House of Commons Hansard #386 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I would have liked to hear the hon. member's proposals, but we have to go to questions and comments.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity).
Opposition Motion—Repeal of Bill C-5Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Pickering—Uxbridge Ontario
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my hon. colleague's insight and experience at the justice committee during the study of this bill.
I am glad he brought up the question of the Supreme Court ruling when it came to mandatory minimums. I have often found this conversation with the Conservatives very interesting, and I wonder what he thinks. If we know that the Supreme Court would rule mandatory minimums as unconstitutional, what does he think the Conservatives plan to do? They say they are going to reinstate them. Are they just trying to fool Canadians, or do they plan to reinstate them just to waste taxpayers' money to have them challenged in court and sent back once again?
I have never understood why Conservatives pretend that there was not a Supreme Court decision. I do not know if that was discussed at committee. Could the member share his insights?
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I have already said. The Supreme Court ruled on it. We found an alternative that was acceptable to the Supreme Court. The Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats all voted against it. I do not understand what we are doing here today.
I will take this opportunity to add that, instead of mandatory minimums, the Bloc Québécois is proposing in Bill C-420 that an organized crime registry be created. We think we should hit organized crime groups in their wallets by reversing the burden of proof so that the assets of criminals are seized when they are charged.
We are also proposing Bill C-392, which seeks to codify the Jordan decision by providing for an exception to the reasonable time limit established by the Supreme Court. These are new meaningful measures that would help tackle crime instead of turning back the clock and recreating a situation that makes no sense. The Supreme Court has already said as much.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to quote Marc Bellemare, who has represented victims of crime in Quebec since 1979. He was Quebec's justice minister from 2003 to 2004. Here is what he had to say about Bill C‑5: “It is repugnant that this law applies to violent criminals. Last year, 112 of the 569 offenders convicted of sex assault in Quebec were sentenced to house arrest, a generous gift made possible by [this Prime Minister 's] government's Bill C‑5, which has been in effect since November 17, 2022.” He then went on to cite a long list of cases.
How can the member support the substance of a bill like this?
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I still believe that Bill C‑5 is a good bill with a good foundation. Unfortunately, the amendments we proposed were rejected, leaving us with provisions that are far from perfect.
The point that my colleague raised is worrisome. However, I think we need to be careful when we look at justice statistics. We need to consider each case individually. When a court is seized with issue X in the case of Mr. Y or Ms. W, it gives one decision. Another judge in a different case involving the same provisions will give another decision, because the circumstances are different and the accused is different. All sorts of factors need to be taken into account.
My colleague is right. What he is telling us is serious. However, I would like to look at those statistics and cases individually. I still believe that we have to trust our justice system and our courts to make the most appropriate decisions based on the circumstances.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, I enjoy serving with my colleague on the justice committee.
I am glad that, in his remarks, he made mention of the fact that there is clear, demonstrable evidence that mandatory minimums do not work, yet the Conservatives keep on pursuing this as a policy ideal. It is the same with their drug policy. All of the experts on the ground have told us that a Conservative approach is absolutely the wrong thing at this moment in time.
I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on the damage it does to public policy-making and the quality of debate on these two very important subjects when one party is spreading this kind of misinformation.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I would say that it is not a good idea to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the public about the effectiveness of our justice system. That is not and never will be a good idea. Instead, we should seek to improve our institutions and improve the public's perception of them.
Opposition Motion—Repeal of Bill C-5Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
December 10th, 2024 / 5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Madam Speaker, I wanted to begin my speech by talking about the only part of the Conservative motion that I agree with: the government's lax approach at our borders. However, after hearing my Conservative colleagues talk about the opioid crisis the way they did, I decided to start on a different vein, because I found what they said to be completely mind-boggling. I may come back to how the government is managing our borders, if I have enough time.
As is often the case when it comes to the opioid crisis, the Conservative motion is inaccurate, if not downright misleading. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' speeches were full of misinformation. At no time was the government ever involved in the radical liberalization of drugs, as the Conservative Party is suggesting. We do not even know whether that means anything. Are they talking about the decriminalization of marijuana? Are they talking about the diversion measures set out in the Criminal Code via Bill C-5? Are they talking about the pilot project in British Columbia? If so, none of those measures deserve to be described as a radical liberalization of drugs.
While the borders are indeed lax and more must be done to secure them, the part of the motion that mentions reduced sentences for drug kingpins has zero basis in fact. Is it actually about Bill C‑5, which eliminated certain minimum sentences? If so, are the Conservatives insinuating that eliminating minimum sentences caused thousands of people to die, as a member said earlier? That is an absurd idea for sure.
