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

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a criminologist who specialized in street gangs, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this bill. It is therefore from the standpoint of a criminologist, and not that of a politician, that I speak today.

As a criminologist, unfortunately I cannot say that this is a great bill. I really wish I could have said it was, but I just cannot. I think that all of us in this House want to combat crime and make Canada and Quebec safer, but the reality is that crime cannot be wiped out. Crime is a social phenomenon that is part of any society. To say that minimum sentences and building prisons would wipe out crime would be deceitful.

It is important to understand that repression is but one approach among many. There are many different ways to deal with crime besides building prisons, increasing law enforcement personnel, stiffening penalties and imposing minimum sentences. It can be done through prevention and rehabilitation.

Any good criminologist will tell you that prison is a school for crime, where inmates hone their skills. It is also a place for rehabilitation. We must therefore be more nuanced in our approach to this extremely complex phenomenon.

In the United States, we have a fine example of crime suppression, that is, of employing a get-tough approach to crime management. We can see that the crime rate in that country is not declining. Is that the road to follow? In my opinion, the answer is no.

It is very important to understand that in crime management—or in sentence management—we are not executioners. I believe we are no longer living in the Middle Ages. We are not executioners, we are legislators. Therefore we must produce intelligent legislation—or at least try to do so—and not base ourselves on the lex talionis of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Sentencing must be fair, intelligent and above all individualized; it must not be based on emotion.

Before getting to the heart of the subject of this bill, I would like to speak to you about street gangs. Street gangs frighten us. We are all afraid of them, both the population and the police who cannot manage to resolve this problem. So what are we doing? We are reverting to a kind of witch hunt accompanied by get-tough measures. Why? Simply because we are afraid of street gangs.

It is important to understand that to counter society’s feeling of insecurity and fear—legitimate fear—we have to inform that society and not use its fear to control it. Whatever we think, that is what is happening now in the United States, under the concept of terrorism.

I will take this opportunity to offer an example of positive action to combat street gangs. I offer this information to the population of Ahuntsic. We will be holding an information forum on street gangs on June 17, from 12:30 to 5:30 p.m. at the Ahuntsic CEGEP. All sorts of people will be coming to speak about this phenomenon and demystify it. Here is one productive way to combat street gangs and recruitment to them.

In addition, prevention with young people is crucial. We have to prevent this recruitment. A great deal of this is already being done, by numerous organizations. Within the police itself, social and community officers are going into schools to talk about street gangs. However, let us ask ourselves this question. How do we react to the fact of a government investing $20 million in prevention and $1 billion in suppression? It is incredible!

There is one important thing. When we talk about gangs, a small group of young people displaying criminal behaviour does not constitute a street gang. There are major gangs, which are very well organized. These are involved in narcotics trafficking and prostitution. They make millions and billions of dollars a year, and have very close ties to organized crime. These gangs use the sweat and blood of children to sell their dope and execute contracts to kill people. That is clear.

But are we going to go after these children or are we going to go after these adults 25, 30 and 35 years old who are filling their pockets and own big houses and Hummers?

We need to think about what we are going after.

An 18-year-old, who has reached the age of majority, is incarcerated in the Leclerc detention centre. He is a very proud member of the Crypts. Where is he placed? With the Hells Angels at the Leclerc detention centre. Great. We are furthering his education. That is the reality of life in prison.

Repression poses another problem, and that is racial profiling. Of course, we have the profile of a typical gang member: black, Arab or Latino, wearing jeans backwards and a red or blue bandanna. In crime repression, we have to be careful not to get into racial profiling. Ethnic origin does not mean street gangs. This is very important. However this is not how we perceive street gangs today.

I am giving the example of street gangs to show that this bill will not address the phenomenon of street gangs. We have to deal with the root of the problem. Sure, we can exercise repression and arrest adults. But we need to think about prevention for minors and youth.

One nonsensical aspect of this bill made me laugh. On the one hand, the government wants to eliminate the requirement to register hunting rifles. On the other hand, it wants to exempt hunting rifles from this bill.

Yet 35% of homicides committed with firearms involve hunting rifles. Do members know that from 1994 to 2003, 67% or two thirds of homicides involving children and youth that were solved were committed by a family member?

