Policy Qs and As

Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Bill C-5: General Questions

Q 1 What are the reforms being proposed in this Bill?

The Bill proposes 3 broad categories of reforms.
First, it would repeal the mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) for:
- All the drug-related offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), including the MMPs struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in R. v. Lloyd;
- 13 firearms-related offences, including the MMPs struck down by the SCC in R. v. Nur; and,
- A tobacco-related offence.
Second, it would increase the availability of conditional sentence orders, while ensuring that they remain unavailable for such serious offences as advocating genocide, torture and attempted murder, as well as for terrorism and criminal organization offences that are prosecuted by way of indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more.
Third, it would amend the CDSA to:
- Require peace officers and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with criminal charges for simple possession of drugs. To guide their discretion, it would provide a set of principles that leave the space to recognize that simple drug possession is primarily a health issue;
- Create a mechanism to keep, after a certain period of time, past and future convictions for simple possession of controlled drugs separate and apart from other criminal convictions;
- Clarify the kind of information kept in the police record of warning and the use that can be made of such records, and to whom they may be disclosed;
- Clarify that it is not an offence for social workers, medical professionals and service providers where they come into possession of drugs in the course of their duties and who intend to lawfully dispose of those drugs within a reasonable period of time.

Q 2 What are the objectives of the Bill?

The objective of Bill C-5 is to promote fairer and more effective responses to criminal conduct, and to address systemic racism and discrimination in Canada’s criminal justice system, while maintaining public safety.
In particular, restrictions on the use of conditional sentences and a greater use of MMPs have contributed to the overincarceration of Indigenous people, Black persons and members of marginalized communities.
The proposed reforms would enable sentencing courts to impose just sentences that are proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the gravity of the offence.

Q 3 What steps has the Government taken to address systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system?

The Government of Canada has made a number of investments to:
- Improve access to justice for Indigenous people and support the development of an Indigenous Justice Strategy to address systemic discrimination and overrepresentation ($74.8 million over three years);
- Revive the Law Commission of Canada, which helps Canada’s legal system be more responsive to the complex legal challenges of the day such as systemic racism ($18 million over five years and $4 million ongoing);
- Improve the collection and use of disaggregated data ($6.7 million over five years and $1.4 million ongoing);
- Support the preparation of Gladue reports (a type of pre-sentence report) that provide sentencing courts with information about an individual’s Indigenous background to assist in imposing a fit sentence ($49.3 million over five years); and,
- Support the preparation of Impact of Race and Culture Assessments (IRCAs), which assist sentencing judges in considering the disadvantages and systemic racism that contributed to racialized Canadians’ interactions with the criminal justice system ($6.6 million over five years, and $1.6 million ongoing).

Q 4 How will these reforms contribute to addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous people, Black persons and members of marginalized communities?

Evidence demonstrates that MMPs have a disproportionate and negative impact on Indigenous people, Black persons and members of marginalized communities.
The Bill’s proposed repeal of these MMPs, while also increasing the availability of CSOs, would restore judicial discretion to give fuller consideration to:
- The principle of restraint (paragraphs 718.2(d)), which directs judges to use imprisonment as a last resort; and,
- The Gladue principle, which requires a court to consider all other available sanctions that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders.
The proposed amendments would also require peace officers and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with criminal charges for simple possession of drugs, which recognizes the growing consensus in Canada that addiction is a public health issue requiring a health-focussed response instead of criminal prosecution.

Q 5 Are these laws consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?

I take very seriously my obligation to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Bill C-5 is consistent with the proposed reforms and the rights and principles contained in the Declaration.

Q 6 When would this Bill come into force?

The proposed reforms would come into force upon Royal Assent.
A two-year timeframe would be provided to keep records of past and future convictions for simple possession of controlled drugs separate and apart.

Q 7 Are the measures retroactive/retrospective?