We know that the causes of the opioid crisis are far more complex and far-reaching than the Conservative Party's motion suggests. They range from mental health and poverty to the housing shortage, legal opioid prescriptions and more. Crime and the contamination of drugs with opioids is certainly a big part of the problem, but the Conservatives' magical solution of putting everyone in jail, be they victim or criminal, is not a sustainable solution. It is actually no solution at all. That is why it would be impossible for us to vote in favour of the Conservatives' motion. The Conservatives are offering up simplistic solutions to complex problems. That is something we see too often in the House, unfortunately.
My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord spoke at length about Bill C-5 and the fact that we had proposed splitting it in two because it dealt with two elements that are both extremely important but different, so I will not go into that again. I will talk more about diversion measures rather than mandatory minimums.
The diversion measures included in Bill C-5 were aimed at only one provision of the Criminal Code and that was simple drug possession. I do not think this has been said enough so far, but the goal of this approach is to divert people with drug problems who do not necessarily pose a threat to public safety away from the justice system. The idea behind diversion is to relieve the courts of the burden of dealing with drug users so that resources can be dedicated to the real threat posed by drug traffickers. Diversion is not the same as legalizing all drugs. A person who systematically refuses to abide by the alternatives proposed by the justice system and who uses drugs in a way that is dangerous to others can still be prosecuted.
The Bloc Québécois supported this change of approach because the war on drugs, as waged in the U.S. by President Nixon, for example, is simply not working. People with substance use problems need health care and social services. Putting them in prison will certainly not improve their fate. It is better to focus our resources on helping as many people as possible so that they can become productive members of society again and to ensure that our courts can focus on prosecuting the real criminals who sell harmful drugs, cut with synthetic drugs.
Our approach to substance abuse is to see drug use as a public health issue, not a strictly criminal one. While the diversion approach is a step in the right direction, the fact remains that the federal government has, in a way, done only half the job. Diversion is modelled on Portugal's highly successful approach. However, their success is also due to the fact that they have invested heavily in social services and in services directly on the ground.
If the federal government were sincere about taking this approach, it would increase health transfers to the provinces and provide more funding to community organizations working on the ground.
The Bloc Québécois's approach is also consistent with the Quebec government's 2022-25 national strategy for preventing overdoses involving psychoactive substances. The strategy proposes actions based on a harm reduction model and promotes the idea of seeing users as voluntary participants, rather than criminalizing them. The strategy addresses not only opioids, but other psychoactive substances as well, given the evolving epidemiological situation. It includes 15 measures divided among seven clearly defined areas of action. I will name a few. Without reviewing everything, it is fascinating to see what the Quebec government is doing.
For starters, there is education and awareness, which involves disseminating relevant information and raising awareness among the general public about the risk of overdose from psychoactive substances. We need to raise awareness among various communities about user stigma. Then there is overdose prevention and harm reduction, which involves strengthening and improving access to naloxone, a fast-acting drug that temporarily reverses the effects of an opioid overdose, and strengthening and expanding the availability of supervised consumption services.
Let us not forget that the Conservative Party, under Stephen Harper, did everything it could to undermine the supervised injection site programs of Quebec and the provinces by refusing to grant the sites an exemption so that they could store the drugs that they were providing. The Supreme Court put the then Canadian government in its place. That is why I am so surprised today to see the leader of the Conservative Party denouncing these initiatives and safe supply programs.
The Conservatives seem to forget that their ideologically driven approach to problems is often inconsistent with fundamental rights. Not only was their opposition to drug-related health care ruled incompatible with our rights, but some of the mandatory minimum sentences they introduced to the Criminal Code were also struck down.
The programs that supply drugs to patients are justified by the fact that they save lives. These programs allow people with an addiction to consume a substance whose content is known, which helps prevent overdoses. What is more, thanks to these programs, the individuals receive social services and health care and come in contact with social workers and nurses. This creates a range of benefits, such as detecting and treating STIs, which can become the first step on the long road to ending addiction.
Getting back to the measures in the Quebec government's national strategy, the next one is public policies and regulations. The aim is to develop safer supply practices. Unlike supervised injection sites, where people use drugs under supervision, safer supply programs provide prescription drugs to prevent overdoses. These programs target individuals who would otherwise purchase drugs on the black market, which is highly risky.
The strategy also talks about monitoring and surveillance; evaluation, research and training; addiction treatment; and pain treatment. I think these measures work much better than putting victims of drug addiction behind bars, as it were.
This strategy is based on pragmatism and compassion, two values that are antithetical to the Conservatives' ideological approach.
I know that I only have a little time left, but I want to come back to border management. The past few years have not been easy. We had to repeatedly remind the government to take action at the border. It was reactive, not proactive. We saw the same thing recently with new President-elect Trump, who made campaign threats to deport millions of people. We thought it seemed likely that these people would try to come to Canada, so we needed to secure the border. When I asked the Minister of Public Safety about it the day after the U.S. election, he told me that everything was fine at the borders and that there was really nothing to stress about there.
