44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 9, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/9/22 11:23:13 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the Liberals had an opportunity, with this bill, to provide full decriminalization for simple drug possession. In fact, this hon. member voted against the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni's private member's bill, Bill C-216, which would have been an opportunity to provide justice to people.
How does the hon. member reconcile blocking the decriminalization of simple drug possession, while understanding all the impacts this has on our community when it comes to extended sentencing?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:42:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague quoted Lisa Lapointe, a very respected public health official in British Columbia. She has called for the decriminalization of drugs and for treating drug use and substance use disorders as health issues.
My hon. colleague properly empathizes with the unbelievable, astronomical death rate in British Columbia. The New Democrats have pointed to the problem being the toxic street supply, and the fact that decades and decades of a “tough on crime, war on drugs” approach, which attempts to punish and interdict drugs, has been an absolute, abject, empirical, total failure.
The member claims to be logical, so could she tell me if she thinks the war on drugs has been successful? Does she think that more punishment and trying to interdict drugs would give any different result than we have had over the last 50 years?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 4:42:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, Quebec has fantastic social programs. However, these programs require financial support from the federal government, and that support is completely lacking. The fiscal imbalance is a well-known problem.
There was nothing in the federal government's latest budget about increasing health transfers. Now it is proposing something new, diversion and decriminalization. Making all these changes requires resources.
Obviously, if we want to be proactive in providing assistance, helping people heal and preventing addiction, we will have to take certain approaches, and the federal government can definitely help by increasing health transfers.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 6:59:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question. My office is adjacent to a shelter in Mission, British Columbia, and I speak to a lot of people who are both suffering from opioids and who live on the streets. A lot of them do not have access to care. A lot of them do not have access to wraparound services. A lot of them do not have access to housing. In British Columbia, before the agreement between B.C. and the federal government, we already had de facto decriminalization.
What we need to see are real and concrete investments. I know investment would cost a lot of money. In fact, it was one of the big platform commitments of the Conservatives. We need a national approach to addressing the mental health and addictions crisis in the country, and we need to put real dollars into communities to give people the recovery beds and options for recovery that they are looking for.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
