This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Rob Nicholson Conservative
Second reading (Senate), as of June 14, 2007
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for escalating minimum penalties according to the number, if any, of previous convictions for serious offences involving the use of a firearm if the firearm is either a restricted or prohibited firearm or if the offence was committed in connection with a criminal organization, to provide for escalating minimum penalties according to the number, if any, of previous convictions for other firearm-related offences and to create two new offences: breaking and entering to steal a firearm and robbery to steal a firearm.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-10s:
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, of course, I agree with the member. However, I would say that what distinguishes us, as he has noted, are facts, statistics.
Everyone can look at the statistics on the Internet. We keep a record of crimes in Canada and it is on Juristat. It can be accessed through Google by typing Juristat, and it is now free of charge.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Aerospace Industry; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Afghanistan; the hon. member for Don Valley East, The Budget.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Newton--North Delta.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, crime prevention and personal safety hit at the very core of daily life for citizens across this country.
When I sit down with concerned citizens from my own riding of Newton—North Delta in their living rooms, in the coffee shops, or when I visit our high schools, I hear the same concerns I have as a father and as a local businessman.
This has never been a partisan debate. One can try to make it one, as this government has tried time and time again.
It claims that being tough on crime is some Conservative policy. Unfortunately, as with so much of this government's record, this is more fiction than fact. It is fiction to claim that the Conservatives will put 2,500 more police officers in our cities. We know this is a promise that is all talk, no action.
Where are those new officers? Not one in my riding. Not one in any riding across this country. We can look in the budget for new funding to provide for RCMP officers, but we will not find it. Again, it is more fiction than fact.
We can talk to the mayor of Vancouver who has put more officers on his streets than this government has put across our country. He cannot depend on this government to do more than talk about crime. No mayor can and no citizen can.
Talk is cheap. But just talking about crime is not enough for my constituents. It never was and it never will be. If people are in a community like mine and they care about crime, what do they do?
The city of Surrey RCMP and the Delta police have moved forward with the community on their own crime prevention strategy. This was officially launched in Surrey on February 26, an event which I had the honour of addressing. We have worked together, with no help from this Conservative government, and the results speak for themselves. Auto theft in Surrey is down 22% and business break-and-enters in the Whalley area of Surrey are down by an impressive 45%.
This kind of approach has my full support as the elected member of Parliament for the people of Newton—North Delta. This kind of approach has the full support of my leader for Canadians. In fact, it is with examples like my community in mind that the Liberal Party has put forward its own comprehensive crime prevention plan.
The most effective way to protect our homes and our rights is to catch and convict more criminals. It is the government's duty to ensure that criminals know they will be caught and convicted. I believe there is no question that sentences are an important part of the solution. Serious crimes should carry serious penalties.
I can say that when I speak to my constituents, when I speak to my family, and when I speak to other members of Parliament, there is no question that all Canadians are looking for these tougher measures to help stop crime before it happens.
However, we now that fighting crime with longer sentences alone is not the only solution. Canada has to make sure that we have a balance between effective sentencing and strong social strategies.
Surrey and Delta know this. I wonder why this government does not. Action on the municipal level means that we must be just as ready to invest at the federal level.
The Liberal Party has committed to providing funds to hire more police officers. In our platform, we have committed an extra $200 million for more RCMP officers as part of a new rapid response team. We will provide immediate help to local police departments to combat guns and gang activity, as well as organized crime and drug trafficking.
Canadians are tired of waiting for action. They want us to act now. Canadians realize that the Conservative government is not willing to take concrete action toward providing effective policing in our communities.
Over the past years, the Liberal Party has offered to help pass six major pieces of criminal justice legislation. We have offered to help the Conservatives pass legislation that raises the age of consent, improves the DNA data bank and modernizes the criminal justice procedures.
The Conservatives have thus far refused these offers of support and actively worked to delay passing their own legislation.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
The hon. member can ask the question when I am given the opportunity to answer him.
