Debates of March 30th, 2022

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the Minister of Justice back to 2019 when we had a round table in Scarborough with a number of different stakeholders who were directly impacted by mandatory minimum sentences, particularly members of the Black community. We know that the statistics are quite relevant here because MMPs have disproportionately impacted members of the Black community, as well as indigenous communities.

Can the minister give us a sense of how the changes to MMPs in Bill C-5 would ensure that fair justice is administered when it comes to racialized and indigenous people, as well as talk about conditional sentencing orders and what kind of impact those would have on sentencing?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I remember that round table very well.

This is precisely the reason why we brought forward this bill: to combat overrepresentation of Black and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. What MMPs do on crimes that do not threaten the safety and security of our society, but on fairly minor crimes or mistakes, is tie the hands of judges and restrict them from fashioning appropriate orders. The possibility now of having a conditional sentence order, which the previous Harper government rejected, would allow judges to fashion a sentence, often in the community. The community can help to rehabilitate people. If it is an indigenous community, they can use restorative justice. It allows them to fashion a sentence that actually works, that serves victims and that serves the community, instead of what we have now.

A study from Professor Kaiser-Derrick, published by the University of Manitoba Press, highlighted the vastly disproportionate and negative impact that minimum mandatory sentences and a lack of conditional sentence orders had on indigenous women. It is an endemic problem and it is a shame in this country, and we are attacking it.

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

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

Through translation, I heard the minister say, if I got it right, that this was tackling issues and offences that were not a threat to public safety. We have reckless discharge of a firearm: that means a drive-by shooting, potentially, of an occupied residence.

First, how is that not a threat to public safety? Second, the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fallacy and the argument that is being brought forth by the hon. member is quite clear. We are eliminating minimum mandatory penalties. There is still a maximum sentencing range that exists for all crimes. In the crime that he described, and in the circumstances that he described, a judge would have the flexibility and the opportunity to give a serious sentence. That is precisely what happens.

What we are doing is taking away the lower end, where a person perhaps has a few too many on a Saturday night and puts a couple of bullets into the side of an empty barn. There are differences in the way these sentences ought to happen. What we are doing is giving power back to the judges.

Judges are the hallmark of our common-law system. I do not know why the other side does not trust them.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the response from the minister and I have full confidence in the independence of our judicial system. It was actually quite refreshing to hear about giving that power back to judges.

I would appreciate it if the minister could expand on what is being proposed and how the independent judicial system can ensure that justice is being served, rather than perhaps advancing more of the systemic issues that we know are far too common within our prison system.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I worked a great deal together, and continue to work a great deal together, on these kinds of issues.

What the bill would do is allow for context to be taken into account. I will give an example. In a ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed a sentencing judge to take into account factors, for an indigenous person, of how that person's life might have helped to account for the crime and what ought to be taken into account for the sentence. This was the so-called Gladue report.

A minimum mandatory penalty means the judge's hands are tied, with respect to it. With this bill, the judge would be able to look at, first of all, not having a minimum mandatory penalty, but also being able to fashion, using a conditional sentence order, the kind of appropriate treatment that a person might need. Whether it is a health issue or a social welfare issue, people could get the support they need. That better serves the community, it better serves the victim and it certainly costs us less money in the criminal justice system.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister support and agree that it is important for us to get this bill to committee so we can have a conversation there on how we can improve this piece of legislation and offer the suggestions that have been brought to our attention?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think members on all sides of the House know, including many members of the official opposition, that with respect to the parliamentary process and committees, I work in good faith with all sides of the House on amendments. I am always open to the bill being improved. Any amendments brought in good faith are things I will study with my team and with other members of the House with due diligence. If we can make it a better bill, we will make it a better bill.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, house arrest for human trafficking is what the minister is proposing with this particular bill. In what world does he think that house arrest is appropriate for human trafficking? Human traffickers often operate from their house. This would do nothing to intimidate them or remove the issue from our streets here in Canada. The other question I have is, how in the world did he get the NDP to sign on to this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question of the hon. member. Human trafficking is not one of the minimum mandatories. There are a number of different gun offences, a number of different tobacco offences and a number of different drug offences.

Any party that looks at the evidence, the statistics and the reforms that are happening around the world, including in the United States, realizes that minimum mandatory penalties simply do not work. They clog up the criminal justice system.

[An hon. member]

They keep people safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, they do not keep people safe.

The majority of constitutional challenges to pieces of the Criminal Code are about minimum mandatory penalties, and over half of them succeed. They clog up the system and cause delays. Perhaps hon. members of the opposition will take responsibility if and when Jordan rulings come out as a result of the system being clogged up by minimum mandatory penalties.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding where Donald Marshall Jr. once lived. Donald Marshall Jr. is famous for showing that there is systemic racism within the justice system. Far too often we see indigenous people overrepresented in jails.