In addition, 76% of murder-suicides that occurred between 1961 and 2003 involved family members and were usually committed with a firearm. Of course, 38% of children between 7 and 17 who are murdered by a family member are killed with a firearm.

Firearms are the weapons most commonly used in spousal murder-suicides and are used in 64% of murder-suicides committed by male spouses.

We are not talking about street gangs, but ordinary citizens at home with their family. That is one thing. As well, I do not believe that these people collect handguns. I think that they collect hunting rifles. We therefore have to ask ourselves questions about that.

I wonder what this government really wants. Does it want to reduce crime? Does it want to drum up business for the firearm and maybe the hunting rifle lobbies? Are we sending gang members the message that they should use hunting rifles because that way they can slip through the loopholes?

With its repressive approach, this bill is not good as far as crime is concerned. This cocktail of minimum sentences cannot produce the results the government is seeking. It is legitimate and it is fine; we all want to reduce crime. However, we will vote against it; at least I will.

I would like to make one small clarification, though, because it is something I feel strongly about. There is one form of crime for which I am in favour of minimum sentences, namely sexual assault. I am totally in favour of a minimum punishment in such cases. This is not with a view to repression, however, but to rehabilitation.

I worked with sex offenders for a long time, and I know that an individual who goes into prison and comes out without following any programs or treatment, or without any psychological follow-up, is very dangerous. An individual who goes into any penitentiary spends from six to nine months in a regional reception centre. He is subsequently sent to another penitentiary. Once there, the individual must think about whether he really wants to follow a course of treatment. It may take three, four, five or six months, even a year. Then the treatment is one year long, with follow-up inside or outside. Do we think that a sentence of two years plus a day will enable a sex offender to be rehabilitated? In my opinion, no. I have seen it, I have been through it, and I have worked with these people.

What I can say, though, is that we cannot cure a sex offender. We can only help him to control himself and make him less dangerous. So there has to be a minimum sentence for this type of offence, in light of the time it takes to administer the sentence in prison.

As we can see, the Criminal Code is extremely complex. We cannot amend it indiscriminately. It is important to amend it intelligently, carefully, and to base our struggle against crime not only on repression, but rather on rehabilitation, integration in the labour market and prevention, in addition to combating poverty and intolerance.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my period for comments and questions to finish the last bit of my speech and ask the member if she agrees with what I am about to say.

As I was saying, 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 soul-searching for some, for Conservative members and for the leader of the NDP who may have jumped to apparently reasonable conclusions before having all the facts.

This will be a very challenging moment for them. We will all wait to see what choice they make. Will some members be no better than a lynch mob or a flat earth society pretending to be uninformed and fanning the destructive fires of rumour and revenge? Or will they--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as interesting as I find the comments from my colleague from Yukon in hearing the rest of his speech, I wonder what bearing it has on the speech in terms of questions and comments of the other valid points that my colleague--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

We are in questions and comments. The hon. member is making a comment and presumably will ask the other member what the tie-in is. He has already announced it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why what I am saying is very appropriate is that the member who just spoke was making supporting statements to everything I am saying now, and I think she is going to agree. I am asking her, based on what she said, which is very similar to what I said on rehabilitation, et cetera, if she agrees with me.

I have just two more sentences. Will the leader of the NDP and the Conservatives make this decision not based on the facts or will they live up to the great NDP tradition of supporting holistic approaches to rehabilitation and judges' professionalism in designing the most effective remedies to keep our streets safe? Who among the Conservatives, with the highest degree of knowledge, professionalism, evidence, study and thoughtfulness, will have the moral courage to vote to make our streets safer as the evidence and the facts dictate by voting no? I wish them courage in their deliberations.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the other parties. I can only speak on behalf of my own party or myself.

My statement was very clear: I think that this bill is fundamentally bad. Repressing crime is neither the most useful nor the most efficient way to fight it. We have seen proof all over the world that this approach does not work.

Unfortunately, crime scares us and gives rise to very primal human emotions: vengeance, retribution, our inner executioner. That is understandable. We experience these feelings when we watch TV and see a sexual predator get off after molesting several children. That is normal and I understand it.

