SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/9/22 12:59:49 p.m.
Watch

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Montcalm.

12 words

Jun/9/22 12:59:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will try to remain calm. I am not sure I properly understood the intervention of my colleague, who cynically described people with addictions as criminals who deserve mercy from the government. Is the Conservative member aware of what is happening around the world in the fight against addiction? Does he know how many heroin addicts there were in Portugal before diversion programs and decriminalization were brought in? There were 100,000. Today, there are only 15,000. I would like the member to clarify what he meant and drop the cynicism toward people addicted to heroin or other substances.

102 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Jun/9/22 1:00:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, perhaps it was lost in translation, but that particular statement in my speech was a rhetorical question put to the government because that is the type of language the government is using. The focus of my speech was not on those who are struggling with drug addiction. Our entire focus as a Conservative caucus, even in our platform in the last election, is all about taking steps to address rehabilitation. The focus of my speech and the focus of our opposition is on traffickers who are encouraging these individuals to continue their addictions, and that is where our focus ought to be.

104 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/9/22 1:01:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention, but there is one thing I will flag for him. I found it very interesting that he chose to use a quotation from the past justice minister of Alberta Kaycee Madu, considering that Mr. Madu lost his position as the justice minister because he phoned the police chief after getting a ticket he did not like. He seems like an interesting person to refer to when we talk about justice. However, more importantly, would representatives from the Conservative Party be prepared to support the calls from other leaders, mayors, health experts, health care providers, frontline care providers and police in Alberta to support the decriminalization of small amounts of narcotics? Would that be something the member would be supportive of?

129 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Jun/9/22 1:02:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, again,what we are continually hearing from the NDP and the Greens is very frustrating. They want to change the story and turn the page on what Bill C-5 is all about. Bill C-5, for the last time, is not about simple possession. This is a news release to the House: It is not. I am not going to respond—

65 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/9/22 1:02:50 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has the floor.

16 words

Rivi
Mille

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/9/22 1:02:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, at report stage. It is sponsored by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, the current Minister of Justice. Bill C-5 acts simultaneously on two complementary fronts: It repeals mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, for certain offences in the Criminal Code and establishes diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. Indirectly, Bill C-5 also seeks to counter systemic racism by addressing the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the prison system. My colleagues may know from my background that I was a criminologist. Far from me to claim I am an expert in the matter, but I can say that establishing diversion measures for these offences and repealing mandatory minimum penalties is fully consistent with many of my views and opinions. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, let us define the important terms we are using today. Too many people, including most of us, confuse decriminalization, legalization and diversion. First, mandatory minimum penalties are legislated sentencing floors where the minimum punishment is predetermined by law. I am reiterating this because I believe that there is some confusion in our colleagues’ remarks. Second, decriminalization is the act of removing from the Criminal Code an action or omission that was considered a criminal offence, or the act of reducing the seriousness of an offence or removing from it any of its so-called criminal or penal nature. Diversion means the suspension, in the normal course of events, of criminal justice mechanisms at every step of the decision-making process. These can include incidents settled within the community, cases not referred to the justice system by the police, conciliation before reaching trial, and so on. Overall, the Bloc Québécois supports the provisions proposed in Bill C-5. However, there are a few points about which we have serious reservations, but I will get to that later. First, with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, the Bloc Québécois advocates an approach that involves rehabilitating offenders, a term our Conservative colleagues do not appear to be familiar with, reducing crime and easing the burden on our penal and justice systems. MMPs, which became harsher under the Harper Conservative government, are totally useless. No empirical study has ever shown that these penalties reduce crime. First, they increase the burden on the criminal justice and correctional systems. Second, they cost taxpayers a fortune. Third, they undermine any chances of reintegration for many minor offenders after their first offence for a minor crime, such as simple drug possession. Although we agree with the principle, we must point out this is not the right time to eliminate MMPs for firearms offences. As I stand here addressing the House, a number of cities in Canada and Quebec are experiencing a veritable epidemic of firearms, mainly because of the government’s inaction when it comes to border control. Without the firm and concerted action of the federal government to stem the illegal importation of firearms across the border, repealing MMPs for firearms offences is sending the wrong message. With respect to diversion, obviously the Bloc Québécois supports it, and I am personally very eager to see it happen, because I firmly believe in the concept of rehabilitation. Diversion considers drug problems to be mental health and public health issues. That is important. Diversion measures are intended for persons with addictions, those who would normally be prosecuted for simple drug possession under Canada's Criminal Code. The aim of diversion is to remove individuals struggling with problematic substance use, and who do not pose a risk to society, from the justice system. It is important to understand that diversion is not inconsistent with criminal prosecution. Diversion simply offers offenders the choice of a different path, an alternative to prison. Options for diversion include treatment information sessions, fines, community service and many more. Diversion is therefore not a solution to the criminality associated with the sale of illicit drugs; it is a solution to social and public health problems. Earlier, my colleague referred to Portugal, which gives us one of the best examples of the benefits of diversion. Faced with a serious drug problem in 2001, that is the path Portugal opted for. Diversion led to a decline in drug use. Incarceration rates for drug-related offences decreased as well, and the number of fatal overdoses like those we are seeing in British Columbia, for example, fell sharply. Another benefit was that the incidence of HIV-AIDS among drug users also plummeted. I think it is crucial to point out this achievement, which is attributable to a combination of diversion measures and Portugal’s massive investment in health care. The current bill does not contain anything about this second component, namely investment in health care. I would like to remind members that every Canadian province, including Quebec, is asking the federal level to cover 35% of their health spending so that they can support their health care systems, which are in dire need of funding. Another good reason to increase health transfers, as Quebec wants and is calling for, is to again move towards adopting an approach that would closely follow Portugal’s. In short, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-5. We support the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession offences. We also support the repeal of some mandatory minimum penalties. I say “some” mandatory minimum penalties to avoid falling into demagoguery. However, I will reiterate that the government is making a mistake when it proposes to repeal mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences without doing anything about the source of the problem, namely the free movement of thousands of illegal firearms across our porous border with the United States. I will therefore vote for Bill C-5, but if the government really wants to make a difference, if it wants to ensure that repealing mandatory minimum penalties and establishing diversion measures will yield all the benefits we can expect, it must do two things. First, it must immediately implement all of the measures proposed by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia to reduce firearms violence. Then, it must immediately increase health transfers to the provinces to cover at least 35% of their spending. If it does that, I can guarantee the Liberal Party that Bill C-5 will have an extremely positive impact. If it continues to turn a deaf ear to the Bloc Québécois’s proposals, it will once again have missed a great opportunity.

