the Criminal Code in the area of MMPs. Similarly, in its final report, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called for all levels of government to evaluate the impact of MMPs on the over-incarceration of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people, and to take appropriate action to address their over-incarceration. More recently, the parliamentary Black caucus, composed of senators and members from all parties, called for the elimination of MMPs in the statement issued on June 20, 2020, which I am proud to support.

Bill C-22 shows that we are listening to the calls of our fellow Canadians to bring about evidence-based reforms to the sentencing regime. The proposed amendments are an important step toward creating a justice system that represents and protects all Canadians in an equitable and non-discriminatory way.

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make myself. Several people today have noted that the science with respect to mandatory minimum penalties has been conclusive and their usefulness has been completely debunked. In my opinion, this is false. I reached out to the Library of Parliament a few weeks ago and asked them this very question. Their conclusion to me, in a lengthy document that I would be happy to share, is that while deterrence, as such, may or may not be increased in certain punishments, it “is not the only factor in the debate over MMPs”, as mandatory minimum penalties are called, “and some other factors are more commonly addressed from a qualitative rather than quantitative standpoint.” Their final conclusion to me is, “Due to the variety of different metrics employed, the Library is unable to definitively comment on the degree to which scholarly opinion is settled with respect to MMPs.”

I wonder if the member could comment on the status of the science in question and the research report from the library.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There was no interpretation for a minute. However, the problem now seems to have been resolved.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the member for her patience with the interpretation issues.

We will now ask the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora for his response.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will have varying degrees of interpretation as to what is most effective. What I see in what is being proposed here is that we are making progress. I am not sure we will reach end-state resolution, but we are moving forward, and this bill would go a long way toward dealing with the overrepresentation that is caused by the MMPs. It is long overdue for us to give consideration to correct that shortcoming.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I am pleased to rise virtually in the House to talk about Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Liberals want to amend the Criminal Code to repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish other measures for simple drug possession offences.

Bill C-22 is the Prime Minister's attempt to honour his 2015 campaign promise. Unfortunately, every time we examine Liberal bills in committee or in the House, we find major flaws that suggest they never bother to consult people on the ground. That is the case with this bill too.

It is important to thoroughly analyze what the Liberals are trying to do with this bill, in which the Minister of Justice is proposing amendments that will have major consequences for Canadians' safety and well-being. I will point out various elements of the bill that I think are worth a closer look.

Bill C-22 eliminates some of the mandatory minimum sentences set out in the Criminal Code for offences involving weapons, including firearms. For example, the mandatory minimum sentence set out in subsection 85(3) for use of a firearm in the commission of an offence would be eliminated. The mandatory minimum sentence set out in subsection 92(3) for possession of an unauthorized weapon, whether it be a firearm or other weapon, would also be eliminated.

The bill eliminates all the mandatory minimum sentences set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill creates new provisions that advise the police or prosecutor to consider an individual's drug use and to refer the person to a treatment program. However, it is important to understand that some provinces do not even have drug treatment courts.

Bill C-22 also proposes to eliminate certain provisions of the Criminal Code related to tobacco, particularly the sale and transfer of tobacco products without an official licence. That is another thing that we are trying to understand. Finally, the bill proposes to eliminate some of the restrictions set out in section 742.1 of the Criminal Code so that more offences are eligible for community-based sentences.

Everything I just said contradicts the Liberals' official position on public safety as it relates to firearms. The message of Polytechnique was well understood, with the Liberals always claiming to be doing a lot and much more. However, the reality is that bills such as this hamper the courts and law enforcement and greatly diminish the significance of crime when the opposite should be happening.

We always have difficulty understanding how, on the one hand, the Liberal discourse is about tougher measures when, on the other hand, their actions have the opposite effect. This is totally inconsistent in terms of public safety and the protection of Canadians.

Today we are debating Bill C-22, but we cannot forget Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with respect to firearms. There is no consensus on this other bill among gun supporters, such as owners of guns for sport shooting or hunting, or among those who oppose guns and want them to be banned, such as the Polytechnique advocates. Bill C-21 does not do nearly enough, and the Prime Minister is not addressing the real issues.