I am wondering if the Minister of Justice could speak a bit about his efforts to ensure that we are taking the steps and measures needed to ensure that systemic discrimination within the justice system is removed and that indigenous people get a fair chance at justice within Canada. I am wondering if the Minister of Justice could comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern for making the criminal justice system better and for decreasing the systemic overrepresentation and, quite frankly, the systemic racism against Black and indigenous people in the criminal justice system.

This bill is a first step, allowing more flexibility for sentencing judges through conditional sentence orders, removing minimum mandatory penalties and creating a bias toward diverting people from the criminal justice system for simple possession offences. However, it is only a first step. We have invested, as a government, in better Gladue reports and better coverage for Gladue reports. We have begun a pilot project in Nova Scotia, Toronto and British Columbia on impact of race and culture assessments for Black offenders. We are working on funding community justice centres and indigenous community justice centres so we can provide wraparound support, better serving victims and offenders so that we reduce recidivism and provide a more holistic response to criminal justice.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5, on which the government is moving closure, is an important bill that should be studied in depth.

The government seems to have a growing appetite for closure motions all of a sudden. This worries me. In the past, the Liberals decried the Conservative majority governments' abuse of closure. However, once they came to power in 2015, the Liberals moved one closure motion after another, although they have not done it as often in the past few years.

I have to wonder whether they will start using their manufactured pseudo-majority to abuse closure as others have done in the past.

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

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

I also thank his colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who supported Bill C‑22, which was introduced in the House during the previous Parliament. The bill we are debating today is identical, and since the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord fully supported it last time, I hope he will support it this time for the same reasons.

I think it is very important to work with my colleagues, and I am prepared to work with them on this bill, which has already been thoroughly debated, studied and discussed. We can now move on to the next stage.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned simple possession and that one of the goals of Bill C-5 is to reduce that issue. My colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, has tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-216, to address exactly that issue and, in the process, address the overdose crisis that is happening right now all across the country. This will save lives, if we pass Bill C-216, and will reduce simple possession by decriminalizing it.

Will the minister support my colleague's bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are still studying that bill. Certainly the sentiment behind it is one that speaks well of the hon. member and of all people who would like to attack the opioid crisis and other problematic drug abuse situations in our country.

This current bill is not meant to do that. It is meant to address flexibility in sentencing to reduce the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the criminal justice system. The fundamental challenges that are being attacked by the private member's bill on the other side are wider than that, and I will look at the bill, as will all of my colleagues, with due diligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, every single day 20 Canadians lose their life to an opioid overdose. That is 7,000 Canadians a year, yet in the face of an opioid crisis, Bill C-5, shockingly, eliminates mandatory jail time for producers and manufacturers of schedule 1 drugs like fentanyl and crystal meth.

Why in the world is the government making life easier for the very producers and pushers of this poison that is killing Canadians every single day?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had lovely and intellectual exchanges with the hon. member over the course of our time here since 2015, but I reject the premise of his question.

Today, the error is in presuming that a judge would always give the minimum sentence. In the serious set of facts that he is describing or alluding to, a judge would have the power to go to the maximum sentence, according to the circumstances involved. What we are doing with this bill is not what he is referring to. Rather, we are referring to people who are innocently or naively caught up in something and not necessarily the major perpetrator, or who perhaps have a problematic addiction that needs to be dealt with. The bill allows a sentencing judge to take those circumstances into account and fashion a sentence that fits the crime.

Serious crime, I will assure the hon. member, will always be punished seriously in this country.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting that when the minister was giving the last answer and he said that judges would have the opportunity to go to the maximum, a heckle came from across the way from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who said that they will never do it. Nothing underscores more their distrust in the justice system than what the member heckled during the answer. That is the truth. That is what this comes down to.

My question for the minister is more simple than that. Nothing could divide the Conservatives and the Liberals more than when it comes to issues like this. The Liberals believe in using the correctional system to rehabilitate and reintegrate people into society—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. There is a lot of heckling going on here.

I will let the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands finish his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing shows a more clear difference between the Liberals and the Conservative than an issue like this. The Liberals believe that a correctional institution is there to rehabilitate and reintegrate people into society when possible, whereas the Conservative approach is much different. It is to lock them up and throw away the key.

Can the minister talk about how important it is for this government to make sure that we give people who have a chance at being rehabilitated and reintegrated into society the opportunity to do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will also refer to the heckle by the hon. member from the other side. With respect to MMP subsection 95(2) of the Criminal Code that was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that taking out the minimum mandatory penalty has had no impact on the overall total amount of sentencing that has been handed out by judges. It is false to say that judges always go to the minimum.

What we are doing is what the hon. member wants us to do, which is help give judges the ability to give appropriate sentences so that we can rehabilitate. This is the point the hon. member is trying to make. We need to look at alternatives to incarceration.

I mentioned I was in Washington. The growing consensus is that we need to massively reduce incarceration rates to get better outcomes for communities, increase public security and rehabilitate victims. That is the belief we have in the criminal justice system. It is the animating belief behind this bill, and it is something that I hope hon. members will share. It is certainly shared across the United States and in many other jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom.