Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

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.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We need to leave the hon. member some time to answer the question.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the member. I would ask the member to picture himself being the victim of a crime, to picture the perpetrator having a weapon pointed at him, at his wife or at his children and then to consider what is being proposed in terms of minimum mandatory sentencing. If he can picture that, how can he not vote for the bill?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that I wanted to vote for the bill when I heard it would be introduced, I could find no evidence that it works or that it would reduce crime in Canada.

The Liberal government introduced mandatory minimums in the past on a reasonable basis but if we are going to bring forward legislation let us do it in a way that will actually make the streets of Canada safer. That should be the ultimate goal of any legislation dealing with crime.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to let the House in on a little secret. I will be voting against Bill C-10. The bill is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation ever to hit the floor of the House. It is absolutely dumb.

We must not tell anyone because the Conservatives actually think that they are being quite clever with this piece of legislation. The Conservatives think that they can somehow or another be tough on crime by introducing stupid legislation. This bill is stupid. It starts out at the beginning as a stupid bill and it will be a stupid bill after it is debated by the House.

I can hear the Conservatives all chirping here. The big game here is actually a political game. They want to show everyone who opposes the bill as being soft on crime and that the Conservatives are tough on crime, and somehow or another that will solve the problem.

I have noticed a pattern in the Conservative government. That party has a three step approach. The first step is to create a problem that does not exist. The second step is to propose a solution to a problem that does not exist. The third step is to pat themselves on the back and let everyone else pick up the pieces.

Let us look at step one. The first step is to create a non-existent problem. To listen to the Conservative propaganda machine, which would do credit to the communist party of Russia, crime is out of control in this country. The streets are unsafe. There is mayhem everywhere. We should avoid the downtown areas of our major cities. In fact, I sat in this chamber a few days ago where the Minister of Justice proposed that we should avoid downtown Toronto, downtown Vancouver and downtown Winnipeg.

Last Sunday my family and I ignored his advice. We went out and we wandered around downtown Toronto on a Sunday evening. It was a lovely evening and we had a lovely meal. We celebrated my daughter's 18th birthday and we talked to a whole bunch of people who were also in downtown Toronto ignoring the minister's advice.

In fact, there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of people in downtown Toronto apparently ignoring the minister's advice to avoid downtown Toronto. I realize that bashing Toronto is a favourite sport over on the other side. Frankly, the people of Toronto ignore the Conservative Party.

Perhaps the thousands of people who were with me and my family had actually read the Juristat statistics that are put out by Statistics Canada under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice. If the minister cares to read that material, he might find the following:

Following an increase in 2003, the national police-reported crime rate fell slightly (-1%) in 2004. Although most crimes declined in 2004, noticeable increases were seen in homicides and drug incidents.

The overall decrease in crime was largely driven by a 5% decline in Ontario.

Ontario of all places.

Most of this decline was due to large decreases in crime in Hamilton, Ottawa, St. Catharines-Niagara and Toronto census metropolitan areas. Ontario's crime was the lowest in the country for the second year in a row.

The total violent crime dropped by 2%.

In 2003 we reached a 36-year low in homicide rates. There was a 4% drop in robberies. Most property crimes declined. Break-ins were 4% lower than the year previous. Youth crime was down 4%.

I appreciate that members opposite do not actually like to deal with evidence. It interferes with their propaganda. Frankly, their game is to peddle fear. We had an example of this by the justice minister on the floor of the House who said to not go to the downtowns of our major cities because crime was rampant. Unfortunately, the facts do not support them. There is no evidence to support step one.

If that does not really matter, then we go to step two. Step two is to propose a solution to a non-existent problem. The big idea in the bill is minimum mandatories. Canada will be so much safer now that we have minimum mandatories.

I am sure that the entire criminal underclass is studying up on minimum mandatories as we speak so they can avoid the effects of this bill. I am sure some members feel, as I do, that this new standard of minimum mandatories has put deep fear into the hearts of our criminal underclass.

