House of Commons Hansard #49 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was illness.

Topics

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

I will first address the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I challenge him to find one case where the maximum was imposed, if that was the case.

If we are going to discuss mandatory minimum sentences, I note there are a lot of mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. There are mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences and mandatory minimum sentences for murder. Is that where we are going next with the logic that is being espoused by the minister today?

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not share the member's skepticism in the criminal justice system and I do not share his skepticism over improving the criminal justice system based on evidence. What we have done in this bill is selected roughly 20 minimum mandatory penalties that have a demonstrated impact on the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people and other racialized Canadians in the criminal justice system. That is the goal here.

It is a goal that is necessary. It helps us identify systemic racism within the system. It helps us achieve better outcomes for communities and victims, but also for offenders in terms of their rehabilitation. It also helps bring the justice back to the justice system. That is what we are doing here. I hope we succeed. I hope we get the support of all members of the House.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like a chance to ask the minister the same question I asked him earlier because the Bloc Québécois has a constructive approach.

I think we have always had a constructive approach with respect to the bill on the table right now. We have looked at its merits and its flaws, and we have tried to find ways to improve it.

The problem we have now is that the government is invoking closure. Closure here is problematic because it prevents us from really digging into things. We are wondering if closure is going to be the government's new modus operandi and if it finds this to be a constructive approach.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. He will have a chance to work with us and propose amendments during the committee's study.

This is not a new bill. We introduced it in the previous Parliament, and it was discussed here and in public many times.

I noted that the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord participated in those discussions. We did have time to study this bill, and we will have time to study it in committee. We will respect the parliamentary process.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, MMPs are a part of the destructive Harper-era policies that have not deterred crime, have not kept us safer and have clogged up our courts. This party is the reason we are in this position. They were more concerned with locking up low-risk first-time offenders and targeting people of colour than truly keeping our communities safe.

Could the hon. minister please expand on CSOs and how they will help communities of colour?

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, I personally feel that the conditional sentence order part of the bill is the most important part of the bill, in the sense that this is what brings back the flexibility in sentencing that allows for a judge to attack a problem or rectify a problem in the sentence that ought to be attacked. For example, a conditional sentence order will allow a judge to say a person needs to serve home arrest and get the appropriate mental health supports or the appropriate rehabilitation supports if there is a problematic addiction.

It allows for communities to take on the responsibility for the rehabilitation of people through a community justice sentence, which we are funding. This is one of the major ideas that has come from the communities themselves, whether they be racialized, indigenous or Black. They want to help rehabilitate people. Experts in the field tell us that this is the best way to move a community forward, to move society forward and to help everybody heal while protecting public safety. That is what conditional sentence orders do.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is very concerning to hear the minister and the NDP-Liberals misrepresent what this bill would do. To be clear, what this bill would really do is reduce mandatory minimums for all kinds of existing gun crimes and also allow for house arrest for the kinds of crimes that leave people traumatized and harmed forever, like human trafficking, like sexual assault, like kidnapping, like abduction of kids under 14, like causing bodily harm by criminal negligence and causing bodily harm through assault or with a weapon, or like assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon.

That is what this bill would actually do, so how on earth can the NDP-Liberals pretend that this protects public safety and has anything to do with justice?

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would ask people to pay attention to what is being done in the bill and what is not. This is not the minimum mandatory penalties part of the bill, as a previous speaker from the other side seemed to intimate. This is the conditional sentence orders part of the bill and here we are allowing a judge to give a serious sentence where there is a serious crime. A conditional sentence order, and I tell the hon. member this, can only be done for a crime in which the sentence would be under two years and would not endanger public safety. They do not involve the kinds of acts, in any way, that were raised by the hon. member.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

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 Dufferin—Caledon, Taxation; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health; the hon. member for Kenora, Health.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the house.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Call in the members.

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

Vote #52

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I declare the motion carried.

The hon. Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 323 to 332.

The House resumed from December 15, 2021, 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 CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, inscribed at the top of one of the great law schools of this continent is the motto “Not under man, but under God and law”. I would read these words and feel a sense of pride that ours was a nation of laws, not men; a nation of citizens, not parties; of Canadians, not Liberals or Conservatives. For a nation as big and diverse as ours, our institutions, our norms and our rules bind us together, give shape and order to our common lives even when we disagree, and especially when we disagree.

However, every so often comes a time to make a change, a step in a better direction, a turn of the page, because in our very creed as Canadians, we are always striving to do better. The time has come to turn the page—

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

I must interrupt the hon. member very briefly.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Malton.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Madam Speaker, the time has come to turn the page on many mandatory minimum penalties. This was a policy that in the end did not discourage crime. It certainly did not make our justice system any more fair. All it did was imprison far too many indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians. The evidence is in the numbers of the prison population, and the numbers are stark. Indigenous individuals represent 5% of the general population but account for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. This is double what it was 20 years ago. The number is profoundly higher for indigenous women, who represent 42% of those who are incarcerated, and these numbers are even more exaggerated in some provinces. Black inmates represent 7.2% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the general population. This is shameful.