I understand that this party, the Conservative government—and it looks like the NDP is on board too—has this need for retribution. However, we must ask ourselves what we want. We want to protect our society, our people, our children, our women, our spouses, our siblings, our parents, and our elderly.

With that in mind, what is the best way to reduce crime? Repression has it place, of course, but it must not always be the first option. We must find a fair balance between prevention and rehabilitation. When I say repression, I am not talking about punitive repression, but about incarceration for the purpose of rehabilitation. That means that prisons must be more than just walls. We must invest money in programs offered in prisons. That is what we must do. We must also be careful. Programs for women are not the same as programs for men. We must be careful about that. There are women in Joliette who do not have all of the programs they need.

We must therefore invest money in the right things: prevention, rehabilitation, education and employment. The latter is very important. Why would a young person decide to go make $6,000 a week in a certain neighbourhood, which I will not name here—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, often the best of intentions go awry. Unintended consequences and terrible results can come from acts that were seemingly simplistic. Such is the case with Bill C-10.

The thinking behind this bill is certainly simplistic enough: jail the bad guy and crime disappears. The unfortunate part of Bill C-10 and its companion piece, Bill C-9, is that this is the only idea the Conservatives have had about justice: the start and the end of crime is prisons and nothing else.

As Canadians, we abhor crime and violence, and rightly so, but we also denounce injustice and inequality. Our concept of Canada as a just society demands nothing less. However, there is injustice in Canada, social injustice, and it is etched in the history of our aboriginal people.

In a response to one of my questions, the Minister of Indian Affairs said that the first agenda he dealt with was the advancement of social justice for aboriginal people. I would suggest that either this is clearly not the case or the rest of cabinet did not get that memo.

Bill C-10 is a case in point. It talks about crime and it hits all the good fear buttons, but the justice minister is not looking at a holistic approach, a consultative approach or a community-building approach to eradicating crime in aboriginal communities.

The bleak numbers in a study released last week by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics have depicted this history as incredibly brutal and harsh for all aboriginal people. Aboriginal Canadians have the terrible distinction of being more likely to be victims and more likely to be jailed than non-aboriginal Canadians.

The study reveals that 40% of aboriginal people over the age of 15 reported being victims of crime in the 12 months prior to being interviewed for the study, which is 12% higher than non-aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal people were twice as likely to be repeat victims, three times more likely to be robbed, assaulted or raped, and three and a half times more likely to be the victims of spousal assault.

On reserve, the reality for many aboriginal people is even worse. Compared to national averages, aboriginal people on reserve are eight times more likely to be assaulted and seven times more likely to be sexually assaulted.

These are unfortunate realities. Therefore, the first question is this: has incarceration been the solution? Has locking up and throwing away the key been the answer?

These numbers persist despite the fact that aboriginal people have an incredibly higher rate of incarceration. In fact, although aboriginal people make up only 3% of the Canadian population, they made up 20% of the provincial inmates and 18% of the federal inmates.

In Saskatchewan, this number explodes. Although aboriginal people are approximately 11% of the population in the province, they comprise 80% of the people in jails.

The situation is so grim, in fact, as stated by Larry Chartrand, head of the aboriginal governance program at the University of Winnipeg, that young aboriginal people “have a greater chance of landing behind bars than graduating from university”.

Let me repeat that: young Canadian aboriginal people have a greater chance of landing behind bars than graduating from university, and this in Canada, the home of the just society.

There is no mystery to these terrible numbers. These studies lay out stark terms. They list a number of factors that have been associated with higher rates of victimization and offending. On overage, aboriginal people are younger. Their unemployment rates are higher and their incomes lower. They are more likely to be involved in crowded conditions. They have a higher residential mobility. Aboriginal children are more likely to be members of single parent families.

In spite of noticeable improvements to education levels, there is still a noticeable education gap between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people. The gaps in education and employment opportunities are reflected in the aboriginal people who are in these correctional institutions. Three-quarters of incarcerated aboriginal adults have not completed their secondary school education. Also, aboriginal Canadians were less likely to be employed at the time of incarceration.

