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.

Firearms Registry

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I consult people and have meetings with many groups and individuals who have a variety of views and standpoints.

The question remains, however: why will the Bloc not support Bill C-10 to prosecute criminals who kill and use firearms in criminal, dangerous ways. Why will it not support us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Thank you, Minister and department officials, for attending the meeting and informing us about Bill C-10.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Certainly in my discussions not only with the Toronto Police Association but with the Toronto police chief, they've been very supportive, not only of Bill C-10, but of Bill C-9, which was unfortunately gutted by the opposition.

On the issue with respect to the increase in penalties, yes, we believe that is important along with policing. You can't have one without the other. It doesn't help to simply have tough laws on the books without policing. So the policing that we have seen the Toronto police do this summer has been exceptional--very hard work, targeted. I think you should have the chief here to talk about the use of resources to actually apprehend these individuals. The stories they're telling me about the amount of manpower they need--or “person-power”, whatever the politically correct term is--has been incredible.

They're investing all this in police presence, but if they're not getting appropriate sentences, it's a revolving door over and over again. They point out the fact of the numerous killings or shootings in Toronto that were committed by people out on bail. The numbers are simply staggering. So, again, it shows you that having those people incapacitated, even if it's not going to deter them when they're out, is going to save lives in a very real sense.

So what we've tried to do in listening to the police.... For example, the issue of the loaded or restricted firearm inside a motor vehicle, just possession, is a growing problem. Every police officer walking up to a car now has to assume that there is a loaded firearm in that car. That's an intolerable state of affairs, something that would have never occurred....

I remember years ago prosecuting back in 1977. A police officer on highway number 1 at 2 o'clock in the morning stops a car, the door opens, and the handgun falls out. That was such an exceptional circumstance back then. Now they assume it occurs.

The handguns are being kept under the front driver's seat. So there will be three or four gang members in the car, and then it's difficult to prove the possession--so very difficult to prove. We believe that if you're making a practice of carrying this handgun in your car, loaded, there should be significant consequences.

Now, if the NDP say, look, we should move that up to four years, in that kind of circumstance, I would say, yes, let's move it up to four years. We haven't done that; we've said three years.

Again, I disagree with what the Liberals did. For example, a firearm, a long gun...an aboriginal using it and getting eight years doesn't make sense to me either. There has to be a proportionate response. So I would reject the Liberal response as being one that would unnecessarily increase the inmates in prison of a certain type, who can, I believe, be deterred in other ways other than using the Liberal approach.

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

Here is what I want to know. Have you made any analyses, any studies to determine whether your Bill C-10 could pass the Supreme Court’s test, in light of the Smith decision of 1987? Do you think it could?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Our researchers can access that easily, and I assume they have or they will, because that data is useful and obviously relevant.

This is one bill, we numbered it Bill C-10, but there are two other bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-27. Each of these bills, Minister, deals with the Criminal Code, deals with sentencing. I'm wondering why we have three bills. Why didn't the government simply introduce one bill dealing with Criminal Code sentencing, dealing with conditional sentencing, in this bill mandatory minimums and the other involving long-term offenders? Wouldn't that have been the simple and prudent thing to do? Why did you choose three bills instead of one?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I'm going to read from the NDP platform:

Increase the mandatory minimum penalty for possession, sale and importation of illegal arms such as hand guns, assault rifles and automatic weapons. Place each of these minimum penalties at four years, up from current one-year penalty. Add mandatory minimum sentences to other weapons offences. Place a four-year minimum sentence on all weapon offences, such as “possession of a concealed weapon”.

My read is that this goes even further in some cases than the government bill.

I appreciate that you and your department have tabled evidence to support Bill C-10. I think it's a well thought out bill. I commend you on the efforts made to make it proportional to the offence and the recidivist nature of some of the crimes.

I also want to give the opportunity to the Liberals and the NDP on this committee to table the evidence they studied to bring this forward in their platform. I'd like to give them the same opportunity you have taken to table the studies they must have undertaken to come up with their proposals and platforms that go beyond what our government bill does. I look forward to your tabling that evidence.

Mr. Bagnell quoted former Justice Minister Cotler who said, "Minimum sentences are sometimes required to send a message of 'denunciation' to potential offenders." I would agree with him on that.

