SoVote

Jun/1/22 5:31:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will absolutely acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion. I, for one, believe that criminals who are putting Canadians at risk and engaging in activities in our communities such as using a firearm in the commission of an offence, weapons trafficking, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent should get jail time. I think most Canadians would agree with that, whether they live in an urban or a rural area.

81 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/1/22 5:31:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am so grateful to be acknowledged at this moment, because it allows me to follow up on the question from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and clarify for the hon. member for Fundy Royal that no one voting for Bill C-5 thinks that guilty parties should have no jail time. What we are arguing for, based on the evidence, is that we do not put an additional cost burden on the provinces by putting more people in jail. The provinces have to pay the costs of what was an omnibus crime bill in a previous Parliament, Bill C-10. We do not want to see people who are innocent get so worried about a mandatory minimum that they take their lawyer's advice and take a plea deal because they do not really want to take the chance of letting the judge use his or her discretion, having heard all the evidence, and we do not want people to get lesser sentences because they did not go through the process where a judge had the discretion to decide how they should go to jail. The punishment must fit the crime, and the cookie-cutter approach of mandatory minimums is a failure.

209 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Jun/1/22 5:32:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I wish all Canadians could have been watching when we saw the Green Party move amendments at our committee to remove every single mandatory penalty from the Criminal Code, including sexual offences against children. It was appalling. They moved the amendments, but then they did not want to speak about them. I am happy to speak about them. We, the Conservatives, believe that Parliament needs to send a message that individuals who victimize young people and Canadians, cause fear in our communities and engage in drive-by shootings, weapons trafficking, the importing and exporting of firearms illegally, robberies with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and the discharging of a firearm with intent, as in a drive-by shooting, need to be off the streets and there need to be serious consequences for those types of crimes.

