SoVote

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 2:37:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the families and survivors of the hate-filled Islamophobic attacks at the Quebec City mosque and the other killings across the country. At the Supreme Court, we argued in support of a sentencing judge's discretion to impose a longer period of parole ineligibility where appropriate. We know this court decision was painful for many. We want to be clear: Nothing in the decision changes the fact that all people convicted of murder receive a mandatory life sentence. Just as we did in January 2017, we will stand with the families, survivors and communities and everyone impacted by such violence.

106 words

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 2:38:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, allow me to be clear once again: Nothing in the Supreme Court decision changes the fact that all people convicted of murder receive a mandatory life sentence. At the Supreme Court, we argued in support of a sentencing judge's discretion to impose a longer period of parole ineligibility where appropriate, but we will continue to stand with Canadians. We will continue to stand with the victims and survivors of these terrible killings.

75 words

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/1/22 6:18:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I will spare members the suspense and say from the outset that I do not support the bill. The bill sends exactly the wrong message from this Parliament to the judiciary. It sends the wrong message from the government to criminals. It sends the wrong message to Canada's victims of serious and violent crimes. It also represents a missed opportunity to send a message that might help address a serious and growing problem, which is fraud, a crime that the current government has taken no meaningful action to address since it was first elected nearly seven years ago, but I will not have time to talk about that today. Thankfully, in recent decades there has been a steep reduction in most violent offences and property crimes. Experts and pundits have theories to explain this, but the most recent years show that this overall trend may now be in reverse. It is against this backdrop that the government has chosen to undo a series of minimum sentences for offences that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have passed over a very long time. Offences for which the government wishes to reduce minimum sentences include some of the most grievous offences on the books. One is left to wonder why. Who are the Canadians crying out for lighter sentences on, for example, firearms offences? Are there Canadians who think that the Criminal Code is too harsh on gun traffickers or those who smuggle guns illegally from the United States into Canada? Do Canadians think that the judicial system is too harsh on people convicted of robbery with a firearm? Is there really anyone in Canada who thinks that robbery with a firearm should result in anything other than a custodial sentence? Does any Canadian think that if a person uses a firearm to rob someone, they should not do so with full knowledge that if caught they will go to prison? Is there anyone in Canada who thinks extortion with a firearm or discharging a firearm with intent is not a serious criminal offence? I listened to the justice minister's speech when this bill was first tabled and debated at second reading. He spoke of the need for greater flexibility in sentencing and he used a hypothetical example. He spoke of a 19-year-old man residing in a remote northern community who, after having too much to drink and maybe on a dare from his buddies, discharged a firearm. He fired a gun into a building. The minister suggested in this example that the current Criminal Code would force this young man into the prison system and into the company of other criminals, destroying his potential for life-long employment and setting him on a life-long trajectory of career criminality. The justice minister's hypothetical critique of a mandatory sentence for this hypothetical crime is riddled with a series of false premises. First, the minister falsely assumed that in this hypothetical case the police, the prosecutor and the judge would have no other choice but to charge, prosecute and convict this young man of discharging a firearm with intent and sending him to a mandatory sentence. Second, the minister, in choosing this example, deliberately chose to characterize drunkenly shooting up a building as a minor offence. There was a certain amount of arrogance in assuming that a drunken late-night shooting was somehow more acceptable in a northern community than perhaps in his Montreal riding. I disagree with the minister. Discharging a firearm is a serious crime with potentially life-altering consequences for victims that ought to carry life-altering consequences for the shooter, such as a custodial sentence should their actions actually meet the high bar for conviction that firing with intent would carry. Gun crimes are not the only offence for which this bill would reduce floor sentences. Bill C-5 would reduce the penalties for kidnapping and human trafficking, and it would allow for conditional sentences of house arrest instead of prison for those who abduct vulnerable Canadians and force them into unpaid labour or into the sex trade. I ask again, who wants lighter sentences for human trafficking? Do we live in a country where normal people, even legal experts, would say that the Criminal Code is too strong and inflexible in the way that it robs judges of the flexibility to allow human traffickers and rapists to serve their sentences in their own homes? Allowing offenders convicted of sexual assault, kidnapping or human trafficking to serve sentences in their homes in their communities would be the ultimate insult to their victims. We all know that the majority of these crimes go unreported, and that is exactly why. Most victims of sexual assault have no confidence, as it is now, that justice will be done if they come forward. The very knowledge that the perpetrators of sexual assault could receive a community sentence is a disincentive to victims of sexual assault to report the crime. Bill C-5 would also weaken sentencing for criminals at the very top of criminal enterprises: the deadly opioid epidemic. This bill would reduce minimum penalties for the production and trafficking of schedule 1 drugs. We are not talking about simple possession, and we are not talking about street-level addicts who are selling drugs to finance their habit. We are talking about producers and importers of fentanyl and heroin. Every day, these drugs kill Canadians, and every day these drugs create misery and deprivation that rip families apart, yet this bill would reduce the minimum penalties for criminals who illegally manufacture these drugs to be sold to the most desperate and vulnerable members of our society. If someone manufactures the illegal opioids that are killing Canadians, they belong in prison. As we have heard, this bill would eliminate the necessity of a custodial sentence for those convicted of crimes that include armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, gun trafficking, opioid production and a bunch of others. What about the administration of justice? The minister has argued that the existence of mandatory prison sentences clogs up the system. Setting aside the question of whether mandatory penalties cause delays within the courts, let us instead ask whether this is relevant in the context of serious violent crime. The reason for floor sentences for criminals who commit serious and violent crimes is to protect the public from dangerous offenders, to allow communities time to recover from victimization, to address issues such as witness intimidation and, most importantly, to ensure that punishment is proportionate to crime. If the argument against floor sentences for these crimes is simply to relieve congestion in the courts and reduce the number of people in prison, then I must disagree with proponents of this bill. If our courts are congested, and delay is denying the public, the accused and the victims of justice, the minister should get serious about timely judicial appointments, instead of trying to blame those who disagree with him on the necessity of floor sentence requirements for serious, violent offences. The member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River raised an important point when he pointed out that peace officers, prosecutors and judges already do what they can to divert non-violent offenders away from prison into other programs. I agree that prison is not the only, nor even the most suitable, option for non-violent offenders when other programs can adequately punish their crimes, contribute to public safety and increase the chances of successful reintegration. One can recognize this fact and still object to this bill. The point of floor sentences is not to railroad the judiciary into certain decisions or to unduly diminish judges' discretion. It is to ensure that justice is done and the public is protected from violent offenders. Finally, legislating effective sentencing would not pit the legislature against the judiciary, as the minister would frame it. It is an example of Parliament exercising its legitimate authority over defining criminal offences and setting floors and ceilings on penalties. Setting reasonable parameters for sentencing is part of Parliament's job. In conclusion, Bill C-5 sends the wrong signals to criminals and society at large about the severity of certain crimes. It risks increasing crime rates and victimization, it continues to miss the mark on addressing gun crime and the opioid crisis, and it goes soft on sexual assault, kidnapping and modern-day slavery. As such, I cannot support the bill.

1435 words