There is a problem that needs to be responded to. Therefore, we have a second question. Will mandatory minimum penalties and more jail time address or improve these statistics? The answer, very clearly, is no.

My colleagues have surgically dissected the justice minister's sparse evidence rather easily. The reality is that the justice minister has no evidence to support Bill C-10. In fact, various studies have demonstrated that tougher penalties do not deter crime. Evidence suggests they increase reoffending and recidivism by 3%.

Furthermore, as one of my colleagues stated, the law of unintended consequences kicks in, with increased prison populations, an increased aboriginal population in prison, increased prison costs for taxpayers, and decreased spending on other aspects of the justice system, the net effect being no improvement to ensuring safer streets and safer communities.

Saskatchewan's justice minister has voiced his concern that the Conservative measures will result in yet an even higher percentage of aboriginal people in jail. Saskatchewan has worked hard to address this issue. The concern is a reality. The Library of Parliament has noted that Australian studies have shown that mandatory minimums have a disproportionate effect on aboriginal offenders.

The 2003 study by the Northern Territory of Australia showed that 73% of all people subject to certain mandatory terms were indigenous. This study concluded that “the length of the minimum sentence was not an effective deterrent for the population known to have been subject to mandatory sentencing” and that “available data suggests that sentencing policy does not measurably influence levels” of crime. In fact, Australia went as far as to repeal this legislation in 2001.

There are more concerns than the major issue of disproportionate impact that these laws will have on aboriginals.

There are concerns about wrongful conviction through plea bargaining, because some accused individuals may have a fear of being faced with a justice system unfamiliar to them.

There are concerns about an added stress for an already overcrowded and under-resourced legal aid system.

Finally, there is the grim spectre of individuals being hauled to an overcrowded prison that is bursting at the seams with lifelong criminals and thinly stretched correctional service officers.

Saskatchewan's justice minister has called the Conservative approach “not focused or strategic”. He summed up his feelings by saying, “I don't think any of this has been thought out”.

If the federal justice minister were truly interested in dealing with crime and particularly the terrible toll it has taken on aboriginal people, he would do well to reference the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and any number of the over three dozen judicial inquiries, commissions and reports that have been completed over the last two decades. They have all arrived at the same conclusions: focus on the root causes; focus on restorative and rehabilitative measures; and empower aboriginal communities to deal with their own justice issues.

A way to ensure that we can respond to this challenge is to empower aboriginal communities to deal with justice issues at their level. For example, there is the MKO model in northern Manitoba. Aboriginal communities can adapt policies and strategies to build a justice system within the principles and procedures of the existing Canadian system. Aboriginal people have not had experience dealing with the justice system. Rather, they have experienced dealings with the legal system, focusing on punishment and no restorative and preventive resources.

The Conservative government moved further toward a one size fits all approach and “father knows best” attitude that has been the case far too often. Aboriginal communities must be allowed to develop a justice system that respects their culture and history, encourages healing and erases the victimization and exclusion that has occurred for so many years.

Mr. Chartrand, the head of the aboriginal governance program at U of W, whom I quoted earlier, had another suggestion for the government to combat this tragedy: it should rethink its Kelowna accord commitments. When the government heard these numbers of victimization and incarceration, it dismissed the Kelowna accord yet again and said that the government will commit more money and set its own course. The government just does not get it.

Were my people clamouring for the Conservatives to renegotiate Kelowna? I have not heard one word of that. As a matter of fact, we have heard outcries for the government to move forward, but we should not be surprised that the government has taken these actions. Bill C-10 and Bill C-9 unfairly target aboriginal people.

Let us look at the record. On child care, there is no provision for aboriginal child care or early learning. On taxation, there is increased income tax for those with the lowest incomes, which is the case for most aboriginal people. As for health wait times, aboriginal people cannot even get access to primary health care. On accountability, Bill C-2 promotes the stereotype that first nations are not accountable. On safer streets, we see the evidence that this will increase incarceration rates for aboriginal people and will provide no support for preventive measures.

I call upon the government to live up to our reputation as a just society.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member had to say and I agree with many of his points but I do not think he was speaking to Bill C-10. As we know, Bill C-10 sets out mandatory minimum sentences for violent crime.