139 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 5:33:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Let me begin by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples. At the outset, I would like to thank my colleagues at the justice committee for their diligent work in improving this bill and moving it forward and the many witnesses who came forward to speak about their lived experiences. Bill C-5 addresses systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system by promoting a fairer and more effective justice system that, among other things, would provide courts with increased judicial discretion at sentencing through the elimination of some mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonments and of restrictions on the imposition of conditional sentences of imprisonment. Further, the bill promotes alternatives to charging and prosecuting individuals in cases involving simple possession of drugs. We see again here the opposition attempting to reinstate mandatory minimum penalties in the legislation when we have clearly seen that MMPs do not work. I am proud of the announcement our government made Monday to crack down on illegal and dangerous firearms in Canada, including raising maximum penalties for many firearm offences. Together with this bill, we would be restoring discretion to judges, ensuring that their fair sentences can be applied and that serious crimes would still receive serious sentences. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has now concluded its study of the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House of Commons with four amendments, which I believe strengthen the bill. Bill C-5's amendments would provide space to treat the simple possession of drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one, as it should be, and is consistent with the announcement made by the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for British Columbia yesterday. The bill requires police and prosecutors to consider alternative measures, including diverting individuals to treatment programs, giving a warning or taking no further action, instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple possession of an illegal drug. Further, it would provide a declaration of principles to guide police and Crown prosecutors in the exercise of their discretion. Among other principles, the bill would recognize that scarce judicial resources should be reserved for offences that pose a risk to public safety and that criminal sanctions imposed in respect of the possession of drugs for personal use are not consistent with established public health evidence. The principles enacted under Bill C-5 do not condone the sale of drugs, as that may result in the death of the purchasers, including purchasers who may be youths and first-time users and who are at greater health risks from consuming highly concentrated drugs. Condoning the sale of drugs would be contrary to the government's ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis and deaths. Further, such an approach would also be contrary to the harm reduction and prevention pillar of the Canadian drugs and substances strategy. Let me be clear that Bill C-5 is only one part of a larger government strategy to fight the ongoing opioid crisis. On May 31, 2022, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health announced the granting of a time-limited exemption, under subsection 56(1) of the CDSA, to exempt the application of the simple possession offence to the personal possession of small amounts of controlled substances, which is commonly involved in overdose deaths by adults 18 years or older in the province of British Columbia. The exemption is part of the province's comprehensive approach to address the overdose crisis and is intended to reduce harm for people who use drugs and promote better access to life-saving health services in the territory. Before I go into the other parts of the amendment, I do want to highlight the report by the Auditor General of Canada to Parliament from yesterday. When I speak about the need to avoid prison sentences for those who pose virtually no threat to the public, particularly from racialized communities, and indigenous and Black communities, it is because we know that systemic racism is prevalent within many parts of the criminal justice system. The report by the Auditor General from yesterday makes it crystal clear that there is a disparity in the manner in which we treat indigenous and Black offenders. For example, and I would like to read parts of the report, it says, “Indigenous and Black offenders...faced greater barriers to a safe and gradual reintegration into society” than other incarcerated groups. The report goes on to say, “Indigenous and Black offenders remained in custody longer and at higher levels of security before release.” Essentially, Correctional Services categorizes offenders based on low, medium and high risk, and it is clear that there is a disparity in the manner in which it classifies indigenous and Black offenders. For example, the report continues, “We found that Indigenous and Black offenders were placed at higher security levels on admission into custody at twice the average rate of other offenders.” The report then says: We found that, although the majority of offenders were released on parole before the end of their sentences, fewer Indigenous offenders were released when first eligible. In fact, more Indigenous offenders remained in custody until their statutory release and were released directly into the community from higher levels of security. This means that they did not obtain the right level of support for them to go into the community and integrate. The report continues, “Indigenous offenders served longer portions of their sentences in custody than the average, placing them at a disadvantage to access early release or parole.” I believe this report is important to the discussion today because, when we speak about ensuring that we minimize those going into the criminal justice system, we are not saying that we treat everyone the same. We are saying that, if a person poses no risk and is a low-risk offender who does not belong in jail, then they have other alternatives. As a government bill, Bill C-5 would address some of the root causes of both mandatory minimum penalties and avoiding jail sentences, which we know from the Auditor General's report does have adverse impacts on indigenous and Black Canadians, particularly indigenous women and young Black men. I will now talk about the amendments that Bill C-5 would make. The first amendment would be to clarify the kind of information to be kept in the police record on warnings or referrals, the use of such records and to whom they may be disclosed. For instance, once amended, any information contained in the record of warning or referral may be made available to a judge or a court for any purpose relating to offence proceedings for the preparation of a pre-sentence report but limited to circumstances to which the record relates. These changes address the concerns raised by several witnesses that records could be improperly applied, which would frustrate the objectives of the bill to promote diversion while recognizing that police officers are legally and ethically bound to keep notes to facilitate various operational requirements of the criminal justice system. To address these concerns, a second amendment would provide a mechanism to reduce the stigma associated with convictions for simple possession of drugs by specifying that past and future convictions must be kept separate and apart from other criminal convictions after a certain period of time. These new measures would need to be implemented two years after the coming into force of the bill in the case of convictions that occurred before the bill came into force, two years after the conviction or completion of an offender's sentence, or in the case of conviction after Bill C-5 is enforced. The third amendment would provide an express provision to clarify that no social worker, medical professional or service provider would be committing the offence of simple possession when they come into possession of a controlled substance in the course of their duties when they have the intent to, within a reasonable period, lawfully dispose of it. We believe that this particular amendment is covered in the “innocent possession” common law defence, and we were able to work with the opposition in order to strengthen the bill to have a bit more clarity, which is incorporated herein. The last amendment from Bill C-5 would require a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the bill to be undertaken by the House on the fourth anniversary of the bill coming into force. In conclusion, Bill C-5 is a very important step forward in addressing common sense criminal law reform. Mandatory minimum penalties, in many cases, have not had a positive impact on communities, particularly indigenous, Black and other racialized communities, and this bill is a very important step forward in addressing the systemic racism that we have within the criminal justice system.

1529 words

All Topics

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

Jun/1/22 5:43:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. The problem is that a number of times I heard the words “simple possession”. The issue is that this is not what Bill C-5 deals with. The mandatory minimum penalties being repealed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act have to do with trafficking, importing or exporting controlled substances, or the production of schedule I or schedule II drugs, that is, cocaine, heroine, fentanyl and crystal meth. Would the hon. member maintain that production, trafficking and importing are “simple possession”?

95 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/1/22 5:44:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, when we have criminal law, it is intended to serve a particular purpose. What we are doing today is bringing forward smart criminal justice reform that is intended to address the root cause of the issue and ensure that we have enough off-ramps for people, who may have substance addiction issues, to be able to get the right treatment and the right supports to enable them to move on in society.

78 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/1/22 5:44:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, mandatory minimum sentences have their pros and cons. In any case, I am not against abolishing them. However, there are problems associated with them that must be resolved. They include problems with education, illegal arms trafficking, social issues, and the need for hospitalization and diagnosis. It is time that the government provided health transfers, if only to address the health aspect, so that youth could be monitored from early childhood to prevent them from ending up in jail or other bad situations. This would also ensure better social support. When will this happen?