Bill C-22 would reduce the sentences for violent gun crimes. We are trying to understand why the government wants to reduce sentences for people who commit gun crimes, when we should be doing the opposite.

I remind members that the Conservatives and my colleague introduced Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to possession of unlawfully imported firearms, which would have strengthened the Criminal Code by addressing smuggled guns and gun crimes. However, the Liberals showed their true colours and chose to vote against this bill. They would rather protect criminals than protect law-abiding citizens.

We cannot understand it. We do not understand how the Liberals can be so dishonest with Canadians when it comes to protection, public safety and firearms. The introduction of Bills C-21 and C-22 is not going to do anything to reduce gun crime. It will also not do anything to reduce the number of guns circulating in Canada, and it will simply not prevent criminals from getting their hands on illegal firearms.

That was made very clear two weeks ago on J.E., a 30-minute investigative reporting program on TVA. I encourage everyone to watch it. Those who do not speak French should find a way to get it translated, because it is really good.

The report clearly showed what is happening with firearms in Canada, how illegal firearms from the United States are streaming right across the border. We have land management problems, our customs officers do not have sufficient resources, and the law does not allow action to be taken in certain areas. Aerial images taken by drones showed traffickers bringing in weapons by snowmobile in the winter and by boat in the summer. If members want evidence, here it is.

Montreal is starting to have the same problem as Toronto. It is easy for street gang members to get their hands on illegal firearms with the serial numbers scratched off, and young gang members are taking pride in committing crimes with the guns that are coming across the border.

Not one of the measures proposed in Bill C-21 and Bill C-22 will solve that problem even though that is what we need to focus on. Instead of helping people with drug addiction, the Liberals are reducing mandatory prison time for those producing and trafficking harmful drugs. Instead of tackling criminal gangs, they are reducing mandatory prison time for those in possession of illegal firearms.

No family should ever feel unsafe in their community, in their neighbourhood or walking down their street. The previous Conservative government pledged to change those laws and keep our streets and communities safe. Before the 2019 election, we released our platform entitled “A Safer Canada”, a three-pronged action plan targeting street gangs and arms trafficking, among other things. We covered it all in our platform.

Then the Liberals regained power. It was fortunate for them that they won the election, but it was unfortunate for Canadians because the Liberals are not doing what needs to be done to protect people and fix the firearms problem once and for all.

To read Bill C-22 we can only assume that the Liberals are incapable of discharging their governmental responsibility to ensure our safety. In contrast, the Conservative government always brought in measures to ensure the safety of all Canadians. The Prime Minister claims he wants to help Canadians, but he is doing nothing to ensure that criminals are brought to justice and answer for their actions.

We as Conservatives support our Canadian justice system as defined by our charter and our Constitution, and we do not support a justice system that would favour criminals to the detriment of Canadians's safety and security.

During this difficult time, Canadians need to know that the government is ensuring their safety and security. The Liberal government needs to show leadership and stand up to criminals. Canadians cannot afford for Parliament to get this wrong. This bill is extremely worrying for our children and for the future of our justice system.

We will do the job that Canadians have entrusted us to do: asking the government questions to ensure that the safety of Canadians remains the top priority.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to talk abut something that is critically important to us.

We are talking about drug trafficking. We must obviously do everything we can to put an end to it, because it affects our youth in particular and many people in our society.

However, the NDP has put forward a proposal to decriminalize simple possession of narcotics. We are not talking about hardened criminals or traffickers, but about people who often also have problems. This overloads the judicial system. For the NDP, it is not a police issue, but a health and social services issue.

What does my colleague think of the NDP proposal, which would actually prevent our prisons from becoming overcrowded with people who are victims of drug trafficking, rather than perpetrators?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I have already mentioned in this place during our study of other bills, the Conservatives are willing to look at this with some degree of openness.

In the case of simple possession, these individuals are often going through problems or have developed an addiction. They are not the source of this social problem. Rather, we need to focus on those who sell or produce drugs.

We are open to exploring this and making changes, as the NDP has suggested.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his discussion this afternoon on Bill C-22.

