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.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Where I'm getting the information, Minister, is directly from Bill C-5. Offences for which a conditional sentence would be available include sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing harm, trafficking or exporting, fraud over $5,000, robbery, breaking and entering, and robbery to steal a firearm. These are offences that are taking place in all of our communities. Under your bill, the perpetrators will now be able to receive a conditional sentence, otherwise known as “house arrest”, rather than jail time.

Minister, I'd like an acknowledgement on the source of many of these mandatory minimums that you say are for not serious offences. Do you know the origins in the Criminal Code of the mandatory minimum for using a firearm in the commission of an offence, for example, and for weapons trafficking? On those mandatory minimums, do you know when they were introduced?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing. It's good to see you again virtually, as well as the officials who are appearing with you.

Minister, I know you and I agree with each other from time to time. Bill C-5 is not going to be one of those times. I can tell you from the testimony that we've heard in our deep consultations with witnesses and communities, both rural and urban, as well as various victims groups, that this bill could not be more breathtakingly out of touch at the time we find ourselves in in Canada.

Removing mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crime, house arrest for serious offences against a person, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act trafficking, production and distribution minimums being eliminated for serious offences that are plaguing our communities.... This bill, quite frankly, flies in the face of those who are calling for safer streets and communities, and it is an affront to victims.

I heard in your opening remarks—it's quite heartening and I'm sure Canadians will be relieved—that you're maintaining the mandatory minimum penalty for murder. I guess that sets the bar fairly low, Minister. We're interested in making sure we have a justice system that's balanced, protects the rights of victims and keeps communities safe.

I want to jump right into questioning.

According to Statistics Canada, women were violently victimized at a rate nearly double that of men in 2019. We know part of this is due to the fact that, according to Statistics Canada research, women were five times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault. At your appearance at committee on March 10, 2020, you stated that, “despite the robustness of our legal framework in this area, there are still extremely low rates of reports, charges and convictions in sexual assault cases.”

With your Bill C-5, Minister, both sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing harm, and the offence of sexual assault under section 271 would have mandatory jail time removed, and an offender could serve their sentence from their home community.

Did you consult with victims of sexual assault before making the decision to allow the perpetrators to serve their sentence from home?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour for me to be with you this morning on the unceded land of the Algonquin Anishinabe people here in Ottawa.

I am accompanied by Deputy Minister François Daigle and subject matter experts from the Department of Justice: Matthew Taylor, who is in the room with me, as well as Carole Morency and Andrew Di Manno, who are participating in the meeting via Zoom.

Good afternoon to everyone in the room and to my colleagues online. Welcome to this meeting.

I'm pleased to appear today before this committee to speak about the important amendments proposed in Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This bill is part of an effort by our government to combat systemic racism and discrimination. These realities are experienced by too many people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, from their initial interactions with police to sentencing.

Bill C-5 includes three categories of reforms. First, it will repeal mandatory minimum penalties for all drug offences, some firearm offences and one tobacco-related offence. Second, it will allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. The third reform will require police and prosecutors to consider other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs.

These reforms have been long in coming. Indigenous persons, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities, particularly those dealing with mental health or addiction problems, are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, but especially in Canada's correctional institutions. This simply cannot continue.

An examination of the factors that exacerbate these disturbing issues reveals that some mandatory sentencing measures that limit judicial discretion have undeniably had a disproportionate impact on the members of those communities. These measures, which were intended to reduce crime by deterring offenders and isolating them from society, have proven ineffective, costly and harmful.

Between 2007 and 2017, indigenous and Black adults were more likely than other Canadians to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP. Their admission to federal custody with an offence punishable by an MMP almost doubled during those years. For example, Black Canadians comprised 43% of individuals admitted for exporting or importing drugs in 2016-17, and indigenous people comprised 40% of adults admitted for a firearm-related offence that same year.

The sentencing reforms that we propose are consistent with the recommendations that social and criminal justice stakeholders have been making for many years.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission noted the issue of overrepresentation of indigenous people in correctional institutions and called for its elimination over the next decade. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls also called for the government to evaluate the impact of MMPs on the overincarceration of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people and to take action to address the problem. The parliamentary Black caucus has also called for the elimination of MMPs.