The reforms relating to MMPs and CSOs would apply to all offenders not yet sentenced at the date when the Bill comes into force.
The reforms that would require peace officers and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with criminal charges for simple possession of drugs would apply immediately.

Q 8 What amendments were made to the Bill by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?

The first three amendments are to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These amendments would:
- Modify the proposed section 10.4 of the CDSA to clarify the kind of information kept in the police record of warning and the use that can be made of such records, and to whom they may be disclosed;
- Modify the proposed section 10.6 of the CDSA to specify that past and future simple possession of controlled drugs convictions must be kept separate and apart from other criminal convictions after a certain period of time; and,
- Clarify that it is not an offence for social workers, medical professionals and service providers where they come into possession of drugs in the course of their duties and who intend to lawfully dispose of those drugs within a reasonable period of time (proposed section 10.7 of the CDSA).
The last amendment would enact a new clause 21 to the Bill, to require the House of Commons and the Senate to comprehensively review the provisions and operations of the Bill. This review would occur four years after the coming into force of Bill C-5.

Mandatory Minimum Penalties

Q 9 How many MMPs are there in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act?

Currently the Criminal Code provides MMPs for 67 offences, including for: firearms offences; child sexual offences; impaired driving; kidnapping; human trafficking; sex trade offences; and, murder/high treason.
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act contains MMPs for six offences that target the trafficking, import/export and production of certain drugs (e.g., cocaine/heroin).

Q 10 How many MMPs would remain in the Criminal Code after Bill C-5 receives Royal Assent?

61 offences in the Criminal Code would still be punishable by a MMP after Bill C-5 receives Royal Assent.
It has been suggested that 53 offences would still be punishable by MMPs after Bill C-5. This comes from not factoring in that not all MMPs for the 14 Criminal Code offences targeted by Bill C-5 would be repealed.

Q 11 What is the range of imprisonment for offences punishable by a MMP in the Criminal Code?

MMPs range from 14 days’ imprisonment (e.g., betting) to a mandatory term of life imprisonment for murder and high treason.
MMPs that would be repealed by Bill C-5 range between 90 days (selling of raw leaf tobacco), and 4 years (discharging a firearm with recklessness, robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm).

Q 12 Why aren’t you repealing all MMPs?

This Bill is an important step in making our criminal justice system fairer and more efficient as well as addressing challenges facing it.
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 people, Black persons and marginalized communities.
For these offences, the repeal of MMPs 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.

Q 13 Would repealing MMPs reduce the length/severity of sentences imposed?

The fundamental principle of sentencing requires judges to impose sentences that are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors.
Repealing a MMP does not alter the fundamental obligation of a sentencing court to impose a fit sentence in all cases.
Appellate courts can review the sentence imposed and make any corrections required to the sentence, where sentences imposed at the trial level were not proportionate.

Q 14 What has been the impact of MMPs on the overrepresentation of Indigenous people, Black persons and marginalized populations?

Of the total Canadian population, 3% of people self-identify as Black, and 5% identify as Indigenous. Despite this fact, from 2010 to 2020, Indigenous people comprised 25% of the total federal offender population, while Black persons comprised approximately 9%.
With respect to MMPs, during that period, Indigenous offenders comprised 20% of all those admitted to federal corrections for an MMP, with Black offenders comprising 11%.
Repealing those MMPs that have resulted in higher rates of incarceration would allow courts to give fuller effect to the restraint principle (section 718.2(d)) and the Gladue principle (section 718.2(e)).

Q 15 What does research say about the impacts of MMPs on the Criminal Justice System (CJS)?

Research shows that the increased use of MMPs has had significant impacts on the CJS resulting in:
- Longer trials due, in part, to fewer guilty pleas which would require victims to testify in more cases therefore contributing to their re-victimization;
- More terms of imprisonment of shorter duration being imposed; and,
- An increase in Charter challenges.

Q 16 What is the status of the constitutional challenges to MMPs?

