Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
What our Conservative colleagues are essentially proposing is to turn back the clock and basically cancel Bill C-5, which already passed. They are doing so for all sorts of reasons that could be called fallacious, false or unfounded. First, Bill C-5 sought to do two things: repeal mandatory minimum penalties in many situations and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. We were among those who, at the time, asked for Bill C-5 to be split. We felt that these were indeed two separate issues and that it would have been more effective to deal with them one at a time. However, as it is so often the case with these things, the government tried to get us to swallow a bitter pill with a bit of honey. We had to vote on both at the same time, even though we had reservations about some aspects of both issues. Still, we agreed on the spirit of the bill.
I will start with mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, which do not work at all. That has been demonstrated many times. MMPs are useful for someone who wants to decide for the judge what sentence should be handed down. However, commentators, criminologists, lawyers and others who have studied this issue have all said that MMPs do not work and do not reduce crime. Professor Tonry, an American criminologist who researched and wrote about this subject, stated the following:
Evaluated in terms of their stated substantive objectives, mandatory penalties do not work. The record is clear…that mandatory penalty laws shift power from judges to prosecutors, meet with widespread circumvention, produce dislocations in case processing....
In fact, when Crown prosecutors find themself with a case that they may or may not have to litigate, they will often be less enthusiastic about negotiating a deal with the defence attorney if there is already a mandatory minimum sentence in place. The case will end up going to trial because the Crown knows there is a minimum sentence. They are guaranteed that minimum if the individual is found guilty. If there is no mandatory minimum sentence, there is no knowing what the judge will decide. Not knowing in advance encourages discussions between the lawyers, who often come to an agreement.
This is between two experienced lawyers who come to a compromise by realizing that there is a good chance that the court, if it were hearing the case, would come to a similar conclusion. Then comes an agreement where everyone is satisfied with the sentence that will be applied. The courts do not get bogged down with an extra case, which would be a very good outcome these days. In our view, and in the view of Professor Tonry and many other observers, this is a substantial argument.
Another argument against mandatory minimum sentences is that they are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada said as much before Bill C‑5 was passed. That was the inspiration for it. The Supreme Court told us that it was unconstitutional. Mandatory minimum sentences violate section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects people from “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. Key decisions in this area include Nur in 2015, Lloyd in 2016 and Boudreault in 2018. These may be the most seminal cases on this subject, but many other court decisions have always been along the same lines: mandatory minimums hurt more than they help.
In Lloyd, the Supreme Court addressed another aspect when it said:
Another solution would be for Parliament to build a safety valve that would allow judges to exempt outliers for whom the mandatory minimum will constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Residual judicial discretion for exceptional cases is a technique widely used to avoid injustice and constitutional infirmity in other countries....
What we are being told is that mandatory minimum sentences go against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that if we want to keep them, there needs to be a safety valve to exempt outliers. That is what the Bloc Québécois proposed. I sat on the Standing Committee on Justice during the discussions on Bill C-5, and I moved a series of amendments to the bill. First there was a general amendment.
We proposed adding section 718.11 to the Criminal Code, which would say:
718.11 The court may waive any minimum punishment of imprisonment under this Act if it considers that exceptional circumstances warrant it and that the imposition of a minimum punishment would be unfair.
That is exactly what the Supreme Court said. To be clear, I did not take my cue from the Supreme Court. The idea came from a criminologist during the study of Bill C‑5. I moved that amendment, but it was ruled inadmissible. I challenged the chair's ruling, but every single member of the committee, all the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives, voted against me. I said I understood that my proposal exceeded the scope of Bill C‑5, and so we began the clause-by-clause study.
In clause 10, I proposed the following:
(2.1) The court may waive the minimum term of imprisonment under paragraph (2)(b) if it considers that exceptional circumstances warrant it.
What was the result? The Liberals, Conservatives and NDP opposed it. So be it; clause 11 also mentioned a minimum sentence. Once again, I suggested the same provision so that the court could use it to waive the minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances. Once again, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP opposed my proposal.
The same thing happened with clause 12. In fact, clauses 12 and 13 dealt with crimes involving the use of a firearm. We in the Bloc Québécois felt that this was serious enough to send a clear message to the courts that the minimum sentence should be applied, but with the possibility of waiving it in exceptional circumstances. I proposed the same provision in clauses 12 and 13, specifically exceptions for exceptional circumstances. I got the same result. The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats all opposed my proposal.
That is why I am a little surprised today to see the Conservatives proposing to repeal Bill C-5 or to backtrack on the provisions of Bill C‑5 by adding mandatory minimum sentences, when they know full well that the Supreme Court has ruled that this is unconstitutional.
What is more, the Conservatives rejected my amendments, which would have allowed mandatory minimum sentences to be introduced for the most serious crimes, but with a safety valve that would be acceptable to the Supreme Court according to the decisions I cited earlier, including the Lloyd decision. Furthermore, this provision met the objectives and responded to the concerns of all the experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice during the meetings on Bill C‑5. No, they rejected all that, but now they want to go back in time. This is an incomprehensible decision that I would describe as illogical and irrational.
Furthermore, as I was saying, MMPs are ineffective and unconstitutional. They are also costly, because more people are sent to prison. MMPs cost a lot of money and they are ineffective. That is what experts are saying. A potential criminal is not going to think twice about committing a certain crime because there is an MMP. As far as I know, or as far as the experts know, no one wonders what the MMP is before robbing a bank or killing someone. That just does not happen.
There is also the diversion aspect. That was the second part of Bill C‑5. We were in favour of diversion. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation, but, of course, diversion might not be the best idea for serious crimes. At the very least, more thought would need to go into that.
However, in the case of simple drug possession, we are talking about a health problem. We are talking about people who are addicted to drugs and, for medical and health reasons, they have to inject themselves with dangerous substances. We think that those individuals need treatment, not jail time.
I would have liked to talk about our proposals—