The government is listening and taking appropriate measures. This bill would repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, but not all. We propose to focus on repealing MMPs that have had the greatest impact on the communities in question, while guaranteeing that the courts can continue to impose harsh penalties for violent and serious offences.

Let me be clear on this last point: these reforms will have no negative impact on public safety and will not signal to the courts that the offences concerned are not serious.

MMPs will be retained for serious offences such as murder, sexual assault, all sexual offences against children and certain offences involving restricted or prohibited firearms or that involve a firearm and are related to organized crime.

As for the second category of reforms, Bill C‑5 will increase the use of suspended prison sentences, also called conditional sentences, or CSs.

A CSO is a sentence of incarceration of less than two years that is served in the community under strict conditions such as a curfew, house arrest, treatment and/or restrictions on possessing, owning or carrying a weapon. CSOs will increase access to alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders while also furthering the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence.

The evidence is clear. Allowing offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to serve their sentences under strict conditions in their community can be more effective at reducing future criminality. Offenders can keep a job and maintain ties with their family and community. These measures bring back flexibility in sentencing by allowing judges to help people, not just jail them. For example, a judge can impose a CSO for an offender to serve their sentence at home while receiving appropriate mental health and rehabilitation supports.

The measures allow communities to take on the responsibility for the rehabilitation of their members through a community justice program that we are funding. Experts in the field and in the communities themselves tell us that this is the best way to move the community forward, to move society forward and to help everybody, including victims, heal while maintaining public safety. That is what CSOs do.

The reforms in Bill C-5 will remove many limitations on CSO eligibility, but not all. CSOs will be available only for sentences under two years for offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety. I want to emphasize this part, as I believe there is some misunderstanding that CSOs will become available for all offenders. I repeat: They will be available only where public safety is not at risk.

CSOs will also not be available for some offences, including advocating genocide, torture and attempted murder, as well as terrorism and criminal organization offences when they are prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

Finally, while it is important to enact sentencing measures that aim to reduce recidivism and overrepresentation, it is equally essential to ensure that there are adequate off-ramps at the earliest stages of the criminal justice process. This is especially true for conduct that could more appropriately be treated as a health concern.

To this end, Bill C-5 will require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with charges for the simple possession of drugs. Alternatives will range from taking no action at all to issuing a warning or, if the individual agrees, diversion to an addiction treatment program. These measures are in keeping with the government's public health-centred approach to addressing substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada.

The damage caused by this failed criminal justice policy is not simply a Canadian problem. I was in Washington last month and met with a number of bipartisan groups and think tanks working on criminal law reform. The message from all of them was that incarceration has failed. Many states, both Democratic and Republican, have abandoned MMPs because they simply do not work. The reforms we are proposing are the reforms they are advocating, repealing MMPs, bringing greater flexibility to sentencing, and diverting offenders out of the criminal justice system in the first place. These are solutions that will address the problems we face.

In addition to the reforms in Bill C-5, our government remains committed to working with our partners in the provinces and territories, as well as with Black, indigenous and marginalized community leadership in order to eradicate the overrepresentation of these communities in the criminal justice system.

Community safety is what we want. These reforms will help make that happen.

I look forward to answering any questions you have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Welcome to meeting number 11 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I would now like to welcome our witness, the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, who's appearing in person in the committee room.

I would also like to say that I don't have my flash cards today, so I'm going to rely on the minister and my colleagues to stay within the time. I will have to interject when needed to let you know your time has run out, but I ask that you stay within the time. Thank you.

I give the floor over to you, Honourable Minister Lametti.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, my only concern is that as we embark on the study of Bill C‑5, it would be good to have a sense at the outset of how many witnesses we're talking about. While I agree that we may not be able to resolve it today, I wonder if there is time to do a subcommittee meeting early next week so that we can actually hammer this out.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm very supportive of your plan for next week. I am very concerned about getting started on the drafting work so the drafters can work away while we're starting on the hearings on Bill C‑5.

I don't believe we can settle the question of the number of meetings today in the time we have available to us, but I think you presented a good plan for next week. I'm presuming that we will have what you said, with the minister and officials for the full two hours on the Friday, and then we'll split the time on the Tuesday, so I am supportive of those suggestions. Maybe we can leave the total number of meetings to be discussed at another meeting.