I do not pretend to be a criminal law lawyer, but I did a bit when I first started practice. One of the things that I noticed about criminals, as a general statement, is that they are not the brightest lot in the world. In fact, they are kind of dumb. The other thing I have noticed about criminals, generally in the time that I represented them and in the time I have watched colleagues represent them, is that not one of them ever thought he or she would ever get caught. They were not really appreciating the nature and consequences of their actions.

I am sure that this bill is just going to have a huge impact on that criminal underclass. They are going to say to themselves that they are not going to commit a robbery and not pack any heat because they will get a minimum mandatory sentence. Criminals do not think that way.

Equally interesting about the minister's speech was that he said there is no Canadian evidence to support his bill. It is an extraordinary thing for a Minister of Justice to deposit a bill on the floor of this House and then say he has no evidence to support it. To be fair to him, he did cite two American studies, both of which were ambiguous and are in a different legal environment and a different sentencing environment.

At the same time he also said that some of the states were actually going in the opposite direction and repealing their minimum mandatory sentences. Why? Because the evidence does not support the existence of minimum mandatories.

Step one would create a problem that does not exist. Step two proposes a solution to a non-existent problem. And step three, pat oneself on the back and let the others pick up the pieces.

Minimum mandatories by definition erode judicial consideration and discretion. Everybody on the opposite side of the House thinks that is a great idea. After the judges have listened to the evidence, listened to the arguments, heard the witnesses, made a finding of guilt, read and listened to the pre-admission sentencing reports, and heard from the victims and the victim impact statements, they will now be in a worse position to make a decision than those who never heard any of that.

This is going to lead to disproportionality of evidence. It will also lead to distortions in the way judges choose to sentence. If a minimum mandatory sentence were to shock the conscience, judges would accept pleas to lesser charges in order to achieve proportionality of sentence.

This bill tries to create a cookie-cutter approach to justice. The people who have had no access to what the judge has seen and heard will get to set the sentence. I do not know whether that makes any sense to other members in the House, but it certainly does not make any sense to me.

There are other consequences of this legislation that are equally perverse. My Liberal colleagues have outlined what is the most offensive issue of all of this and that is the creation of fear in the citizens of Canada. I go back again to the three steps I have mentioned already. Step one, create a problem that does not exist. Step two, propose a solution that does not address the problem. Step three, let others pick up the pieces.

I agree that the problem is fear. I have talked to a lot of constituents, particularly during the election, and there is fear out there. The Conservative Party fans that fear. Why? Because it is politically expedient and that party will not choose to confront fear with fact. Fear will always trump fact. This is really nasty politics and it is a disservice to Canadians.

In conclusion, the government is all about hysteria. Fear trumps facts. This is bad politics and it is a disservice to our Canadian electorate.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the member could have taken a little bit of time to write a new speech from his Bill C-9 speech, but apparently not.

In both speeches he used the phrase over and over again, “create a problem that does not exist”. I hope he is willing to defend that comment, if somebody decides to maybe send a ten percenter into his riding or put it in the newspaper or something, for all those people in his riding who have been the victims of crime and who do not feel very safe in their homes.

If he wants to make the case that somehow this is, as he said, just propaganda; there is no real problem; it is all being imagined; it is only those scary Conservatives that are somehow creating a problem that does not exist; then frankly, I think this is nonsense.

He referred to these studies and that somehow they do not make the case. Let me just quote from one of them. This is right from the study. It says:

A study of the effects of New Jersey's 1981 Graves Act, which mandated a minimum prison sentence for anyone convicted of one of several serious crimes while using or carrying a firearm, found that the proportion of New Jersey homicides involving firearms decreased significantly between 1980 and 1986.

The hon. member says that somehow this is somewhat ambiguous. I do not know what is ambiguous about that. It goes on to say:

Gun homicides, the study found, decreased significantly in all six cities after mandatory sentencing laws were enacted. Assaults and armed robberies decreased somewhat in certain cities.

Stephen Levitt, who some say is the most brilliant young economist in the U.S. and has studied with Daniel Kessler, did study that proposition 8 law in California. Maybe the hon. member could tell me how this could be misinterpreted. He wrote:

Our results suggest that criminals respond to the severity and not just the certainty of sentences, a result that is predicted by the economic model of crime but has proven elusive empirically. This suggests that the increasing reliance on sentence enhancements in both state law and the federal sentencing guidelines may represent an effective means of reducing crime.