As of September 1, 2022, the Department of Justice Canada was tracking 250 Charter challenges to MMPs. This represents a third (35%) of all Charter challenges to the Criminal Code that are being tracked by the Department.
There are 30 challenges to MMPs for firearms offences – 7 at the appellate court level and 23 at the trial court level.
There is one challenge to an MMP for drug offences, including trafficking, import/export and production in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – at the provincial court level.
The Department of Justice has also tracked a total of 38 appellate decisions (36 at the provincial/territorial appeal level and 2 at the Supreme Court level) that have struck down MMPs as being unconstitutional. MMPs for 22 offences have been struck down as unconstitutional at the appellate level, including those for firearms offences, child sexual offences, and drug offences.

Note: Details on MMP Charter challenges can be found under Tab 8.

Q 17 Is it true that MMPs for child sexual offences are the most frequently and successfully challenged MMPs in the courts? Why not repeal them?

Yes, challenges in this area are greater than challenges for drug and firearm offences.
It is important to remember though that the decision to repeal MMPs implicates more than just Charter considerations.
As I have said previously, this Bill is a first step and one that I believe is achievable now. I remain committed to looking at further ways to make our CJS fairer and more effective in meeting its objectives.

Firearms

Q 18 What firearms/weapons MMPs would be repealed by this Bill?

The following MMPs would be repealed for firearm/weapon offences:
- The 1 and 3 year MMPs for the use of a firearm or imitation in commission of an offence (paragraphs 85(3)(a) and (b));
- The 4 year MMPs for robbery (paragraph 344(1)(a.1)), extortion (paragraph 346(1.1)(a.1)), and discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm (paragraph 244(2)(b)) or while being reckless as to the consequences (paragraph 244.2(3)(b)) where a non-restricted firearm is used (i.e., long guns);
- The 1 and 2 year MMPs for possession of weapon/device/ammunition/firearm knowing unauthorized (paragraphs 92(3)(b) and (c));
- The 3 and 5 year MMPs for possession of restricted/prohibited firearm with ammunition (subparagraphs 95(2)(i) and (ii)); and
- The 1 year MMP for possession of weapon obtained by crime (firearm) (section 96); weapons trafficking (subsection 99(3)), possession for purpose of weapons trafficking (subsection 100(3)), importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized (subsection 103(2.1)).

Q 19 What firearms MMPs would not be repealed?

The 5 and 7 year MMPs for certain offences (e.g., robbery (subparagraphs 344(1)(a)(i) and (ii)), and extortion (subparagraphs 346(1)(a)(i) and (ii)) where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used or where these offences are committed in connection with a criminal organization.
The 3 and 5 year MMPs for firearms trafficking (paragraphs 99(2)(a) and (b)) and possession for the purpose of trafficking (paragraphs 100(2)(a) and (b)), and importing/exporting (paragraphs 103(2)(a) and (b)).
The 1 year MMP for making automatic firearms (paragraph 102(2)(a)).

Q 20 In light of the high volume of shootings in metropolitan areas such as Montreal, how do you justify repealing the MMPs for these firearm offences?

Bill C-5 would maintain the 5 and 7 year MMPs for certain offences where restricted or prohibited firearms are used, including robbery, extortion, or discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm or being reckless as to the consequences, or where any firearm is used in connection to organized crime in the commission of these offences. (See question 19 for relevant Criminal Code sections.)
Recent data from Statistics Canada demonstrates that more than six in ten (63%) of the firearm-related violent crime reported in urban areas involved handguns (source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00009-eng.htm).
It is these types of crimes that must be targeted if we want to effectively combat gun violence in our cities. This is the reason why the Government introduced Bill C-21, which proposes a comprehensive strategy to address gun violence and strengthen gun control in Canada.

Q 21 How does this Bill relate to Bill C-21?