Thanks.

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

With respect to Bill C‑5, I'm of the opinion that due diligence is required. I don't think we should delay this, because it's important, and I'm aware of that. However, Bill C‑5 addresses two completely different issues, one is diversion for the use and possession of certain drugs, and the other is mandatory minimum sentences.

You may recall that this led us, after first reading, to ask the Minister of Justice to split Bill C‑5 into two separate bills, in order to expedite its processing. If we had been able to agree on diversion, which I think was more likely or easier, we could have passed this bill right away, but that was not the case. I don't want to go backwards; we have to deal with the situation as it is, but the fact remains that the fear I had at the outset, when we proposed splitting this bill, is still present. I can't imagine that we're going to get this resolved in five meetings.

My colleague Mr. Anandasangaree called me about this, and we discussed it. At the time, I told him that I hadn't really had time to think about it. Since then, I've thought about it and discussed it with people around me. What I would suggest, first of all, is that we leave some room to extend the study, if necessary. For the time being, I think we could already set aside four meetings to hear witnesses on the issue of diversion and four on the issue of minimum sentences. That would be a total of eight meetings. Then we could schedule two for clause‑by‑clause.

That's what I'm proposing to you today, Mr. Chair.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, we're proposing about five meetings for Bill C‑5, followed by clause-by-clause, with maybe a deadline for witnesses proportionate to how we usually do it, so maybe a witness list to be provided by next Wednesday around noon, and then the minister and the officials are available for next Friday, April 8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Brière.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your excellent testimony. It's been very informative. This whole study has been informative and all of you have contributed immensely.

Panellists, you're more than welcome to stay on or you can zoom off if you want.

I just have some housekeeping. I apologize to Mr. Moore. My own perceptions of time were not exactly accurate because I'm a novice in this position. I had estimated perhaps 30 minutes. It probably shouldn't take that long.

As you know, Bill C-5 has been referred to the committee and we have an obligation to study that. I was just getting some instructions as to committee business. I think as of Monday we were having our scheduled next study for PCEPA. The goal for the first hour is to have the witnesses come and attend and the last hour is for drafting instructions.

I believe Mr. Anandasangaree has some information in regard to the minister and departmental officials appearing for Bill C-5 on Friday.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said Monday. It was Tuesday for PCEPA. The first hour is with witnesses and the second hour is for drafting instructions. Then Bill C-5 and the study with respect to that, will be on Thursday.

Justice

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Minister of Justice denied that Bill C-5 would allow human traffickers to serve their sentences at home. It is crazy. The minister does not even know his own bill. Human trafficking is a vicious crime and traffickers prey on the most vulnerable. In Canada, a lot of them are indigenous women and girls.

Can the minister explain how giving sex traffickers house arrest will protect trafficking victims, and why does he think that this is okay?

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 3:14 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-5.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I spoke to the first iteration of this bill back in April 2021, I remarked at the time on how out of touch the Liberal government had become. If anyone from the new NDP-Liberal coalition actually took time to come and speak to mayors, chiefs and councillors, or the RCMP members in northern Saskatchewan, they would know that bills like this do far more to hurt communities than to help them.

When I speak to elected leaders, I constantly hear that there are violent offenders they do not want in their communities. In fact, they are searching for ways to keep them out. They wonder why these repeat offenders cannot remain in custody and why they are allowed to keep returning to victimize their communities. They are frustrated. They realize that when certain people are removed, they seem to have a time of peace and quiet. This bill would add to the frustration.

Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory minimums for offences such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, and discharging a firearm with intent. The list goes on. The Minister of Justice, just this afternoon, told us that he believes these are just minor offences. I do not believe these are minor offences.

Police officers, judges, prosecutors and many others in the communities already do everything they can for non-violent offenders to ensure they have every opportunity to stay out of prison. Sometimes the peace of mind that comes with mandatory minimums is essential to ensure our communities feel safe and are safe.

In northern Saskatchewan, there is a concerning trend of witness intimidation, as well as increasing recruitment of young people into gangs and the drug trade. Mandatory minimums assist the police and prosecutors to ensure the safety of witnesses. By keeping violent offenders off the street, greater opportunity is provided to engage in early intervention and prevent criminal gang recruitment.