Let me conclude with this comment. Let us say, for example, that I am a potential gun criminal and I am thinking of committing a crime with a gun. The member is saying I am not very smart and maybe that might be true, and that I do not take into account the fact that if I go out and commit this offence, maybe it is a third offence, with this new law I will get five years instead of three years. So, if I do not take that into account and I commit the crime anyway, this new law will give me five years instead of three years under the old law. The member implies that somehow this is not working. I may commit this offence or maybe I may re-offend. Frankly, I do not care if--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The member has now taken up three minutes of the five minute question and comment period. There are other people rising. I need to give the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood some time to respond.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was not by design on the part of the hon. member to get in a mini speech while asking a question.

He cites a 1981 American study. That would put it at about a 25 year old study, in a different country, a different legal environment, and a different sentencing environment. I question the usefulness and value of any kind of study such as that.

My preference in terms of real evidence is to cite page 5 from the Library of Parliament's legislative summary on Bill C-10 which says at paragraph 3:

Mandatory minimum sentences are a subset of criminal penalties generally. Accordingly, studies on the overall effect of prison sentences on crime rates and recidivism may be useful. One Canadian meta-analysis found little difference in general recidivism rates, regardless of length of incarceration or whether the offender was given a prison or community sanction. In fact, prison produced slight increases in recidivism.

Surprise, we will end up with more people in jail for longer. That is the result of dumb legislation.

In a follow-up meta-analysis focusing on juvenile, female and minority offenders, it was tentatively concluded that increasingly lengths of incarceration were associated with slightly greater increases in recidivism. Not only are we putting the general public into prison longer, we are actually exaggerating some of the social fissures in our own society among juveniles, females and minorities.

That is just brilliant public policy. I appreciate that the hon. member does not like to deal with facts. The government opposite just hates facts when they interfere with its propaganda. There is no crime wave in this country. In fact, the crime statistics show that crime is actually declining in this country, including my own community.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud on behalf of the NDP to enter the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with minimum penalties. Mr. Speaker, as you well know coming from Manitoba, I represent the inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre. It is a very low income riding, and I am not proud to say, a riding that is very prone to some of the predictable consequences of chronic long term poverty, which has a greater likelihood to be associated with or a victim of crimes, particularly crimes of a violent nature.

I am pleased to have this opportunity. I asked for the opportunity to join the debate today. On behalf of the people of my riding of Winnipeg Centre, I feel duty bound to represent them on an issue dealing with criminal justice and the criminal justice system.

When I survey the residents of my riding, the inner city, the core area of Winnipeg Centre, and ask them what the most important issue facing them is, overwhelmingly the number one top of mind issue they cite is crime, safety, safe streets and criminal justice issues, by a factor of four to one. I was shocked the last time I polled people in my riding in a survey of this nature. My colleague from Yellowknife may find the same when he surveys the people in his riding. Those issues are what come to mind first because they are the issues closest to people's day to day lives.

In surveys in Canada generally, the number one issue that comes to mind is almost always health care. I can say that by a factor of four to one the issues of crime and safety are greater in my riding than the issue of health care. Tax cuts is a factor of five or six to one. Of all the other issues that seem to be prioritized in any election campaign or the federal government's top priorities, almost to a person in my riding, crime and safety are the number one priority.

Having said that, I wanted to enter this debate because I think the people in my riding would want to know that Parliament is seized of the issue, that Parliament is listening to Canadians and their very reasonable plea. Canadians just want to be able to feel safe on their streets. They want to be able to walk down the streets free of interference and mischief, like in the good old days.

When I talk to people in my riding some say, “It was not like this not long ago. When I was growing up, kids were sent to the corner store with 25¢ to buy a quart of milk and did not think twice about it. Now nobody does that”. Right after supper every kid in the neighbourhood would go out to play and they would go as far as they could get in a certain period of time. They had a turnaround time; they had to get back in time for last call, but they were free to roam the streets, play, develop and socialize.