The purpose of Bill C-5 is to address systemic racism and discrimination in the CJS, and in particular, the overrepresentation of Indigenous people, Black persons and members of marginalized communities, while maintaining public safety.
Bill C-21, tabled on May 30th, is part of a comprehensive strategy to address gun violence and strengthen gun control in Canada which includes a national freeze on handguns, increasing the maximum penalties for firearms trafficking, smuggling and other offences from 10 to 14 years imprisonment, and introducing a “red flag” regime, which would allow for the removal of firearms from a person if they pose a threat to themselves or others.
Taken together, these bills propose appropriate criminal law responses to gun crime.

Conditional Sentence Orders (CSOs)

Q 22 What is a conditional sentence order?

A conditional sentence order (CSO) is a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years that is served in the community under strict conditions (for example, a curfew; house arrest; abstaining from the consumption of drugs and alcohol; abstaining from owing, possessing or carrying a weapon).
CSOs were first enacted in 1996 to address the overreliance on incarceration, and the overrepresentation of Indigenous persons in correctional institutions, as well as to reflect the objectives of rehabilitation and restorative justice at sentencing.

Q 23 What reforms would Bill C-5 make to the conditional sentence regime?

The Bill would increase the availability of conditional sentence orders when offenders do not pose a risk to public safety and are facing terms of imprisonment that are under 2 years.
Specifically, CSOs would become available for all offences, except for:
- The offences of advocating genocide, torture and attempted murder;
- Offences punishable by a MMP;
- Terrorism and criminal organization offences that are prosecuted by way of indictment, and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

Q 24 How often are CSOs imposed?

Statistics Canada data shows that in 2019/2020, CSOs were imposed in 6,720 cases across Canada. By contrast, in 2004/2005, prior to the reforms that restricted their availability, CSOs were imposed in 11,545 cases across Canada.

Q 25 How would these amendments address the ONCA’s decision in R. v. Sharma?

In R. v. Sharma (2020), the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the unavailability of conditional sentences (CSOs) for offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life, and for offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment that involve the import, export, trafficking and production of drugs, violated the rights to liberty (section 7) and equality (section 15) as protected by the Charter.
This case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on March 23, 2020. The Court reserved its judgment.
This Bill would repeal the provisions that the ONCA found unconstitutional and that were the subject of the Sharma appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Q 26 Wasn’t the decision to appeal the decision in R. v. Sharma inconsistent with the Government’s decision to amend the CSO regime?

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), which is independent from the Department of Justice, appealed the Sharma decision to clarify whether the conditional sentence provisions at issue in that case are consistent with sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, including whether they result in discrimination against Indigenous offenders by restricting access to conditional sentences.
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 was to clarify these constitutional questions that may impact upon Parliament’s future 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.

Q 27 Would C-5 actually result in net widening where more CSOs would be imposed instead of probation orders?

There is no data to suggest that making CSOs available in a wider variety of circumstances would result in more CSOs being imposed, which would otherwise have resulted in probation orders.
Judges are required to impose sentences that are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
In order for a court to impose a CSO, it must first be satisfied that a term of imprisonment of less than two years is appropriate in the circumstances, and that probation alone would not be an appropriate penalty given the particulars of the case.

Q 28 Would allowing a greater use of CSOs create a risk to public safety?

No. Before imposing a CSO, the Court must be satisfied that a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years is appropriate, and also that its imposition would not endanger public safety and would be in keeping with the fundamental principles of sentencing.
Strict conditions that are restrictive of the offender’s liberty are common with these sentences (Proulx, SCC 2000).

Q 29 The reforms in Bill C-5 would make CSOs available for impaired driving offences for a first-time offender where there is bodily harm or death. How is this consistent with former Bill C-46, whose objectives were to strengthen penalties for impaired drivers?

The proposed reforms in no way detract from the seriousness of the impaired driving offences and do not require a CSO to be imposed.
Courts would still be required to impose proportionate sentences that respect the jurisprudence in this area.

Diversion for Simple Possession of Drugs

Q 30 What reforms are being proposed regarding the diversion of individuals for simple possession of drugs?