I recently had an opportunity to tour Warkworth Institution and I must say that the federal system of prisons is quite effective in rehabilitating prisoners and making them better members of society. Only by getting into the federal system will they have this opportunity.

Furthermore, I think the member is speaking to the failures of the previous government, and I condemn the previous government for the conditions that currently exist in Saskatchewan in the provincial system of prisons. Is the member not speaking of the failures of the previous government and not the initiatives of this government?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody should aspire to get the help they need in a prison system. The whole intent of a justice system is to ensure we provide the necessary social safety net to prevent them from getting there in the first place.

The previous government worked extremely hard to address these issues and initiated a five point strategy: one, tougher laws and proportionate penalties; two, more effective law enforcement; three, recognition of the needs and concerns of victims; four, crime prevention; and five, civic engagement.

We all know for a fact that the Kelowna accord, although not related to Bill C-10, was significant in its impact to focus on prevention and to move toward healthier communities and safer streets.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with some interest, especially to the Liberal side talking about crime and prevention.

We keep hearing that the studies prove that mandatory minimums do not work. However, a study done by Thomas Gabor of the University of Ottawa states quite the opposite. I could quote some others. I could quote Solzhenitsyn, who also writes in one of his books, I believe The Gulag Archipelago, that severe punishment worked well within the Soviet system. I am not advocating the Soviet system but there is enough proof out there.

We are seeing a shift that seems to imply that we are looking now at strictly rehabilitation. Is prison not part of punishment too? Are we not recognizing that when people break the law they must pay the penalty?

My question is not necessarily for the hon. member but for members of the Liberal Party. Are we are not engaged in another process here, the process of when somebody breaks the law there is a result and a consequence to it?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last week my colleagues went through all the studies and the Canadian Bar Association stated in 2005:

Mandatory minimum penalties do not advance the goal of deterrence.

--do not target the most egregious or dangerous offenders....

--have a disproportionate impact on minority groups....

--subvert important aspects of Canada’s sentencing regime....

That speaks to his second point, which is that there is a difference between a justice system and a legal system. A justice system upholds the proportionality of the crime and takes into consideration all aspects of what occurred during the process of that crime. A legal system serves to punish. We need to reconcile the two and work very closely with that.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what my hon. colleagues who preceded me had to say. This time I am obviously going to try to plead not before a judge but before my hon. colleagues across the way because—in view of the bill that was just introduced—I think they need more information.

I have 23 years of legal experience and, as a criminal defence attorney, have represented all sorts of individuals who were caught up in the legal system and found themselves behind bars serving sentences of various lengths. In introducing this bill, my hon. colleagues across the aisle have forgotten a basic principle of our legal system. I mentioned it during oral arguments when Bill C-9 was introduced: there is a place for suspended sentences. I will say it again in order to be crystal clear. If I pound away long enough on that nail, hopefully it will eventually sink in.

The basic principle of any criminal justice system is individualized sentences. In plain English, this means that every individual who appears before a court for sentencing must receive a sentence that fits the individual, is tailored to him, and strikes a balance between rehabilitation and the risk of recidivism.

This is not what Bill C-10 will do if, unfortunately, my hon. colleagues across the aisle decide to pass it with full steam ahead. The great legal principle is that when an individual appears before a court because he has committed a crime, the emphasis is not on punishing the crime but on punishing the individual who committed it. Who is he? What is his background? Did he plan the crime? Is it a heinous crime in the eyes of the legal system, one that society abhors? When all these distinctions have been duly weighed, the court passes sentence.

What they really want with this bill is to take sentencing out of the hands of judges. They want to put a straitjacket on them. For such-and-such a crime, there is such-and-such a penalty. Violent armed crimes are heinous in their eyes and merit a prison term. That being said, though, the sentence still has to fit the individual before the court. We must make sure he understands that the crime he committed is unacceptable to society and must not be repeated and we must make sure that he does not do it again.

What my colleagues opposite want is a system that will allow us to put in jail anyone who has committed a crime using a firearm, and throw away the key. If that key is found in a year, good; if it is found in three years, too bad. That is the easy solution. We cannot let such a measure go through. Rehabilitation is a right in our country, as the Supreme Court reminded us on several occasions.