95 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/1/22 5:45:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I think the question here is that, as a society, we need to ensure that there are enough off-ramps for people who somehow got into the criminal justice system to rehabilitate, be able to move on and get the right levels of support, whether it is through addiction counselling, rehab or community engagement work, or, in some cases, serving sentences. That is really the purpose of this bill, to advance smart criminal justice policy that goes toward ensuring that our communities are safe.

86 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/1/22 5:46:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on what happened just before we started this debate on Bill C-5 because there are some modest measures in Bill C-5 that would help address the opioid crisis, but the government just defeated Bill C-216, which would have decriminalized personal possession of drugs. The Prime Minister said earlier today that, in reference to the section 56 exemption for British Columbia, he would be prepared to work with communities who are interested in such an exemption. Is the government really telling us today that, instead of just eliminating penalties for possessions, it will work positively with communities to grant exemptions in addition to those in British Columbia?

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/1/22 5:47:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question is obvious. The Prime Minister, from the outset, has said he is willing to engage communities and the result is what we saw in British Columbia yesterday with the section 56 exemption. Of course, when parties come together, when provinces and municipalities come together, there is always room for us to discuss. I am absolutely certain that the Prime Minister, as indicated today, will live up to that, as we have with British Columbia.

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 5:48:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the impact on systemic racism and bringing forward this legislation.

23 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/1/22 5:48:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, on the eve during which Bill C-5 is coming to third debate, I do want my friends opposite to reflect on the notion of systemic racism. It is something that has been central to this bill. I really do invite members, especially the opposition, to read the report by the Auditor General from yesterday that talks about systemic barriers within Correctional Service Canada. It is a very profound report. I know that the Office of the Correctional Investigator, for many years, has been putting forward reports after reports after reports. However, this is coming from the Auditor General who has, I think for the first time, empirically demonstrated that systemic racism does, in fact, exist within our criminal justice system. It is something that I take very personally.