1134 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/9/22 1:12:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned Portugal. He raised the issue of the financial resources that must support such a process. João Goulão was the author of this reform in Portugal. In response to someone who asked if they should go ahead with this diversion, or decriminalization, as he called it, he replied that, if the means were not there, and if the necessary funding was not provided for frontline resources, it would be better to leave the problem to the justice system. I would like to ask my colleague if he feels the government is willing to inject the necessary funds to support a reform seeking to resolve such fundamental problems as the opioid crisis.

119 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Jun/9/22 1:13:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not get the feeling that this government is willing to do that. We often say that the government prefers to react rather than act. That is often the case. The government does not walk the talk. The community organizations and semi-governmental agencies that could and should be taking over for the prison system when it comes to minimum penalties need money to do their work.

71 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Jun/9/22 1:14:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the bill before us raises some really fundamental questions about what is effective in terms of criminal justice. Of course, those of us on this side of the House in the NDP believe that the evidence is crystal clear that mandatory minimums are simply not effective in helping to reduce crime. One thing I think that we are well aware of is the very high degree of addiction and mental health issues among inmates in federal correctional institutions. In fact, we did a study about 10 years ago at the public safety committee, and found that about 70% of inmates in federal systems suffered from an addiction or mental health problem. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague has any thoughts on whether it might be a more effective public policy, and help keep the public safe, if we directed resources toward trying to help people deal with their mental health and addictions issues while they were serving at the pleasure of the Crown, as they say, as opposed to simply making them stay longer in prison without any access to services.

185 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets

Jun/9/22 1:15:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. There is an obvious link between mental health and serious substance abuse problems. Unfortunately, the prison system is grappling with a large population with mental health issues because far too many people are being incarcerated for minor offences. Minor sentences do not solve anything. They are a waste of time for everyone, including the people directly affected by these problems. These minor offences could be dealt with by means other than prison sentences. They could be dealt with by society, with a view to rehabilitation, as I said before. To pick up on my colleague's idea, I also find it unfortunate that the Liberal government often talks about scientific studies and sound evidence, when all of that points to what is being done in Portugal. We need to start reading the scientific literature and listening to scientists. We need to follow their advice. I spoke about the Liberal government, but the Conservative government is even worse in that regard.