Now there is not a kid in my neighbourhood who goes anywhere without a play date. Kids are driven everywhere. They pre-arrange appointments to play with other eight year olds. Their moms drive them in minivans to play dates and drive them home again. Parents do not feel safe letting their kids go out to play even street hockey. This is a real tragedy of our time. Whether it is real or perceived, it is real enough in the minds of the people whom I represent. They tell me as their member of Parliament that is what they want action on more than anything else.

I am glad that in the final days of this spring session of the 39th Parliament we are talking about criminal justice, that we are talking about safety, and talking about crime in the streets. The incidence of poverty in Winnipeg Centre is high, unfortunately. I am not proud of this, but I have the poorest riding in Canada by whatever measurement one uses. Whether it is family income or incidence of poverty, Winnipeg Centre is the poorest riding in Canada. As such, perhaps disproportionately it is faced with the predictable consequences of chronic long term poverty.

During the election campaign, I believe it was in early January of 2006, there was a tragic incident that brought the whole subject of mandatory minimum sentences to the forefront. There was a shooting death in the city of Toronto. I hate to share this over top of the heckling from my colleague from Ontario who does not like this bill apparently, but I had a similar incident in my riding not three blocks from my office where a 17-year-old, perfectly innocent nice young man was caught in the crossfire between two gangs. Gangsters were popping off rounds playing with their guns essentially, picking each other off and they picked off an innocent bystander.

I hope members will join me in mourning the loss of that young innocent person and the grieving the family goes through and the feeling of senselessness about it.

How did we ever descend to this point? This was an ordinary Winnipeg neighbourhood and now people will not sleep in the rooms that share the outer walls of their houses. They do not want to be next to the outside wall for fear a stray bullet will hit one of their kids. They sleep in the inner rooms of their houses. How did it come to that in 2006, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in Canada? They want to know. We do not profess to have all the answers but they deserve to know at least that we are paying attention to it and that we are doing our best to address their concerns.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is something we frequently hear is a knee-jerk reaction, that it is not tested and not proven. I will say quite openly that I will only support things that I believe will have the results I am after and that we are seeking to achieve.

There are many reasons that we structure our sentencing within the criminal justice system, only one of which is actually punitive. Punishing people may be one of the lesser motivations in terms of our sentencing. One is that we want to be safe.

I see I am running short of time. Let me say simply that the NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has advised us that we are interested in this bill to the point where we would like to see it go to committee for assessment. At committee we can propose what we think are improvements to the bill to make sure it actually achieves what it seeks to achieve. That is a reasonable position that we are taking.

Members who stand up and condemn this bill in a blanket fashion are showing a wilful blindness to the wishes of Canadians who want this subject addressed. They are not listening to their constituents. If they asked them, their constituents would tell them, “We want you to make our streets safe. Whatever it takes is what we want you seized with”.

The NDP wants this bill to go to committee. I am happy to have had this opportunity to speak to it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The time for questions and comments on the debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will have to take place the next time the bill is before the House.

We will now proceed to statements by members.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When the House last discussed Bill C-10, there were five minutes remaining in the period of questions and comments for the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for his remarks on Bill C-10 last Friday. I know he had some very interesting things to say.

I have some concerns about Bill C-10 and the approach of the government. To deal with crime, it sometimes appears to me that the government wants more people in jail and an expansion of the prison system.

I know the member for Winnipeg Centre talked about a more holistic approach, a more multi-faceted approach to crime prevention, which was evident in his community of Winnipeg. In my community of Burnaby, the Burnaby Restorative Action Group is trying to take that kind of an approach to solving some of the crime issues in our society.

Could the member expand further on the work being done in Winnipeg on this more holistic approach to crime prevention?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. At the end of the hours allocated for debate on Bill C-10 on Friday, I was trying to share with the House some of the innovative ideas that the NDP government of Manitoba had been introducing in seeking to address these criminal justice issues.