131 words

All Topics

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Jun/1/22 5:49:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-216 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-5. I find this bill important but disheartening at the same time. The way in which the bill was presented is deplorable, and that is very sad. Bill C‑5 is really two bills in one. The first decriminalizes certain offences, and the second establishes diversion measures while also abolishing minimum sentences. These are two very different issues. We are comfortable with the elimination of certain minimum sentences. Generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois believes that minimum sentences are not a cure-all. We think that they can actually be harmful in many cases and that we should trust the judges overseeing criminal trials. However, we believe that minimum sentences can be useful in some circumstances. It would be especially unfortunate to eliminate them at the wrong time. Right now, gun violence is on the rise in Montreal and many other Canadian cities, and people want the government to do something. The government proposed Bill C-21 in an effort to control the circulation of legal weapons. However, the bill does nothing about the illegal weapons being used by street gangs to commit crimes and shoot people in the streets. The Bloc says that this problem needs to be addressed, and we have some suggestions. For months now, we have been standing up in the House and talking about the need to identify organized criminal gangs and include targeted measures against members of criminal gangs in the Criminal Code. We have proposed a joint task force to stem the trafficking of illegal guns through indigenous reserves. People on the reserves have agreed to work with us on this plan. We have proposed more funding for border controls, to no avail. All of these measures would help curtail shootings, but the government has done nothing in this respect. Now we have Bill C-5, which not only does nothing to fight gun violence committed with illegal weapons, but which also eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that I believe are pretty serious. I hardly consider armed robbery to be a trivial matter. Armed extortion is not a trivial matter either, nor is discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure. The government wants to eliminate the minimum sentences for these crimes just as the public is expressing concern. People want the government to do something to reassure them. Not only is the government responding by doing nothing, but it is eliminating the minimum sentences for these crimes. I am appalled. At the same time, the government is establishing diversion measures for certain offences involving illicit substances. It is offering diversion for possession of substances for personal use. Rather than sending a person with drug addiction to prison, we will provide treatment. We will help the person regain control of their life and become a useful member of society again. That is a good thing. However, these are two completely different subjects. The government is taking Parliament hostage by saying this is a package deal. Members are being forced to decide whether they are totally for it or totally against it. I find that appalling. In my opinion, that is a way of muzzling democracy. I would have liked to hear my colleague from the governing party speak to this aspect of the issue. Why did his party refuse to split the bill from the beginning, as we requested? That would have made it a lot easier to work on. In any case, we have to live with it now. It is what it is. Getting back to what I was saying about minimum sentences, there is a major problem with some of the offences. We tried to find solutions. The Bloc Québécois is against many things, but we are also in favour of certain things. Above all, we try to improve the bills that come through the House. Whenever we can make them acceptable and make sure they reflect the values and interests of the people we represent, we are happy to do so. In this spirit, we made a suggestion. Now is not the time to abolish minimum sentences, because this would send the wrong message. Not only would it not reassure the public, but it would worry them even more. We therefore suggested maintaining the minimum sentences and adding clauses stating that the court could override them under exceptional circumstances. That is the system used in other jurisdictions, and it works, as an expert told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We proposed adding a clause requiring judges to state, if applicable, that the case they are trying is an exceptional case and that, under the circumstances, they will override the mandatory minimum sentence for such and such a reason. The clause would provide guidelines and ensure that justice is taken seriously. Our proposal was so good that the Liberals changed two or three words and proposed it themselves. I was very happy about that, since I feel no need to take credit for the amendments to Bill C-5. However, when the time came to put the Liberals' amendment to a vote, none of them rose to present it, so I did it for them. I am dismayed by these sorts of games, because I think they are anti-democratic. They do not serve the interest of voters, either in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. I am appalled by these tactics, and I would like to hear what my colleague across the aisle has to say about this. That being said, there is also the whole diversion component, which is important to us, as I mentioned earlier. That is why I feel torn today. I do not know what to do. We will have to live with our decision, and it feels a bit like choosing between the plague and cholera. Whichever way we vote, we will be partly disappointed and partly happy. However, we could have been completely happy if everyone here could have come to an agreement, because we basically want the same thing. I do not think that the members across the aisle, or my Conservative and NDP colleagues, are acting in bad faith. I simply think that we have different ways of looking at things and that, if we work together, we can find solutions that will satisfy our interests, our prerogatives and our respective voters. Unfortunately, we were unable to find common ground. The opioid crisis is affecting Rivière‑du‑Nord, and it is a major problem. We have a great many other problems that we would like to solve using rehabilitation. The Quebec government has already adopted diversion measures for criminal offences. It tries to rehabilitate people rather than make them stand trial and send them to prison. We try to help them reintegrate into society and become active contributors again, as most of them used to be. For whatever reason, these people had experiences that set them on a path they would not otherwise have chosen, any more than we would have. In Quebec, we believe that we can help them and rehabilitate them. I applaud diversion efforts, and so does the Bloc. I think that it is the right solution, for the same reason that we previously voted in favour of the NDP's Bill C-216 along the same lines. We need to work with these people and help them. They do not need jail time, they need help. Drug addiction is a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. We therefore applaud this measure. However, we are torn over the idea of abolishing minimum sentences. This would send a message that I dare not describe in the House. I will say just that it is completely out of touch with reality because, day after day, people are shooting up day cares and apartment buildings. Just this morning, I read in the news that a stray bullet found its way into a senior's apartment. Fortunately, she was not hit. Members will recall that someone shot up a day care last week. That is not even organized crime. It is just delinquency. I am not a criminologist, and I cannot say any more on this subject, but we need to address this problem. Gun control falls under the federal Criminal Code, but the federal government is not doing anything. On top of that inaction, it wants to abolish the minimum sentences for these offences. I think that is just terrible. We will see how we vote on the bill, but I will admit that we are torn. This is not a good day for democracy.

1451 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 5:59:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague opposite, and I believe he comes from a really good space when he talks about this bill, but I want to highlight a couple of things. First and foremost is Bill C-21. A lot of the challenges the member addressed in his speech are addressed in Bill C-21. We have heard from him about them a number of times and we have delivered. It was tabled on Monday. The issue that I want to probe with the member is the notion of systemic racism, because it is an area where we have had some conversations and I do not believe he is quite there yet in acknowledging that systemic racism exists. After the report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator yesterday and after the testimony of people like the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and many others, does my friend opposite acknowledge that systemic racism exists and that we need to ensure our system of justice is fair and equitable to all who are part of it?