168 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Jun/9/22 1:16:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I have already mentioned this here today, but I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts about human trafficking and the material benefit of eliminating minimum sentences.

30 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Jun/9/22 1:17:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I had some trouble understanding the question. I apologize for that, but I think it is wonderful that my colleague is making an effort to speak in French, and I commend him.

34 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Jun/9/22 1:17:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand and speak to Bill C-5 at report stage. I would like to start by thanking all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the work they did in reviewing this bill and reporting it back to the House. As a former member of that committee, I know it is no easy task. I used to be a member, back in 2017. The bills that come before the justice committee are usually quite serious in nature. They demand a certain amount of responsibility to take up the task and make sure that the amendments we are making to the Criminal Code have in fact been vetted and that all of the implications of their passage are fully understood. This being Bill C-5, my remarks today, of course, are going to concentrate on two themes. One is on the question of mandatory minimums and whether they still serve any kind of useful purpose in our criminal justice system. The second theme is on the incredible harm that is a result of Canada's current federal drug policy, and not only the harm that is meted out to people who are arrested and have criminal records that they have to deal with for the rest of their lives, but also the lack of action in tackling the root causes of the opioid crisis that I have heard members from every political party and every region in Canada speak so passionately about. Bill C-5, like any piece of legislation, is not going to solve those problems by itself and I would argue that much more needs to be done. This is one small step on the path that we need to take, but it is nonetheless a step forward. That is why I will be supporting this bill and ensuring that the Senate receives it so that it can one day make its way to the Governor General's desk and be signed into law. It is important to set up the context, especially when we are speaking about mandatory minimums. I do not need to argue about the harms that they cause our society. It has been well documented by many, including none other than the Correctional Investigator. The statistics are there, for indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians, on their share of the population in Canada and their extreme overrepresentation in our criminal justice system. What is more is that there is simply no credible evidence that mandatory minimums work in any way to deter crime. That is a fact. I have had to sit in this place through question period after question period, listening to colleagues from the Conservative Party talk and deliberately misstate what is going on with this piece of legislation. The Conservatives are trying to weave a story for Canadians and trying to infect them with fear that with the passage of Bill C-5, somehow every person who is charged with a serious criminal offence is suddenly going to be placed on house arrest or released on the streets. Nothing could be further from the truth. What it speaks to is a distrust, among members of that party, in judges having the ability to make the right decisions for the cases that come before them. Mandatory minimums are a blunt instrument of justice. They do not allow a judge to take in the circumstances of a case and to look at the circumstances of the individual who has been charged with a crime. Furthermore, in all of the arguments I have heard from Conservatives on this bill, the part they leave out is that even though these sections in the Criminal Code are being amended, the maximum penalties are still in force. While the mandatory minimum penalties are being taken away, many of these serious offences carry prison terms of up to 10 years and of up to 14 years. There is no doubt in my mind that if a repeat offender has committed very serious criminal acts under the sections of the Criminal Code covered by Bill C-5, that person will receive jail time. A judge's solemn responsibility to society is public safety and ensuring there is justice for the victims of crime. Judges are always balancing society's best interests when a case comes before them. We have to trust them in that process. There is a reason that our legislative branch is separate from the judicial branch. We have to trust in these men and women who are so very learned in law and who can appreciate all of the fine differences in each case that comes before them. We have to trust that they will always make the right decision. There are ways we can hold our judges to account. There are courts of appeal, and we can continue going up the judicial ladder until we reach the Supreme Court of Canada. I cannot accept the arguments that are being made against mandatory minimums in this place, because they are being made in bad faith. I want to turn to the main part I really want to hammer out here, which is the important amendments that are being made to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I was very honoured to stand in this place with my friend, colleague and neighbour, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, and vote in favour of his bill, Bill C-216. It would have essentially decriminalized personal possession. It would have set up a process of expungement. It would have set our country forward on a path of setting up a national strategy to deal with the opioids crisis. Unfortunately, there were only a few members who were brave enough to stand up for that bold, game-changing policy and trying to put this country on a path forward. Even though we lost that battle, I think that vote and the conversation we had have been important milestones for this country's evolving laws toward drug policy. I am certain that in the years ahead we are going to see some fundamental reform in this area. The main thing Bill C-5 would do with respect to our drug laws is set up a declaration of principles. We are at report stage now, but important work was done at committee. I have to take a moment to recognize the amazing and incredible work of my colleague and neighbour to the south, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. His knowledge of law, his expertise in that area and the diligent and hard work he has done at committee resulted in some very substantive amendments to Bill C-5. One of them in particular, although it is not going to be called expungement, is expungement by a different name. One of the main harms we have had to people who have have criminal records for personal possession amounts is that those records follow them throughout life. They can affect one's ability to get into certain lines of work, affect one's ability to rent a home and very severely affect one's ability to travel. The amendments that were made by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and accepted by a majority of the committee are essentially going to make sure that Bill C-5 would ensure that after two years those records are sequestered from the main records of that person, and no longer will anyone be able to find those records and hold them against that person. It is important, and it is certainly not as bold of a step as we would have wanted, but I think it goes to show that this small caucus of New Democrats has been able to make monumental reform to a pretty important government justice bill. I think this is going to leave a lasting mark for people who have been negatively affected by this. I will conclude by saying that when it comes to mandatory minimums, it is important for us to remember that the Criminal Code is a massive piece of legislation. There are already sections within the Criminal Code, specifically section 718.2, the sentencing principles, that allow a judge to increase or decrease a sentence based on aggravating factors. The sentences that are spelled out in the Criminal Code for the specific sections of Bill C-5, in fact, could be lengthened, if there were aggravating factors. If a crime was committed against a person with a disability or if racial hatred and bias were involved in a crime, judges could take that into account. I could say much more, but 10 minutes goes by very quickly. I will end by saying that Bill C-5 is a small step. We did our job to make it better. I will be pleased to vote in favour of this bill to send it to the Senate and hopefully into law in the very near future.