Today, we learn that the government is going to spend $1 billion on a plan to secure the border. The government is talking about buying helicopters and drones. I mentioned one solution earlier, which is to allow border services officers to patrol between border crossings. Right now, an order in council prevents that from happening. There are all sorts of solutions. We definitely need to improve border security. That is one of the solutions that would work better than what the Conservative Party is proposing in this motion.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, safe supply is not safe. The member's suggestion is that we need a safer safe supply. There are now 47,000 people dead because of this approach, and their families are devastated.
Addiction has skyrocketed since this has been brought in. I have seen every day, walking from my home to this place, over the course of months and years now, what is happening directly in front of me on our streets. To suggest that our approach is limited shows that the member does not have any clue as to what we will do to make life better for Canadians who have been forced into these circumstances, where safe supply is not safe.
Oregon has shut down this program, and B.C. has asked for help. How can the member possibly trust this existing policy and not want to see it removed from our country?
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Madam Speaker, the premise of the Conservative motion is quite simply false. Thousands of people are not dying from drug overdoses because of Bill C‑5. Addiction is a problem. It is a sickness that needs to be treated by offering these people help and health and social services. Workers need to be there for them. We are not going to combat the opioid crisis by putting these people behind bars.
Opposition Motion—Repeal of Bill C-5Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Pickering—Uxbridge Ontario
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Madam Speaker, we just heard that ridiculous ideology from the Conservative members. It was Stephen Harper's own former adviser on criminal justice who condemned the Conservative policy. He said, “No amount of scientific evidence studies from criminologists, from medical experts, can displace that ideology because it…is not based on facts.”
While Conservatives continue to use no facts and only ideology, can the member opposite please speak to why we know supports for rehabilitation are the only thing that works in this country to truly deal with addictions and saving lives?
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Madam Speaker, of course, we can do like the Conservatives and tell all kinds of stories about people who unfortunately died as a result of drugs. However, we can also tell the success stories of people who overcame their addictions with the help of the public policies that were put in place and the health and social services that are available for people with addictions.
We must not confuse the issue. What the Conservatives seem to be doing here, with this motion in particular, is blaming Bill C‑5 for the fact that thousands of people are dying from opioid overdoses. That is not exactly true. In fact, I would say that it is false. All of the things that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned earlier are meaningful, worthwhile measures that could be implemented to fight crime. We need to separate these subjects and not put all of our eggs in one basket.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very interesting, and I obviously agree with her. I want to share a little experience I had with my colleagues.
Last spring, members of the Standing Committee on Health travelled to Montreal to talk about the opioid crisis and addiction. How many Conservative members came to learn about what is really happening on the ground? Not a single one. There are 120 Conservative MPs, but not a single one went to Montreal to meet with the doctors at CHUM, the people at Dopamine and the people at Cactus Montréal. These are success stories. These people save lives every day. Cactus Montréal is an injection site where there are two or three overdoses a day. How many people died last year? Not one, because the organization saves everyone who goes there. What does my colleague think about that?
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I went through a similar situation with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As part of the study on vehicle theft in Canada, we went to the port of Montreal to see how things are done and how the CBSA collaborates with the various police services. My colleague was there. There were not many Conservatives there with us.
It is easy for members to stick their heads in the sand, blame everything on the government and not go out and see what is really happening. It is true, there are often success stories. We feel these experiences allow us to come back to the House and do a better job. I invite my Conservative colleagues to take every opportunity to go out into the field.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, they say that when the only tool that one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That is exactly the Conservatives' approach to criminal justice and drug policy. Their arguments are so full of logical fallacies, it is laughable. They cherry-pick the data. They make use of straw man arguments, and when we dare challenge them, it is all ad hominem attacks from them.
The laughable part of this motion today is about putting more boots on the ground at our ports to stop fentanyl and its ingredients from coming into our country. It is laughable because the Customs and Immigration Union president, Mark Weber, is the one who has identified publicly that the CBSA today is still trying to recover from the deficits launched by the Stephen Harper government nine years ago.
With that in mind, and to clear up the obvious disinformation from the Conservatives, I am prepared to move an amendment. I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “reverse Liberal Bill C-5”, with the words “hire the 1,100—
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but I will allow him to finish reading his amendment into the record.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will start from the top so that it is very clear what the House is dealing with.
I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “reverse Liberal Bill C-5”, with the words “rehire the 1,100-plus border officers cut by the previous Conservative government to stop illegal guns entering from the United States.”
Opposition Motion—Repeal of Bill C-5Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
No.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, the practice, as you know, in the House is that the mover, the House leader, the deputy House leader or the whip or the deputy whip of the party that has the opposition day motion then consents to the amendment.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
The member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, then the Conservatives have rejected this common-sense amendment.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
That is a matter of debate.
It being 5:52 p.m. and today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the following motion.
Shall I dispense?