It is quite surprising that someone would mention a study done at the University of Ottawa. I heard that earlier. I invite my colleague who cited this study to go back and read the whole study, not just the part that he likes. With all due respect, he will see that this study refers to many other studies that show beyond a reasonable doubt that minimum prison sentences are useless and do nothing to reduce the crime rate. And we have proof of that.

In the United States—because our colleagues opposite like comparisons with that country—in 2003, the homicide rate was 5.69 per 100,000, compared to 1.73 in Canada. It is easy to understand. In the United States, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd amendment to their constitution. What do people do with a firearm? They solve their problems.

In Canada, I hope we will be intelligent enough to understand that problems are not solved with firearms. And this is not from me, but from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada who stated in the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil, on May 5, 2006, which I think is not too long ago, that he recognized the fact that there is no Canadian study showing the benefits of the new measures based on minimum sentences in the fight against crime.

Here is what will happen. I know, because I did it when I was a criminal lawyer. What did we do? Let us take an example, armed robbery, or an easier case: assault with a weapon. This is how we do it: we meet with the accused client. We know from the outset that we are looking at a minimum sentence of three years. What do we do? We tell the Crown prosecutor that we are prepared to plead guilty to a charge of assault causing bodily harm if the Crown withdraws the minimum sentence of imprisonment. If the Crown refuses, fine. We suggest that the Crown call all its witnesses, because—as we say in legal jargon—we will make them prove every element of their case, and the case will last two or three years.

This has led to what is called plea bargaining. That is what we are preparing to do, and it is what our friends across the aisle—colleagues for whom I have great respect—will be legitimizing: plea bargaining in the extreme. Otherwise, they had better appoint a lot of judges, fill the prisons and build bigger ones, because this is going to be a long process. That is the problem.

In this bill and in Bill C-9, we are no longer talking about rehabilitation; we are talking about penalties and punishment. I personally believe that this is not what Quebec and Canadian society is all about. We do not put punishment above all else. Rehabilitation is very important. An individual who is sentenced to imprisonment will be returning to society one day. We have to prepare for when that happens.

I will conclude by telling you about some people I know very well because I have also represented clients in Aboriginal communities. My colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke before me in fact said it: there is a serious problem in the Aboriginal communities. And this kind of bill is not how it is going to be solved.

How is it that my friends across the aisle have not included hunting guns, long arms, in this bill—it is strange that they are not talking about them. They are talking only about handguns, when we know that in Canada, 35% of crimes are committed with hunting guns.

I will stop here, and I will be pleased to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for a very enlightened and passionate speech. Clearly, he is coming from an informed point of view, from his personal background in the criminal justice system in the province of Quebec. I am sure that his reasoning applies to all regions of Quebec.

He had very strongly held views that simply applying longer prison sentences in and of itself is not a sufficient deterrent. What would be a deterrent then because we have been wrestling with every aspect of the criminal justice system to make our streets safer? It was only in the catastrophic event that led my party to agree in theory at least with mandatory minimum sentences in cases where a violent crime has taken place with the use of a gun.

However, the shock of the incidents to which I am referring has been such that the Canadian public is demanding some extraordinary measures. They are seized by this issue in a way that I have never seen before. Overwhelmingly, when I canvassed the constituents of my riding, by a factor of five to one, the number one top of mind issue is to make our streets safe. They told me to go to Ottawa and do whatever I can, so that they can send their children to the corner store to buy a quart of milk without worrying about their safety. That is how extreme it is in the inner city, in the core area of the city in which I live.

I loath the idea of the heavy-handed enforcement crime and punishment model that would contemplate locking up more people and throwing away the key, but I am convinced that we are doing a disservice to Canadians if we do not at least acknowledge the severity. The severity of the crime deserves a serious enough punishment to be a genuine deterrent.

I am proud that in the province of Manitoba we have a multi-faceted approach, a very sympathetic approach to the causes of crime. I believe that chronic long term poverty is surely one of the most obvious root causes of crime, but also the cause and effect situation. If longer sentences are not a deterrent, what does my colleague propose would be a proper deterrent?