The proposed changes would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with charges for the simple possession of drugs.
Available alternatives would range from taking no action at all to issuing a warning or, if the individual agrees, diversion to an addiction treatment program.

Q 31 How would creating alternatives to laying/prosecuting a charge contribute to reducing recidivism?

The proposed amendments require police and prosecutors to consider alternative measures – including, diverting individuals to addiction treatment programs, giving a warning or taking no further action – instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple possession of an illegal drug.
They also support police and prosecutors to exercise their discretion fairly and effectively by providing an evidence-based declaration of principles to guide police and Crown prosecutors in exercising discretion.
Research has demonstrated that terms of incarceration increase risks of recidivism, particularly for lower-risk offenders.
If an individual is diverted and is not charged, tried and does not receive a sentence or a criminal record, they may avoid the stigma, loss of employment opportunities, and disconnection with family and community that is associated with having been subjected to the CJS.

Q 32 If systemic racism is prevalent in the CJS from first contact with police through to sentencing, how does relying on police officers’ existing discretion remedy the problem?

Police will be guided in the use of their discretion by a set of principles that require them to consider simple drug possession as a public health issue instead of a criminal one.
If the police officer, in a given case, fails to adequately consider alternatives to laying a charge for simple possession, the same responsibility will fall on the prosecutor to consider alternatives to proceeding with the charge.

Responsive only: If pressed on how these proposals change the existing reality namely, that police and Crown already have discretion to make such choices.

While it is true that police and Crown have discretion to determine whether the standard charging and prosecutorial thresholds have been met in a given case, Bill C-5’s amendments would require all police and Crown to consider these principles in every case.
This will also serve to promote consistency in criminal justice system responses across the country.

Q 33 How do these reforms align with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ August 2020 Guideline: Prosecution of Possession of Controlled Substances Contrary to Section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act?

The Director of Public Prosecutions’ August 2020 Guideline directs prosecutors to focus on the most serious drug possession cases, that is, those that raise public safety concerns for the prosecution, and to otherwise pursue suitable alternative measures and diversion from the CJS for these cases.
Both the proposed amendments and the August 2020 Guideline recognize that substance use has a significant health component and that criminal sanctions as a primary response have limited effectiveness where criminality is caused by problematic substance use.

Q 34 Would the proposed amendments compel peace officers and Crown Attorneys to use alternatives to laying a charge in all cases of drug possession offences?

The proposed amendments would not force a peace officer or a Crown Attorney to use alternatives to laying a charge in cases of drug possession cases. Peace officers would retain their discretion regarding whether to lay a charge or take other action and the Crown would retain its discretion to pursue a prosecution.
Additionally, a peace officer does not have to refer an individual who is in possession of an illicit substance to a treatment facility. The peace officer can choose to do nothing or simply issue a warning. The peace officer can also refer the person to other programs that may be of assistance.

Q 35 Can a person who is in possession of an illicit substance be required to go to a treatment facility?

No, such a person must consent to being sent to a treatment centre before being referred by the peace officer.

Q 36 Why isn’t the Government decriminalizing all drugs if it acknowledges that drug use is a social and health issue?

The suggestion to decriminalize the possession of all drugs raises significant public policy issues.
It may also have consequences on our international obligations attached to the international drug conventions that Canada has ratified.
Bill C-5’s objective is to restore judicial discretion at sentencing and provide more opportunities for pre-charge diversion for minor drug offences.

Q 37 Where is the Government in its consideration of exempting certain cities pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act?

On May 31st, 2022, the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health announced the granting of a time-limited subsection 56(1) exemption under the CDSA so that adults 18 years and older will not be subject to criminal charges for personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal drugs in B.C.
As a result, adults 18+ years in B.C. will not be arrested or charged for the possession of a cumulative amount of up to 2.5 grams of these illegal drugs for personal use: opioids (including heroin, morphine, and fentanyl), cocaine (including crack and powder cocaine), methamphetamine (meth), and MDMA (ecstasy).
The exemption will be in effect from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2026.
These decisions fall under the responsibility of the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, who has nothing to report at this time.