1499 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Jun/9/22 1:27:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on human trafficking with material benefit. Is it right for such a serious issue to be buried in the bill? Is this crime, which overwhelmingly affects women and girls, not important?

42 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Jun/9/22 1:27:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Again, Madam Speaker, this is an example of the Conservatives completely ignoring what I just said. Of course I will acknowledge it is a serious crime, but what my hon. colleague failed to mention is that a judge would have the ability to look at the case before him or her, look at the defendant involved, look at the circumstances of the case, and if it is warranted, levy a hefty prison term against that individual. I have a counter-question for the member. Why does he and his party have so little faith in the judges? Why do those members not just come clean and say that to Canadians point blank?

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/9/22 1:28:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want tell my colleague that I truly appreciated his enlightening speech. We both served on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I want to tell him that I agree with his analysis of the work that judges do, especially with respect to sentencing. I would like him to tell me about some of the negative effects of minimum sentences with respect to these changes, because minimum sentences do have negative effects. Can he provide some examples to help us understand why judges should have full responsibility over sentencing, which is the nature of their job?

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Jun/9/22 1:29:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, in my speech, I referenced the statistics, which are there for everyone to see, but I will go even further. There could be unique circumstances where charges have been levied against an individual who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, mixed up with the wrong crowd, and the judge would have no choice on a guilty verdict. The judge may say, “I can see that the circumstances in which you find yourself are markedly different from the people I usually see before me, but my hands are tied and because of this mandatory minimum sentencing provision in the Criminal Code, I have to give you a three-year sentence.” It completely binds the hands of the judge. Justice is not black and white. As much as the Conservatives want to see that it is, it is not black and white. Judges need to have the ability to make sure that the sentence is appropriate to the person before them.

168 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Jun/9/22 1:30:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the member gave a thoughtful speech, as thoughtful as his colleague from Courtenay—Alberni and the bill that he had to decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs. The first reaction to the bill that the House did pass was from Alberta, saying that what was happening in B.C., which was an agreement with B.C., is not good and it will not happen in Alberta. I would ask the member to reflect on that and Bill C-5, which again attempts to allow local jurisdictions to consider local circumstances and have judges make the appropriate judgment on what kinds of penalties should apply.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Jun/9/22 1:31:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, on the last part, I agree that this is a fundamental reason that Bill C-5 needs to pass, but I will expand on it. The problem with the Liberals voting down Bill C-216 is that while there may be a jurisdiction like British Columbia which is very open to reaching agreements with the federal government, there will be other jurisdictions like Alberta that refuse to do that. While the agreement with British Columbia is a great thing, what about all the Canadians in other provinces who do not have progressive premiers? They have to wait for the law to be changed and they are out of luck. That is the problem. That is why it is shameful that the Liberals voted against Bill C-216.

129 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 85