One of the things the bill proposes is a reduction of mandatory minimums. A little known fact is that many of those mandatory minimums were put into effect by previous Liberal governments. I am wondering if the hon. member could speak to the consequences of lowering mandatory minimum sentences for the most severe crimes, which the bill proposes to diminish.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This provision does indeed reflect the inconsistencies we see with this new Liberal government, which has been in place since 2015 and which we are struggling to understand. There was a time when Liberal governments had more logical positions that were more grounded in reality. However, the current Liberal government is very ideological and considers prison sentences to be problematic. These last few years, the release rate has even risen to 20%, which is a staggering jump. The government is doing everything it possibly can to empty prisons. This really reflects the ideology of the 2015 Liberal cohort. Previous governments had more common sense.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the opioid crisis is leading to the deaths of thousands of Canadians. We have a crisis right across the country.

What does the hon. member think about decriminalizing the use or simple possession of drugs, and eliminating section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that we could provide a safe supply of drugs to people who have addiction issues?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the same question asked by our colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

We are open to this idea. As I mentioned, we accept that users are for the most part victims of their drug use. We therefore must tackle the source of these drugs, many of which are imported. For example, we know that opioids, substances that are very difficult to detect because they are so small, come from Asia. Stopping them from entering Canada is not easy, but we must find every imaginable way possible to block the arrival of these products that are so harmful to Canadians.

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out briefly that there has been a suggestion in this debate that judges should have complete discretion with criminal punishments. I do not believe that is a legal principle. It is up to us here to make the laws and we have, in many cases, already fettered the judges' discretion. It is not up to the judges to choose capital punishment or corporal punishment, even if they wish to.

I want to ask the member if he believes that the House has the authority to fetter the discretion of judges in sentencing matters if it so chooses.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question.

I agree with him in part. The government and Parliament have a responsibility to enact laws and make decisions about how justice should be administered. It bothers me a bit when the justice system makes decisions that contradict the will of the House of Commons. If there is a problem with a law or if a court decides for some reason that there is a problem, Parliament must review the legislation, debate it once again and put it to a new vote. Once Parliament makes its decision, however, the courts must abide by it.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House today to speak to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This has been an issue. We come to Parliament with different goals and priorities both from our ridings perspective and also from our personal passion. One of my passions has not only been the subject of mental health but has been addictions and treatment as well, which be should be the core of this bill.

COVID-19 in the last 14 months has obviously shown that the virus is a serious public health threat for our country and for the global community, but also the growing angst and mental health challenges that many Canadians are facing is certainly something we are not talking enough about or acknowledging enough. When we look at the statistics, suicides have been increasing and issues with addictions have certainly been on the rise as well, which is unfortunate.

For those who know me, I am a political junky not only in Canada but I follow U.S. and U.K. politics quite closely. There are few examples where my view has been changed or a light has gone off, an aha moment has happened for me, more than watching the U.S. presidential election, going back to 2016. I try not to bring too much American politics into our House of Commons, but I certainly think this example and this perspective is one to which we need to listen.

At that time, the former New Jersey governor Chris Christie was running for president and was in the state of New Hampshire. For those who know the state of New Hampshire and follow politics as closely like I do, a serious opioid crisis has beleaguered that state for many years. The number of people who have become addicted and unfortunately the number of people who have lost their lives is a real crisis in that state. Chris Christie was doing a town hall, and there is a video of that. I would encourage Canadians following this debate to look at that video. It is about a six to eight minute clip. In that video, he tells the story of his late mother and his law school friend back in the day, and it certainly hit home for me.

As a society, we have to look at addictions and substance abuse in this country differently from the way we have in the past. In politics, we talk about being more compassionate, the lens in which we see people and empathy. This is one where we need to do that.