This is one question I want to ask the Prime Minister on behalf of my constituents. When will he stop the empty electioneering and get serious about moving forward on protecting our children, our seniors and our communities?
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
You're blocking us in committee. When are you going to get serious about it?
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
The Liberals are very serious about dealing with the situation. That is why I am standing in the House today, and it is my time.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will acknowledge that it is my time to address the House. When the time comes to ask questions, I will be glad to have hon. members ask me questions and I will answer them.
Victims of crime do not care about politics or headlines that the members on the other side raise. They just want to know that criminals will be stopped, caught and punished. It is time for this government to follow the city of Surrey's lead and take the necessary steps to get the job done. We need action now, not just talk.
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia on the other side of the House for made some interesting comments in terms of the coming of the Liberals' view of how they were going to be pro-security for Canadians. Based on what the they have done recently, it is hard to believe that they are on this.
We are debating Bill C-10 today. It has a five year mandatory minimum penalty for a first conviction using a firearm, seven years for a second conviction and ten years for a third and subsequent convictions. Under the present system, it is currently four years, regardless of previous convictions.
Does my colleague from British Columbia support getting tough on criminals who use guns? For mandatory minimum penalties, what does he not like about having people serve time for serious crimes?
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burlington is a good friend of mine. In fact, I am sure the hon. member listened to my speech when I said that a serious crime should carry serious penalties. I do not disagree with that. On the other hand, I would like the hon. member for Burlington to help me to talk about those vulnerable people in our society who need help the most. We have to act on preventing crime. It can only be prevented if we have strong social programs in place.
The biggest piece of the pie that is missing is stronger social programs. We had child care agreements with the provinces. That was a landmark achievement, which the previous Liberal government made with the provinces to educate children, so children would receive the care they needed and would not commit crimes.
First and foremost, we have to ensure that criminals do not reach the stage where they are criminals.
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether, during the debate, the Conservatives gave him an example of people who had committed serious crimes and who had not been severely punished by judges.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke in the House before me. Again, when it comes to the Conservatives, all they want to do is electioneer with taxpayer dollars and they are not serious enough to deal with the situation at a deep level.
I go to the people of Newton—North Delta and my constituents come to me. In fact, I have not received a single letter on the bill. Most of the letters I receive are on child care, the Kelowna agreement, the income trust, all the betrayals that the Conservative government has made to make things worse in Canada for Canadian people.
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that well in excess of 90% of the major violent crimes are committed with firearms, which are already prohibited. They are illegal. Every one of these offences committed with a firearm is not just a simple offence, but a potentially deadly offence.
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that serious crime should carry serious penalties. On the other hand, when it comes to the gun registry, if we go to any police officer across the country, every one of them is for the gun registry. That is a step toward—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the government's motion concerning Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences involving firearms).
This is not the first time I have commented on this bill. Initially, Bill C-10 sought to amend the Criminal Code to increase minimum prison sentences to five, seven or 10 years, depending on whether the crime was a repeat offence, for eight serious offences involving the use of a firearm.
The bill set out prison terms according to several factors, including whether the firearm in question was a restricted weapon or a prohibited weapon, or if the offence was committed in connection with a criminal organization.
The bill also set out minimum prison sentences from one to five years according to the number, if any, of previous convictions for other firearm-related offences. It also created two new offences: breaking and entering to steal a firearm, and robbery to steal a firearm.
My colleagues and I have read and analyzed every detail of this bill very carefully. The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch supporter of fighting crime via rehabilitation. We believe that the best way to eliminate the scourge of violence is to deal with the causes of violence. The Bloc supports a justice model based on a personalized process that recognizes that each case is unique. Long-term solutions to deterring crime are based on rehabilitation. We also think that judges are in the best position to determine the most appropriate sentence in light of the facts presented to them.
That is why, in the Standing Committee on Justice, we brought this concept of justice to the forefront along with our concerns about the government's vision of law and order. The validity of this approach was corroborated by most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. Bill C-10 is damaging and ineffective because there is no convincing evidence that it will make citizens safer.