Q 38 Do the proposed amendments regarding police discretion interfere with prosecutorial discretion in pre-charge jurisdictions (such as Quebec)?

Bill C-5 will not interfere with the role of prosecutors in pre-charge screening jurisdictions, including Quebec.
The Bill will not provide for more or less police discretion than currently exists in any jurisdiction.
Police in pre-charge screening jurisdictions currently have discretion to do nothing, issue a warning or seek community support for an individual in need of help.
For instance, the Quebec National Institute of Public Health notes in a recent report that police in Quebec currently exercise their discretion regarding referrals to community supports for persons struggling with problematic substance use or that are in a state of crisis. (Report: “Les mesures alternatives à la criminalisation des personnes interpellées pour possession simple de drogues : une perspective de santé publique”^{Footnote 1}).
The proposed amendments will simply require police and prosecutors to use their existing discretion to consider alternatives to proceeding with charges for the simple possession of illegal drugs.

Q 39 How will the proposed provision regarding keeping convictions for simple possession “separate and apart” from other convictions after two years be operationalized? Would it not be preferable to amend the Criminal Records Act for this purpose?

This proposed amendment is consistent with the overall objective of the Bill to address the negative consequences associated with conduct (simple possession) that is increasingly viewed as a public health and social problem.
While there will be some challenges in the operationalization of this provision, the two-year timeframe to keep the record separate and apart will provide officials with the time required to establish the best way to implement the amendment.

Stakeholders

Q 40 Are stakeholders supportive of the Bill’s proposed reforms?

Legal stakeholders, including academics, bar associations, and defence lawyers have long criticized MMPs, as well as restrictions on the use of conditional sentences, such that they are likely to welcome efforts to address these issues.
In fact, many of the stakeholders who testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights expressed support for the amendments proposed in Bill C-5, including the CBA, the South Asian Bar Association, the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute, and the Criminal Lawyer’s Association.
Moreover, stakeholders who participated in the 2016 Criminal Justice System Review roundtables supported repealing MMPs, which many felt disproportionally impact marginalized people and have made the system less efficient. Many also suggested increasing the use of conditional sentences to reduce the reliance on incarceration and increase the availability of alternatives to criminal justice system responses.
Victims’ groups are expected to have a mixed reaction on the proposed limited repeal of MMPs. However, advancing reforms that make the CJS fairer and more efficient benefits all persons who come into contact with the CJS, including victims who may be re-victimized by the having to participate in the criminal justice system.

Q 41 Are the reforms responsive to the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

The proposed reforms respond to recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC).
The TRC called for the elimination of Indigenous overrepresentation in correctional institutions over the next decade (Call to Action (CTA) 30), including through amendments to the Criminal Code in the areas of MMPs and CSOs (CTA 32).

Q 42 Are the reforms responsive to the Calls for Justice in the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls?

The proposed reforms respond to Calls for Justice as set out in the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
In its final report, the MMIWG called for all levels of government to evaluate the impact of MMPs on the over-incarceration of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people and to take appropriate action to address their over-incarceration (Call for Justice 5.14).

International Perspectives

Q 43 How does this Bill compare to international trends regarding MMPs?

The proposed measures in Bill C-5 are generally consistent with international trends moving away from reliance on MMPs.
Historically, the United States of America (federal and state levels) made great use of MMPs. However, in the last decade many states have moved toward reducing mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on non-violent and drug-related charges.
France repealed all mandatory sentences enacted by the former government following the findings of a public commission that these tended to increase the prison population with no corresponding reduction in reoffending.
The UK, Germany, Spain, Iceland and Switzerland all have measures akin to structured discretion built into their legislation allowing courts to depart from minimum prescribed sentences in certain circumstances.

Date modified:: 2023-01-19