March 17, just last week, Meadow Lake's RCMP Staff Sergeant Ryan How wrote an article in Saskatchewan Today. It reads:

From October 1, 2020, to March 15, 2021, Meadow Lake RCMP responded to 66 firearms complaints. In the same time frame in 2021 to 2022 RCMP have received 30 firearms complaints. Any level of gun violence is unacceptable and the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment is unfortunately still busy dealing with violent occurrences, while at the same time noting that this reduction in gun calls is welcome progress.

A focused formal enforcement project led by North Battleford Provincial GIS was put in place in early 2021 to dismantle one of the gangs involved in the violence and has resulted in the following convictions....

He goes on to list the names, the offences they are charged with and the sentences of several violent gang members. It is shocking that the charges include one that is being proposed to no longer have minimum sentences under this bill. The Government of Canada ought to be supporting more initiatives like the one Staff Sergeant How talks about and supporting enforcement officers like him who are investing time and energy in building relationships in the communities they serve, rather than basing Criminal Code policy on political ideology.

I am neither an RCMP officer nor a crown prosecutor, like some of my colleagues, but when I hear from experts on the ground that getting rid of mandatory minimums like those proposed in Bill C-5 would put our communities in greater danger, I tend to believe them. We need to be equipping law enforcement to carry out their duties and keep our communities safe, not neutering their abilities to keep violent offenders off the streets.

One of the questions that keeps coming up around this bill is regarding judicial discretion. While I agree that judges should have some discretion when it comes to sentencing, this is also the role of Parliament. Parliament, in the past, has assigned not only maximum sentences, which impact judges' discretion, but also minimum sentences. This has been done with Parliament's wisdom. It is up to us and within our power to change that, but it has always been the case that Parliament sets out the parameters whereby judges sentence people.

We are the ones who decide, through the Criminal Code, what is a criminal act, and we set out the parameters for sentencing. That is part of our job, and it is not partisan.

Many of the minimums being eliminated by this Liberal government were in fact introduced by previous Liberal governments. This is about ensuring there is an appropriate sentence for someone who commits a very serious crime. Again, as I said previously, Bill C-5 is not about minor and insignificant offences. It deals with what I would conclude are very serious offences, such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. I have not even begun to discuss the sections in the bill dedicated to drug-related offences.

Bill C-5 would also eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting and production of a substance under schedule I or II. Examples of those are heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. When I read the legislation, it seems clear to me that no one from the Liberal-NDP coalition has ever sat across the table from a chief and elders pleading to get and keep these drug dealers out of their communities.

When I first spoke to Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, I shared a story from a local paper. The story was about a judge's decision, arguments by the Crown prosecutor and the victim impact statements of some RCMP officers. Today I am going to take a few minutes of my time to share that story again, one of the victim impact statements of one of the officers. I truly hope today that all members in this House, even if they ignore everything else I say today, will listen to this story.

The statement said:

When I encountered the gold truck you were in north of Loon Lake the only emotion I felt was sadness.

I knew right away how this was going to end. It’s always the same, just a varying degree of tragedy. When I saw your co-accused run from the Equinox and point what may have been a gun at me, I just felt tired and defeated....

I knew what you would do when you came up to the road block. And you did the same thing every other desperate criminal does—you accelerated and swerved towards the police.

As you did that, I took off my seatbelt and accelerated my truck directly at you. I wanted to be able to at least have the chance to manoeuver in the cab if you and your fellow gang members started shooting at me. As I lined up my truck to yours head-on I fully expected to be shot but I tried to make sure my truck would stay on a straight path and hit you even if I couldn’t steer because you needed to be stopped.... Even after all of this, after hours of chasing after you, hours of being frustrated, angry, and tired, [I] was required to be of calm mind and use sound tactics as I drew my gun on you and the people with you.... At that moment I was furious that it had come to this. I was furious that your stupidity was causing me to miss an important family event going on right at that moment I had you in my gun sights. I was furious that I might have to shoot and kill you.... I didn’t shoot you...My coworkers didn’t shoot you, even though we were taunted and dared to do it by the people in the truck with you. Even though your actions caused one of my coworkers to almost be run over and killed. We made sure you were safe. It was a joke and a game to you. It was life and death for me, for my partners, and the public. I’m telling you that on January 17, 2019, you were lucky to be arrested by some of the most capable and experienced police officers in the country. They showed incredible restraint and professionalism to make sure you lived to be here today.