The experts who testified before the committee said that minimum sentences did not reduce the crime rate or the recidivism rate. In addition, the clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice provided us with some 30 American and Canadian studies showing that there is no correlation between mandatory minimum sentences, deterrence and the crime rate.
After it was studied in committee, Bill C-10 was gutted, an indication that the government's desire for tougher legislation is at odds with the other parties' vision. Only clause 9 survived, concerning theft of a firearm.
The majority spoke. But now, the government is back with new motions designed to restore the old version of Bill C-10.
Aside from a dozen clauses that were in the original bill, the government's motions essentially restore the clauses in the original bill, including those pertaining to sentences for crimes committed with a firearm.
Motion 10, for example, concerns an individual who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person—whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged. This motion reintroduces heavier minimum sentences: five years for a first offence, seven years for a second and 10 for each subsequent offence.
This government is persisting and still does not understand. There is no evidence that heavier minimum sentences for offences involving weapons or other serious offences will deter criminals. I firmly believe that the Criminal Code, as it now stands, has proven effective in imposing minimum sentences and protecting public safety.
The code already contains mandatory minimum sentences. The judge can use his or her discretion to impose a sentence that is heavier than the minimum. In other words, the government needs to understand that the minimum sentence is a starting point, not a cap.
Might I remind the government that these offences already fall in various categories, such as use of a firearm in an indictable offence, use of a firearm in ten listed violent offences, and possession, trafficking et cetera of various prohibited firearms.
The ten listed offences include mandatory minimums if a firearm is used in connection with the offences of criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, causing bodily harm with intent to harm, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, extortion and hostage taking
I should add that mandatory minimum sentences are also provided in the Criminal Code for use of a firearm to commit or with the intention to commit an indictable offence, and for possession of firearm knowing it is unauthorized.
Mandatory minimum sentences are also found in the Criminal Code for possession of restricted or prohibited firearms with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, weapons trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, making an automatic firearm, and importing or exporting of a firearm knowing that it is unauthorized.
Still, as I said a moment ago, mandatory minimum sentences affect the sitting judge's discretion in cases tried before the courts. There is no exception, no escape clause, no discretion. Without mandatory minimums or with the lower mandatory minimums as they exist today in our Criminal Code, the courts do have the discretion to fashion a sentence more proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the offender, and to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in each case. In my opinion and that of my colleagues, it is essential that the latitude of the judiciary be preserved. The Bloc Québécois did support the idea of mandatory minimum sentences once, but that was for one specific type of offence, namely child pornography.
I cannot conclude without saying that these motions hide an unwanted reality that would affect our citizens' quality of life. When we combine all the plans that the government has regarding this issue, we see a significant increase in the cost of the prison system, and some of that cost will certainly be downloaded to the provinces.
I want to stress the fact that this shift to incarceration will move funds from enforcement and prevention programs. Also, with more people in jail, the issue of crime will not be solved: it will merely be moved into another area.
In a way, incarceration does offer some level of protection to society, but the rehabilitation side, the rebuilding of social relationships is also more difficult when incarceration is used, not to mention the fact that prisons have often been called schools for crime and a great networking opportunity for criminals.
I think that all these concerns raise questions about the emphasis put by the government on increasing incarceration rates in Canada. I wonder if the government has taken into consideration the fact that these motions would have a disproportionate impact on some communities, including aboriginal people.
For all these reasons, I have no choice but to oppose these motions, which resuscitate the original Bill C-10. Let us be clear: my party wants a safer society for everyone. However, better protection for citizens is primarily accomplished by attacking the root of the problem, by targeting the causes of crime and violence. Poverty, inequality and feeling excluded will always be the breeding grounds of crime.
That is why the real solutions to crime prevention are further sharing of wealth, working on better social integration and relying on rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the motions ignore these avenues, and the government thinks that it will improve safety by building more jails and filling them up. This is a sad move on the part of a government that wants people to think it is taking action, even though it is essentially creating a false sense of security.