I went through the importance of opportunities for youth. Much of the activity or the irritant bothering people in the inner city of Winnipeg is seen to be youth gang related. The attorney general of Manitoba, the Hon. Gord Mackintosh, has talked about a three-legged stool in criminal justice issues. He has said that one of the key legs is economic opportunities for youth, a sense of involvement, a sense of inclusion. This is key and instrumental in satisfying the concerns of people and safety issues.

Another key leg on this three-legged stool is a newly developed idea that has recently been introduced into law in Manitoba. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and my colleague, the justice critic for the NDP, from Windsor—Tecumseh may be interested in knowing more about this. We are trying to make it so that crime does not pay.

In that vein, we have introduced legislation where the government can seize the proceeds of crime, which it deems or considers to be proceeds. If the provincial government can demonstrate to a judge what it believes to be proceeds of crime, then there is a reverse onus situation. People holding that property would have to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not purchase the products with the proceeds of crime. This has been a powerful tool. It reverses the burden of proof and the onus.

Let me give an example of a recent case. A known patch member of a motorcycle gang was living in a $600,000 to $700,000 house, which in Winnipeg is an expensive house. That would be a couple of million dollars by Toronto standards. The driveway was full of power boats, motorcycles and all the toys and luxury items that one could possibly be imagine. Yet there were no visible means of income for the past many years.

The question was put to the individual whether he had won a lottery or had inherited money from a rich uncle who passed away. He was unable to demonstrate, in any way, where the money had come from to allow him to live in such a luxurious setting.

The government had pretty good evidence that the items were purchased from proceeds of crime, but not quite enough to charge him criminally. Roughly $600,000 worth of material things, luxury items, were seized. That money is dedicated to further enforcement. It does not only go into general revenue. The money goes into policing and catching more people.

If crime is not profitable, there will be less crime. This is another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement officials that puts the burden of proof where it belongs, on criminals to prove that they purchased the products, the bling bling, through legitimately earned money and not the proceeds of crime.

I would like to add that to the mix for the consideration of all members as we address this pressing issue.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss Bill C-10, mandatory minimum sentences and their effectiveness.

Every MP in the House wants to make Canada a safer place to live. I am sure no one would debate this point.

It is good that we are having this debate on mandatory minimums now because they could have a major effect on making our society more or less dangerous. This debate gives all MPs a chance to review what the experts have had to say, what experience has shown and what the facts are. I had no opinion coming into this debate so this review is important to me.

From some of the research, it has quickly become evident that mandatory minimums do not work. Our prison system is over-burdened. Individuals are being let off when they should not be. Long incarceration is not helping our prison system. Those who vote for the bill will be making Canada a more dangerous place to live and will be putting our law-abiding citizens at risk. I will go into more details on how this will happen later on in my speech.

Criminologists, judges and prison wardens have told us that mandatory minimums do not work. Let us look at some of that evidence, some of which we have heard from previous speakers, particularly the former minister of justice.

Let me quote from the Conservative justice minister a few weeks ago on CTVs Canada AM. He said ,“The evidence in Canada is not particularly persuasive one way or another”. Doob and Cesaroni said in 2001, in the Osgoode law journal that “All Canadian commissions since 1952 have suggested abolishing mandatory minimums”.

What about around the world? “The story of the failure of mandatory penalties is at least three centuries old” said Michael Tonry in “Crime & Justice: A Review of Research”, University of Chicago Press 1992.

Let us look at the United States, which is often referenced with respect to mandatory minimums. When it brought in the three strike law for mandatory minimums, in some states it was applied stringently, in others it was hardly used at all. The sentence did not affect deterrence. It was no more a deterrent when it was applied as compared to when it was not. Doob and Cesaroni said that the three strike legislation was a spectacular failure.

The American Sentencing Commission, the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the Canadian Bar Association and the American Bar Association have all concluded that mandatory minimums do not work.

Perhaps the Prime Minister and justice minister should have paid more attention to the Australian delegation. Let me quote some Australian facts. The Australian governments responsible for those mandatory minimums “have effectively conceded that mandatory sentences have no deterrent effect, and that there is a need for judicial discretion and the more vigorous use of diversionary schemes and alternative strategies”. Those are the tools that Canada has used to reduce crime so much in recent years. This quote came from Doob and Cesaroni, “Mandatory Minimums, U of T, March 16, 2001.