181 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Jun/1/22 6:00:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am happy to address this aspect, which I did not have time to talk about in my initial presentation. First, with respect to Bill C-21, let us forget that. We need to fix this quickly, since there is not a single street gang that buys their guns at Canadian Tire. That does not happen. With respect to systemic racism, what kind of twisted idea is it to claim that if there are indigenous or racialized people in our prisons, it is because the penalties are too harsh? What kind of an argument is that? This population needs help, that is what we heard in committee. Yes, there are more people in prison; those are the statistics, and I will not change them. It is true that there are more indigenous and Black people in prison, but we need money, we need to work with these people and help their communities. It takes more than social workers, health care, education and all that to help them not commit crimes. To argue that society will lower its standards, that people from the Black or indigenous communities commit crimes and therefore we will reduce penalties so they do not go to prison, is just mind-blowing. I could not believe it when I read that. When I saw my colleagues defend that in committee, I was happy I was not in their shoes. I imagine that the caucus forces them to defend these views, but if I were in their shoes I think I would have left the caucus.

270 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Jun/1/22 6:01:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, although I do not agree with absolutely everything my colleague just said, I do agree with almost all of it, especially the part about the current government's reasoning for wanting to, as the member so aptly put it, lower its standards when it comes to crime and sentencing. I have the privilege of representing the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent. As members know, Wendake is located in the heart of my riding. Some people who are close to me are outraged about the government's approach and desire to lower the standards. As the member said so well, we should be helping the least fortunate and the most vulnerable among us to prevent these crimes. The government should be taking a positive and constructive approach to the challenges we face with respect to the first nations and racialized peoples who are unfortunately in our prisons. It should be helping them, but instead, it is lowering standards in a race to the bottom. What are my colleague's thoughts on the government's approach?

176 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Jun/1/22 6:02:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. We did not hear a single person or witness in committee say that they wanted to be allowed to commit criminal acts. No one said that. These people are saying they have a problem, they need help, and we need to help them. It is our job as members of Parliament to help them. Once again, it makes no sense to say that we are going to reduce sentences for crimes that are committed. It is unjustifiable, and it is insulting to these people. It is true that they need help for all kinds of historical reasons. They have not been treated fairly in the past. This needs to be addressed, and we need to offer support and assistance to these communities. However, allowing them to commit crimes with a lesser penalty is not going to help them. That will not help anyone, on the contrary.

154 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/1/22 6:03:53 p.m.
Watch

I encourage members to ask their questions quickly and answer them briefly so that everyone can participate in the discussion. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

31 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/1/22 6:04:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-216