Chris Christie talked about his mother who was diagnosed with cancer numerous times. The first time she was diagnosed she went to the hospital, was treated and went into remission. Unfortunately the cancer came back. She went back to the health care system, had treatment again and beat cancer a second time. It came back a third time. At no point did anybody in the health care system say, “Sorry, you have had cancer three times, it's is a lost cause, we're not going to treat you any more.” That would be an absurd proposition for a doctor, or a government or a state to say. He said that we had to think that way when it came to addictions. People who have substance abuse problems do not belong in a prison cell; they belong in rehabilitation. They need help to get their lives back on track. This is so important. Substance abuse and addictions know no barrier when it comes to gender, race or income level. It can impact and wreck anyone's life.

I want to speak today to Bill C-22 because as a Parliament, as we begin to have these conversations, more Canadians have a degree of separation, where unfortunately a friend, or a neighbour or a colleague has battled substance abuse or abuse issues. People are becoming more compassionate and know that we do not have enough services in the country when it comes to rehabilitation.

The government had the opportunity to bring a bill forward that could address this. I think we would find strong support in the House and across the country if we were to say that we would look people with simple minor possessions. As opposed to putting them through the criminal justice system or throwing them in prison with a long sentence, we would look at them with a focus on rehabilitation. That would be great.

Some parts of the bill address that. However, it goes way beyond what is reasonable in terms of prevention. Our legislation and laws need to look after individuals who need help, who need rehabilitation. However, our legislation and law enforcement should focus on people who prey on those with addictions, those who are trafficking, those who are preying on them and those who are turning to violence when it comes to drug trafficking. If we had that in the bill, I believe there would be strong support for it. I was very disheartened when I saw the opportunity for a bill to come forward on criminal justice reform but then saw the government add several pieces that would go way beyond that.

Bill C-22 would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences when it comes to gun crimes, for example, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, possession for purpose of weapons trafficking and the list goes on.

Furthermore, there is an expansion of conditional sentencing. The bill would allow for a greater conditional sentence, such as house arrest, for a number of offences where the offender faces terms of less than two years of imprisonment. The following offences are now eligible: prison breach; criminal harassment; sexual assault; kidnapping; abduction of a person under the age of 14; trafficking or exporting schedule 3 drugs, like LSD; breaking and entering a place other than a house or dwelling; and arson for fraudulent purposes.

We do not need to make it easier for those criminals and people who prey in drug trafficking and drug control. We need to clamp down more than ever on them. We need to provide supports for those with addiction issues who need it. We talk about reducing this, but to go out now with a message to say that we will lessen sentences, give house arrest, and not take these types of serious offences as seriously as we have in the past is the wrong message to send as a Parliament, if we pass this legislation.

We have an opportunity here in the coming weeks and months to improve this. I hope the government makes serious amendments to the bill that focus on exactly what I have spent the last seven or eight minutes talking about. There is not a dollar more for a rehabilitation treatment centre anywhere in the country or a commitment to do more. We need to focus on that.

We need to let people know that government is here for them when they need support. We need to send a very strong message to those who are trafficking, those who are in the drug trade, that the police and law enforcement will get the tools they need from this Parliament to go after them and stop these acts from happening.

I look forward to the debates as they go forward, but the bill goes much further than what I believe a majority of Canadians want. They want more compassion for individuals who have an addiction or substance abuse issue, and tougher enforcement.

The law enforcement, front-line police officers are not asking us for less restrictions and penalties for those who are trafficking drugs. They are asking us to close loopholes. This revolving door that happens frustrates our law enforcement.

We had a private member's bill come forward from my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, a common-sense tough bill that would address the core issue and the core problem, and it is being ignored.

I look forward to the debate and to hear what my colleagues have to say. However, for a Canadian who is struggling, this bill does more to empower drug trafficking and those creating the root cause of this problem than finding solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much feel the empathy my hon. colleague has for people living with substance abuse disorders.

My question is more on the mandatory minimums part of his speech. I find the problem with mandatory minimums is that they take away from judicial discretion in a case. I hope the member will agree with me that every offence that goes before a judge is very unique and they all have very different circumstances. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all for every offence that is committed.

What does the member think about the existing Criminal Code section 718.2, which allows judges in cases to increase sentences based on the severity of the crimes? Does he not have faith that our judges already have tools in the Criminal Code to dole out the appropriate punishment to fit the crime?