I had the opportunity to speak to Sergeant How after this and he shared with me how these events had become almost routine in his world. I am asking members to imagine this becoming part of the daily routine. I remember having to fight back the emotion.

Finally, this bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders for a number of offences. Allowing criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest puts communities in my riding at risk.

In closing—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the time has come to turn the page on many mandatory minimum penalties. This was a policy that in the end did not discourage crime. It certainly did not make our justice system any more fair. All it did was imprison far too many indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians. The evidence is in the numbers of the prison population, and the numbers are stark. Indigenous individuals represent 5% of the general population but account for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. This is double what it was 20 years ago. The number is profoundly higher for indigenous women, who represent 42% of those who are incarcerated, and these numbers are even more exaggerated in some provinces. Black inmates represent 7.2% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the general population. This is shameful.

The numbers are so high because of sentencing laws that focus on punishment through imprisonment. The centre of this is the mandatory minimum regime. The broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities. This rigid one-size-fits-all approach takes power away from judges to look at mitigating factors.

I want to be very clear: This is not a soft-on-crime approach and these are not hardened criminals we are speaking of. We are speaking of low-risk, first-time or non-violent offenders.

We are introducing legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-5 is an important step in the right direction, as the legislation would make reforms to sentencing. We are proposing to repeal MMPs of imprisonment for all drug offences and certain firearm offences. These MMPs in particular have been shown to have had a disparate effect on Black, indigenous, and marginalized communities.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest and curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family ties, community and health-related support systems. By repealing these MMPs, we will restore the judge's ability to impose an appropriate sentence, moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach.

Again, this is not a soft-on-crime approach. To be clear, we are keeping some mandatory minimum policies in place for murder, sexual offenses, impaired driving offenses and serious firearm offences, including those that involve organized crime. The powers of judges will not be limited. In fact, we will allow them to do the job they have been trained to do.

I was in law school, and that is where I was introduced to certain ideals or principles within a justice system, one being that the aim of justice is not just retribution. Mandatory minimums are just that—retribution. There are more useful aims, such as rehabilitation. We can make ourselves into better people even after we have wronged and especially after we have wronged. The justice system should be a part of that rehabilitation. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work in criminal law terms. They do not have a positive effect on recidivism. They tend to overpunish people who should be helped through other channels.

When it comes to deterrence, MMPs do not do any better. In sentencing for less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective and unduly punitive. A longer sentence is not going to do anything more than a shorter sentence will, except destroy entire lives. In America, for example, the notion that harsh minimums could seriously dampen the drug trade has collapsed in the face of the manifest failure of the drug war.

With the way our current justice system is set up, we have criminalized poverty, mental illness and problematic addiction. It is so much harder to get that second chance with MMPs in place. Once a person is out of prison, their opportunities are limited and their circle oftentimes becomes the people that they met in prison. This has to stop.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increase in the indiscriminate use of MMPs is problematic. They have proven to be costly and ineffective in reducing crime. Indeed, other nations have move away from this regime because it encourages cycles of crime.

MMPs are a failed policy, and we are turning the ship around. What we propose is a necessary reset for our criminal law, which is necessary to address systemic racism in the criminal justice system. This policy change is necessary, but further work must also be done.

We are also developing an indigenous justice strategy in collaboration with indigenous peoples, and we are developing a Black Canadian justice strategy. We will continue to address the social determinants of crime. Every action that we take to improve access to housing, mental health care, addiction treatment and youth employment helps build a safer country. Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum, and we must do more so that we are better informed.

In my life, I have come to understand certain principles and rules, and that we are not just our mistakes. We are not just the worst thing that we have ever done. I believe we are more than that. As a society, we should make no mistake that we will be judged for our reason and our intelligence and for our technology and tools. We will be judged by the towers we build. Ultimately, our society will be judged for not how we treat the powerful, the rich and the privileged, but for how we treat the poor and condemned.

The House resumed from December 15, 2021, consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.