Media Lines
Key Messages: Bill Introduction – Sentencing Reform
For use by spokespersons
Issue:
The Government of Canada is committed to addressing systemic racism and the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in Canada’s criminal justice system. In keeping with this promise, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, with the support of the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, introduced proposed legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on December 7, 2021. This package of proposed reforms was first introduced in the 43rd Parliament.
Key Messages:
- Systemic racism and discrimination are a reality in Canada’s criminal justice system.
- Indigenous peoples as well as Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities are overrepresented as offenders and victims in the criminal justice system. Taking steps to address this reality is critical to building a fairer, more effective justice system that keeps us all safe.
- In Canada, Indigenous peoples represent 30% of those in federal prisons, but only account for 5% of the general population according to 2018-2019 data. Similarly, in 2018-2019, Black Canadians represented 7% of the federal offender population, compared to only 3% of the general population. That is unacceptable.
- Bill C-5 proposes to reform sentencing measures for certain offences, including mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs), which have contributed to higher rates of imprisonment and have disproportionate negative effects on Indigenous peoples and Black Canadians.
- Black and other racialized offenders are more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP. The number of Indigenous offenders admitted for these offences also increased significantly over the past 10 years.
- The sentencing provisions targeted by this Bill have been proven ineffective in deterring crime, and have instead made our system less fair and less effective.
- The Bill would also increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders when offenders do not pose a risk to public safety and are facing short terms of imprisonment. This would increase the ability of judges to order these offenders to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, including house arrest and curfew.
- In keeping with the Government’s public-health centred approach to substance use and the opioid epidemic, this Bill would repeal MMPs for drug related-offences. It would also require police and prosecutors to consider other responses to some drug-related offences, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs.
If asked about why only some MMPs would be repealed:
- This Bill targets MMPs for certain offences, including drug-related offences that have resulted in higher rates of incarceration and have had a negative disproportionate impact on Indigenous peoples and Black Canadians.
- For these offences, this would restore the ability of courts to consider each individual case that comes before them and determine an appropriate sentence based solely on the facts of that case - which could include incarceration where appropriate.
- Several studies have demonstrated that incarceration is associated with an increase in re-offending, and have a particularly negative affect on lower risk offenders.
- By removing MMPs for these offences, judges would be able to consider alternatives to incarceration, including conditional sentencing orders.
If asked about MMPs for drug related-offences:
- Canada is facing a national opioid crisis. This is a complex health and social issue that needs a response that is comprehensive, collaborative, compassionate and evidence-based. This Bill proposes to remove MMPs for all drug related-offences, restoring a judge’s ability to fully consider the facts of the case before it and to determine the most appropriate sentence to hold that offender to account and protect society.
- It would also require police and prosecutors to consider other responses to drug-related offences such as diversion to treatment programs.
- Our system should not be treating people who use drugs and drug trafficking kingpins the same. These measures would enable all actors in the justice system to determine the right course of action for the case before them, which could range from diversion and enabling access to addictions support for those in need, to punishing offenders who continue to jeopardize the health and safety of our communities through imprisonment.
If asked why the Government of Canada would be repealing MMPs for certain firearms offences:
- Firearms offences encompass a broad range of conduct. It is important that our approach be one that protects society, reduces gang violence and effectively holds offenders to account.
- That is why the Government, in May 2020, banned certain kinds of firearms that are designed for the battlefields and have no place on our streets.
- At the same time, we know that for lower risk offenders, including first time offenders, incarceration can do more harm than good. Incarceration can strengthen gang affiliation and make an offender more likely to reoffend.
- This Bill proposes to give courts the flexibility to consider alternatives for lower-risk offenders aimed at reducing their risk of reoffending and keeping society safe.
Why has the PPSC appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Sharma?
- The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) has appealed the Sharma decision to clarify whether the conditional sentence provisions at issue in this case are constitutional under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, including whether they discriminate against Indigenous offenders by restricting access to conditional sentences.
- The answers to these questions could have an impact on Parliament’s ability to legislate in the future, including in relation to other aspects of the criminal justice system.
Isn’t the decision to appeal the decision in R. v. Sharma inconsistent with the Government’s decision to amend the conditional sentencing regime?
- The Government of Canada recognizes that the criminal justice system, its processes and policies can and do negatively impact particular communities and we must change that.
- Bill C-5 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to allow for greater use of conditional sentences so that judges can decide whether an offender can serve a term of imprisonment of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, including house arrest and curfew.
- The decision to propose changes to the law in this area is not inconsistent with the position taken before the Supreme Court of Canada, the purpose of which is to clarify constitutional questions of law that may impact upon Parliament’s ability to enact criminal law.
- Clarity on these issues will help to ensure that Canada’s criminal justice system remains fair and effective for everyone while contributing to a just, peaceful and prosperous society.
- It is up to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) to determine whether to pursue the appeal in Sharma in light of the proposed amendments to the conditional sentencing regime.
- Date modified: