Bill C-5

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

The reason I ask these questions is that I'm one of those people who would like to see the court spend its time on the more serious violent crimes that really threaten communities. From what you're telling me now, if we pass Bill C-5, it will take a significant number of future challenges out of the court system completely.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for keeping me on my toes.

I want to start by asking a question about the number of mandatory minimum penalties that will remain on the books after Bill C-5 passes, if you have that figure. My recollection was that there were probably around 73 or 75 existing mandatory minimums or something like that.

[Andrew Di Manno]

I can start by saying that there haven't been specific consultations on Bill C-5, but there were consultations done at the criminal justice system round tables in 2016, and the mandatory minimum penalties that are being targeted in this bill are the ones that are particularly associated with negative disproportionate impacts on indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

As the minister noted earlier, indigenous persons are overrepresented with respect to certain firearm-related offences, and the same goes for Black Canadians, who are overrepresented with respect to import/export offences. I can also say that there's one in five indigenous women who are serving a sentence for a serious drug offence or conspiracy to commit a serious drug offence, and that by repealing the mandatory minimum penalties in those cases, the government is restoring judicial discretion to impose fit sentences in all cases.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here this afternoon. This is very important research—or meeting—that we are doing here. I look forward to all the presenters who will come forth.

In my time in Nova Scotia, when I was involved in the justice portfolio.... In Nova Scotia, we have a ridiculously high number in terms of overrepresentation in our correctional facilities of Black and indigenous Nova Scotians. I would say that overwhelmingly the research and the evidence are clear now, from the many people who have spoken on it since those years. There's clearly a problem in our system. Can you speak to me in relation to that?

What consultations informed the development of Bill C-5, specifically with groups representing racialized groups and indigenous people or provinces like Nova Scotia? What have you heard and can you tell me the impact that MMPs would have on that overrepresentation?

I look to whoever is able to answer that.

[Andrew Di Manno]

You are indeed correct. Many of the mandatory minimum penalties that will remain after Bill C-5 is adopted are five- and seven-year mandatory minimum penalties for offences in which a restricted or prohibited firearm is used, when the offences are in connection with organized crime. The mandatory minimum penalties that are targeted, let's say, for firearm offences in this bill are the ones in the “in any other case” category, which particularly relates to the use of firearms like long guns.

[Andrew Di Manno]

It's reasonable to expect that the reforms to CSOs will place a greater demand on treatment programs at the outset. However, mandatory minimum penalties are extremely costly in the criminal justice system, and they increase charter challenges. What ends up happening is that if we implement the reforms in Bill C-5, we expect that over time, while there will be an initial increase in requests for treatment and programs, we'll see long-term reductions in recidivism and more efficient ways of dealing with crime.

[Andrew Di Manno]

What I can say about Bill C-5 is that it's just one of the mechanisms that the government has put in place, not only to reduce criminality but also to impose fairer sentences that will serve the communities themselves. Some of the measures in Bill C-5 with respect to mandatory minimum penalties restore judicial discretion, and the same thing with conditional sentences of imprisonment: They allow judges to impose sentences with a community-based sanction when appropriate. With respect to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, again, there are mechanisms there that allow the criminal justice system to keep individuals outside of the criminal justice system and to get the help they need.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know that Bill C-5 is targeting systemic racism, but there's another impact of mandatory minimums that has been a concern for me—since everyone's citing their past—as a criminal justice instructor for 20 years, and that is the situation of women who are in abusive or controlling relationships. They often end up in the justice system as a result of the activities of their partners, particularly around drugs that they are quite often forced to deliver or hold on behalf of a coercive partner. Therefore, they end up under mandatory minimums.

I wonder if the Minister has any comments on how the bill will impact women who come into conflict. Again, because of systemic racism, a lot of those women are Black women and indigenous women.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, it's good to see you here today.

I'm interested in learning more about the conditional sentencing orders that are also part of Bill C-5. When I had the honour of serving as the Attorney General of Ontario, we introduced a similar notion dealing with bills, introducing bill.... That's in the province. In fact, I recall making a certain announcement with Mr. Brock when he was a Crown prosecutor. He was quite supportive of that initiative.

It was an opportunity to allow people who had some serious mental health or addiction challenges.... Instead of being remanded and incarcerated while they were waiting for their trial, they were allowed to be in a community setting, under strict conditions, where they could get support services. There was ample evidence to demonstrate that this would be far more beneficial to them and to society in general.