Even the five studies referred to by the justice minister himself have indicated that the minister is flat wrong.

I would like to quote a summary on mandatory minimums. “Reams of studies show that the Tory approach is expensive and futile”. That was Dan Gardner in the Ottawa Citizen on May 11. I could include the leader of the NDP in that.

It is not just judges, experts, the facts, the research, the criminologist and the wardens who believe mandatory minimums do not work. Canadians believe this also. “When given the ability to make a more thoughtful response, the public is clear. If a person has to choose between building more prisons or investing in alternatives to imprisonment or in crime prevention, prisons lose the vote”. This was by David Garland in “The Culture of High Crime in Society”, British Journal of Criminology 2000.

Now that the facts are clear, Parliament should do the right thing. I will assume it was an honest mistake when the justice minister said on CTV's Canada AM that that is not the experience in many other jurisdictions where targeted mandatory minimums have had a huge deterrent effect. Study after study, some of which I quoted, say no, that is not the case. In trying to find a few that supported his case in spite of the overwhelming majority against it, the minister and the department dug up only five studies. When those studies were analyzed by Dan Gardner, it was found that none demonstrated the huge deterrent that the minister claimed. In fact, one of them, the most recent high quality review, proved outright that the minister was wrong.

It would be a very serious offence to mislead Canadians and Parliament. It is a great honour and responsibility to be a minister. I therefore call on the minister to do the right thing and apologize for the error.

The facts are quite clear. Mandatory minimums do not work. To vote for this bill would ultimately put more dangerous criminals on the streets and would make the streets less safe for Canadians. I will outline 10 reasons.

One, the millions of dollars that would be spent on incarceration which does not work could be spent on hiring more police officers.

Two, the millions of dollars could be spent on stopping illegal guns at the border.

Three, judges would lose the flexibility to sign the optimum rehabilitation sentence which would most likely protect citizens in the long run. This has a particularly prejudicial effect on aboriginal people, as a much higher proportion of the population in prisons is aboriginal.

People have to remember that virtually all inmates are released from prison. We have to look at what their status will be and what ability they will have not to reoffend when they come out of prison.

Four, mandatory minimum sentences would add to the overburdening of the prisons and would stress already insufficient rehabilitation budgets.

Five, it would dilute the addiction treatment which is available in prisons.

Six, it would reduce the anger management therapy which is so badly needed in prisons.

Seven, overburdend prisons would reduce the academic and technology training and apprenticeship training to help people fit back into society.

The millions of dollars that would be saved by not incarcerating people because it would not be effective could be invested in the treatments I mentioned in reasons four to seven. The money could be invested in many crime prevention programs which have proven to be effective in reducing crime in Canada.

Eight, it has been proven that people who stay in prison are less likely to reintegrate into society and are more likely to reoffend. In fact, the studies done in Canada by the solicitor general showed a 3% increase in recidivism. Often we are hardening criminals by leaving them in prison longer. This is particularly true for northerners. In the remote communities because people are sent such a far distance to jail, they lose the support from their families. They are therefore more likely to have a worse outcome as opposed to fitting into society and being healed and cured.

Nine, judges and prosecutors would recommend probation or lesser sentences when the person should receive a harsher sentence than that, but the mandatory minimum sentence might be too harsh for the crime.

Ten, judges and juries would accept more plea bargaining or not convict at all instead of forcing an unreasonable sentence on a person, thus making the streets less safe, according to a Department of Justice firearms task force report.

A Conservative member made a very cogent comment on the bill last week. To paraphrase what he said, he asked what if it was the wife or daughter of a Conservative member, or an NDP member, I would add, who was injured or attacked by a criminal on a street that had been made more dangerous for one of the 10 reasons that I mentioned if we vote in favour of this bill? For parliamentarians who carefully and professionally study the facts, the answer will be easy and they will vote against the bill, but there will be some soul searching--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I was trying to give the member notice when there were two minutes, one minute, and 30 seconds remaining in his time, which has expired.

The hon. member for Ahuntsic.