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-5 today. Sometimes the debate strays away from what is actually in the bill and goes into a lot of other things. I would just like to remind everybody what the bill is doing. It is attempting to attack systemic racism in our criminal justice system by eliminating 20 mandatory minimum penalties, all of those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and a few relating to firearms and tobacco offences. It also expands access to conditional sentences through things like house arrest and serving time on weekends, which is important in rehabilitating people who, for whatever reason, became involved with the criminal justice system. The third thing it does is provide more discretion for police to provide warnings and diversion instead of charging people, who then end up in jail. All of these three things are key steps in reducing the impact of systemic racism. In our corrections system, nearly 35% of those who are imprisoned are indigenous, but indigenous people make up less than 5% of our population. We know that about 7.5% of those in prison are Black Canadians, but they only represent 3.5% of the population. Something is clearly going on here in a systematic manner that produces these much worse outcomes for racialized and indigenous people. Who is in favour of this bill? This is something nobody else has really been talking about here. I know why some people do not raise this point. Most important to me is that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is in favour of this legislation, because they know that mandatory minimums do nothing to make communities safer. Two other organizations I want to mention that are very much in favour are the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. These are two very valuable non-profits that work with those who have served time to help re-integrate them back into the community. They gave very powerful testimony at committee about the impacts of mandatory minimums. Who is opposed to them? The Conservatives and the Bloc are clearly opposed to this bill that would reduce mandatory minimums. They often fly off into what I would call a fantasy world, where the idea is that if we take away mandatory minimums, somehow people would not get prison sentences and somehow serious criminals would not end up in jail. That is not what would happen with mandatory minimums or their removal. Judges would still assign serious time for serious crime. That is not what we are talking about here. The fact is that mandatory minimums—and most of those that would be removed are of less than two years—would result in people going into provincial corrections systems, which have very limited rehabilitation programs. It also means, when we take into time served for good behaviour and other facets of our criminal justice system, that people would serve only a few months. Even if there was an addiction treatment program, even if there was a skills training program, the time is too short for those to be successful. However, the time is not too short to make sure that people lose their housing. The time is not too short to make sure that people lose their job. The time is not too short to make sure that people's families are put at risk. Often the people who go under mandatory minimums are the sole providers for their families, so their kids are at risk of apprehension while they are in prison. All of this contributes to huge social problems that are not necessary. If we do not have a mandatory minimum, we could use conditional sentences. Someone could stay in their own home, maintain their job, serve their time on weekends, and actually become a productive member of society again, rather than having their whole life turned upside down, which would put them on a path that only leads to further addiction and further crime. We know that is the record of mandatory minimums. The academic studies all show the same thing: Mandatory minimums, if they do anything at all, actually make recidivism worse, because people have fewer options as a result of serving those mandatory minimums. The evidence is quite clear: They do not work. Should the government have done more? Yes; as a New Democrat, I agree it should have done more. The government should have done more earlier today when it had the chance to vote on our bill, Bill C-216, which would have decriminalized personal possession of drugs. That would have helped to address systemic racism, because we know that Black Canadians and indigenous Canadians are overcharged and charged at much higher rates for personal possession of drugs when their rates of drug use are not in fact higher. It would have helped tackle that. I do not think it is enough to say that we are going to reduce mandatory minimums; the government should have voted for Bill C-216. We should have made better progress. I am happy to see the government grant an exemption to British Columbia under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and I think it will lead to great success in tackling the opioid crisis, but I just do not understand why the government was not prepared to do that for the more than 70% of Canadians who live outside of British Columbia. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say, in answer to a question, that the Liberals are prepared to consider other exemptions, and certainly New Democrats will be asking them to step up when that time comes. What was in Bill C-5, as I said, was modest, and so I wish the Liberals had done more on Bill C-216, but I also wish they had done more on the bill, and that is why I proposed two amendments at committee, which I thank the government for accepting. The first of those, to me, is the most important. It is an amendment that says not only do mandatory minimums cause problems in racial injustice, but the resulting criminal records make things much worse. There are 250,000 Canadians who have a record for personal possession of drugs. What does this mean? It means that sometimes this record affects someone's hiring. Very often it affects their housing, whether it is social housing, which does not allow people with criminal records, or whether it is landlords who refuse to rent to them. It prevents people from getting bank loans and mortgages. It forces them into the hands of what I call loan sharks, otherwise called payday lenders. It prevents people from travelling. However, the one I have heard the most in my community is that a criminal record prevents someone from volunteering with kids or seniors, even though it may have been a personal possession charge from 20 years ago and has nothing to do with the way the person has turned their life around. In fact, some of those people might be the perfect people to volunteer with youth and show them a positive way forward. I thank the government for agreeing. What we agreed on is what it calls a sequestration of records, meaning they will be held separate and apart and will not show up in criminal records. Within two years, we will be wiping out the records of 250,000 people, and I think that is enormously important for rehabilitation and building safer communities. The second amendment I moved had to do with the expanded discretion for police. Here, New Democrats had a worry that was shared by many in the community, because discretion by the police is often subject to that very same systemic racism. The bill originally did not require record-keeping at all for the use of discretion; my amendment suggests that the police have to keep records on who they grant diversion to and who they warn. Then we will be able to see if this discretion happens just to privileged white folks or is being used fairly among all Canadians. The second part of that amendment says we will keep records, but those records cannot be used in future proceedings against individuals. Why say that? It may seem counterintuitive. If it is really a warning, then it is a warning, not a conviction, and so it should not be used in future criminal processes. It will make warnings much more powerful for people who get them and diversions much more powerful for people who get them. If someone successfully stays out of trouble with a warning or they successfully complete drug and alcohol counselling as part of their diversion, then this will never come back to haunt them again. It will encourage success in those programs. I thank the government for supporting those two measures. I fail to understand why the Conservatives and Bloc oppose those two amendments, but I also fail to understand why they are opposing this bill altogether. I know time is running short, but I want to go back to what I think is most important here. I have to say that I know people like to put forward their records as prosecutors and as police when they are talking about these things. I taught criminal justice for 20 years and I worked very closely with the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society on the question of rehabilitation of people, and we know what works. We know that when people can stay with their family and when people can have a job and maintain their employment, all of those things push them out of the criminal lifestyle and into the community. This is an important initiative in making all communities safer. Despite people saying that the bill removes mandatory minimums on serious crimes, I say no, the judges will still give out serious time for serious crime. What it does is take away the injustice of those mandatory minimums falling most heavily on indigenous people and racialized Canadians.

1688 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 6:13:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work of my friend opposite in supporting and strengthening Bill C-5. I do want to pose a question for him with respect to the issue of sequestration of simple possession. I know it is an issue that he fought very hard for. As he knows, the Minister of Public Safety is also mandated to ensure that there are reforms to the pardon system. Could the member opposite reflect on how important it is to make sure that issues such as simple possession and the records surrounding it are addressed within this bill?

101 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 79