The numbers are so high because of sentencing laws that focus on punishment through imprisonment. The centre of this is the mandatory minimum regime. The broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities. This rigid one-size-fits-all approach takes power away from judges to look at mitigating factors.

I want to be very clear: This is not a soft-on-crime approach and these are not hardened criminals we are speaking of. We are speaking of low-risk, first-time or non-violent offenders.

We are introducing legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-5 is an important step in the right direction, as the legislation would make reforms to sentencing. We are proposing to repeal MMPs of imprisonment for all drug offences and certain firearm offences. These MMPs in particular have been shown to have had a disparate effect on Black, indigenous, and marginalized communities.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest and curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family ties, community and health-related support systems. By repealing these MMPs, we will restore the judge's ability to impose an appropriate sentence, moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach.

Again, this is not a soft-on-crime approach. To be clear, we are keeping some mandatory minimum policies in place for murder, sexual offenses, impaired driving offenses and serious firearm offences, including those that involve organized crime. The powers of judges will not be limited. In fact, we will allow them to do the job they have been trained to do.

I was in law school, and that is where I was introduced to certain ideals or principles within a justice system, one being that the aim of justice is not just retribution. Mandatory minimums are just that—retribution. There are more useful aims, such as rehabilitation. We can make ourselves into better people even after we have wronged and especially after we have wronged. The justice system should be a part of that rehabilitation. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work in criminal law terms. They do not have a positive effect on recidivism. They tend to overpunish people who should be helped through other channels.

When it comes to deterrence, MMPs do not do any better. In sentencing for less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective and unduly punitive. A longer sentence is not going to do anything more than a shorter sentence will, except destroy entire lives. In America, for example, the notion that harsh minimums could seriously dampen the drug trade has collapsed in the face of the manifest failure of the drug war.

With the way our current justice system is set up, we have criminalized poverty, mental illness and problematic addiction. It is so much harder to get that second chance with MMPs in place. Once a person is out of prison, their opportunities are limited and their circle oftentimes becomes the people that they met in prison. This has to stop.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increase in the indiscriminate use of MMPs is problematic. They have proven to be costly and ineffective in reducing crime. Indeed, other nations have move away from this regime because it encourages cycles of crime.

MMPs are a failed policy, and we are turning the ship around. What we propose is a necessary reset for our criminal law, which is necessary to address systemic racism in the criminal justice system. This policy change is necessary, but further work must also be done.

We are also developing an indigenous justice strategy in collaboration with indigenous peoples, and we are developing a Black Canadian justice strategy. We will continue to address the social determinants of crime. Every action that we take to improve access to housing, mental health care, addiction treatment and youth employment helps build a safer country. Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum, and we must do more so that we are better informed.

In my life, I have come to understand certain principles and rules, and that we are not just our mistakes. We are not just the worst thing that we have ever done. I believe we are more than that. As a society, we should make no mistake that we will be judged for our reason and our intelligence and for our technology and tools. We will be judged by the towers we build. Ultimately, our society will be judged for not how we treat the powerful, the rich and the privileged, but for how we treat the poor and condemned.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

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 hon. colleague and I do agree on a number of points, one of which is that there is a necessity to keep and to lower incarceration rates for marginalized people. Now, where he and I part company is when he frames the discussion as one around retribution. The courts in this country have consistently highlighted the need for denunciation and deterrence, and part of denunciation and deterrence comes by way of sentencing.

When we are talking about shooting at people, these are not the low-risk, first-time offenders, necessarily, that the hon. member highlighted. How does he reconcile those concepts?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the premise of my hon. colleague's question.

These policies have been shown through data to affect marginalized communities, and by repealing them, we are helping those communities and those individuals who were targeted to rejoin society. The way the policies are currently set up, they are focused on retribution, and we are trying to change that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, in his comments, the member talked about ending the war on drugs, and he talked about addressing the overdose crisis. From that perspective, I would ask him whether or not he supports the private member's bill, Bill C-216, of my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, which calls for the decriminalization of a small amount for personal use. It is one way to ensure that people are not criminalized. It is one way to ensure that we end the war on drugs, and it is one way to ensure that we actually help save lives.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Madam Speaker, I agree with the sentiment behind my colleague's question, but my speech was on mandatory minimum penalties, which is what we are here to talk about.

This is an important step in the right direction. I would like to see the data surrounding other MMPs to see if they are also having a desperate effect on communities to see if we could further repeal those.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the aisle.

Earlier I asked the Minister of Justice about the relevance of imposing a gag order. If he ever gets a chance to speak with me about it, I would be pleased to do so, but I would like to come back to the issue that has also been raised by some of my Bloc colleagues. The bill currently before the House deals with mandatory minimum sentences for gun possession, but it also deals with everything related to the decriminalization of drugs. We are dealing with two very different subjects. Why did the government reject our proposal to split the bill in two?

By splitting the bill, we would have had the opportunity to study each of its two aspects in greater depth, so that they could be dealt with in an intelligent manner, and this would mean that members would not have to vote for or against the bill in its entirety. I think the government is mixing things up. This is creating confusion both in the debate and in the study of the bill.