What evidence and benefits have you seen in terms of the use of conditional sentencing orders that have compelled you to reintroduce them through Bill C-5?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

The same day that you introduced Bill C-5, you were quoted as saying that this was not aimed at “hardened criminals” but at first-time, low-risk offenders. Specifically, you said this:

Think about your own kids. Perhaps they got into trouble at some point with the law. I bet you would want to give them the benefit of the doubt or a second chance if they messed up. Well, it is a lot harder to get a second chance the way things are now.

With all due respect to you, Minister, that tone-deaf response was not what Canadians wanted to hear one day removed from the commemoration, one day removed from our standing in solidarity against gun crime. You know that gun crime is on the rise across all of Canada, and particularly in my riding of Brantford—Brant.

Minister, this week, April 6, you then did not respond directly to a question posed by the Conservative member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. He brought to your attention the situation of a drive-by shooting, which this legislation captures. He asked you specifically how that is not a threat to public safety. The government could put into place a constitutional “safety valve” and have mandatory minimum penalties, with exceptions, to address the problems of over-incarceration. This could provide a perfect middle ground. Why wouldn't the government consider that?

Your response, sir, was that the “fallacy” of the member's argument was “clear”, and that you were eliminating MMPs to eliminate the bottom range for all offences. Then you drew another example and said that what you were talking about here was “where a person perhaps has a few too many on a Saturday night and puts a couple of bullets into the side of an empty barn”.

My question to you, Minister, is this. The discharge of a firearm with intent, or recklessly, deserves jail time. Would you agree with that or not?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and department officials. Thank you for your attendance.

It's my first opportunity to talk directly to you, Minister. Hopefully I'll get a number of questions in.

The first one I want to bring to your attention is the timing of your introduction to this particular bill. I remember that day very clearly, because, less than 24 hours removed from your presenting Bill C-5 in the House, we stood in solidarity as members of Parliament, and the entire House commemorated the École Polytechnique massacre from several years ago. We stood for the message that the government would stand strong against all forms of gun violence and to inform Canadians in very clear terms that we would take immediate steps to curb the ever-increasing tide of that criminal behaviour.

I think you'd agree with me, Minister, that the number one responsibility of a federal government is to keep its citizens safe. Do you agree with that?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I thank the minister for being here today.

I know that one of the motivations behind C-5 is to address systemic racism in the justice system, but I want to ask about something I think is very closely related. That's the overdose crisis in Canada.

In 2021, in British Columbia, 2,224 people died from an overdose and a poisoned drug supply. That's at least 2,224 families who lost fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, kids, cousins and neighbours. This is a rapidly increasing problem.

One way that you've talked about it in this bill is with diversion and reducing mandatory minimums, but the First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia reported that indigenous British Columbians are five times more likely to experience an overdose crisis and three times more likely to die from that overdose crisis.

Minister, my question to you is, wouldn't it be better simply to eliminate the criminal offence of possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for being with us today.

I almost want to start with the same warning as my colleague Mr. Moore gave you. I'm not sure we're going to agree on Bill C‑5, even though, on the merits, the Bloc Québécois has historically disagreed with mandatory minimum penalties and will continue to do so.

We do think it's preferable to allow judges to determine the applicable penalties in most cases, but not all. On the matter of decriminalizing the use of small quantities of drugs, we think that's more a health problem than a legal problem.

So perhaps we could agree on substance, but we have some reservations with Bill C‑5 as drafted.

You told us at the outset that the bill was designed to combat systemic racism. I'd say you're stretching a point. Systemic racism is a major problem that obviously must be addressed, but first we should determine what it is. I'm not sure that systemic racism, in the sense the present government intends, actually exists. However, that's another issue that we won't be addressing today.

To my mind, reducing the applicable penalties for certain crimes in order to prevent racialized individuals from winding up in prison is an odd way to address racism

Having said that, I'm going to ask you some more specific questions because I only have six minutes, and I can't have more than five left. As you'd expect, we won't be able to address the entire issue in five minutes.

However, I want to validate a point with you.

You say that mandatory minimum penalties would remain in force for serious crimes.

Do you think that weapons trafficking is a serious crime or not?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

We talked about over-representation earlier.

Bill C‑5 would grant significant discretion to police officers and prosecutors in criminal cases.

How would the changes made by the bill prevent the over-representation of certain populations in the correctional system?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

According to the government's backgrounder on Bill C‑5, the repeal of mandatory minimum penalties is part of an effort to promote judicial discretion for sentencing.

However, the bill would not remove all mandatory minimum penalties.

If judicial discretion in sentencing is important for some offences, why isn't it for others?