Could you comment on the proportionality and incremental nature of this bill and how it's not as strict as the Liberals' platform, which proposed an eight-year first-time mandatory minimum?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Has your department done any studies since 1995? What you say is not logical. Since 1995, there have been minimum penalties for offences involving firearms. You say that despite these minimum penalties, these offences have continued to climb. We have figures to the contrary.

Has your department been tracking the situation so that it can really persuade us that Bill C-10 is worthwhile. Do not tell me about Chicago, Michigan, New Jersey or New York. I am talking about the Canadian situation. Yes or no, has your department done any studies? The only studies you have are those by Julian Roberts, which prove the opposite of Bill C-10.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be back here again. I promised Mr. Ménard yesterday that I would be back again, and I am.

I have the pleasure to introduce two of my officials, Julie Besner and Mr. Donald Piragoff. They will be assisting me on some of the technical issues.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I'm pleased that the committee is beginning its review of Bill C-10, which seeks to protect public safety by tackling the problem of guns and gangs. This bill is part of our government's commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and make our streets safer.

As I've travelled across Canada and discussed these and other criminal justice measures, I've been struck by the call for measures to address gun crime. Mayors, chiefs of police, and attorneys general have been clear that we must take steps to target the gun crime on our streets. Bill C-10 will provide significantly tougher mandatory minimum penalties for serious or repeat firearms offences in a manner that is both measured and specifically tailored to the problem it seeks to address. It will also create two new offences targeting specifically the theft of firearms for robberies and breaking and entering dwellings and other places.

Bill C-10 seeks to build upon the existing minimum penalty scheme for certain firearms offences. Currently, four-year minimum mandatory penalties apply for ten specific offences involving the use of firearms. For other indictable offences in which a firearm is used, a one-year consecutive minimum penalty applies on a first offence; three years apply on a second offence. A handful of other offences involving firearms, but not their actual use, such as firearms targeting and smuggling, currently attract minimum penalties of only one year.

Bill C-10 is a targeted measure that focuses on gang members who use firearms to commit their crimes and on individuals who would use restricted weapons to threaten Canadians. It is a direct response to the scourge of handgun crime that plagues our country, especially in our cities. It focuses on the limited number of individuals who commit these crimes and will make sure that they face significant penalties for their actions.

Bill C-10 seeks to expand the existing law by providing an escalating mandatory minimum penalty scheme. The applicable penalty will increase based on repeat offences, similar to the increased minimum penalty scheme for impaired driving offences. However, because the range of firearms offences is significantly broader than impaired driving offences, different escalating schemes are needed.

Bill C-10 proposes three different escalating schemes, which I will describe to you in detail in a moment. But first I'd like to elaborate more on the nature of the problem the government is tackling with this bill.

Over the last thirty years, the types of firearms used in crimes or uncovered in criminal investigations have shifted dramatically. Police, and specifically those involved in weapons enforcement, have told me that they are coming across more illegal handguns, especially in the context of gang violence and the drug trade. This is a dramatic change from the 1970s and 1980s during which the firearms involved in crimes, particularly in homicides, were mostly long guns.

What we are hearing from the police is supported by the available statistics from Statistics Canada, which have been forwarded to the clerk of the committee. The statistics show that in recent years handguns have become the weapon of choice in gun crimes and are used in approximately three-quarters of violent firearms offences.

Bill C-10 targets serious and repeat firearms offences. When you look at the offences that are targeted by these mandatory minimum penalty schemes, you will see that they are all serious firearms offences. Firearms offences that typically engage more serious criminal conduct are captured by these proposals. One could say that what we're doing in Bill C-10 is codifying specific aggravating factors that the courts must take into account in sentencing persons convicted of these serious firearms offences. We have proposed higher minimum penalties of five years on a first offence, seven years on a second offence, and ten years on a third offence.

There are eight serious offences involving the use of firearms. These offences are attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to injure a person or prevent arrest, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery, and extortion. The enhanced penalty scheme for these offences will only apply if one of the two possible aggravating factors is present.

The first aggravating factor is whether the offence is committed in connection with a criminal organization. This would include street gangs if they are composed of three or more persons intent on committing serious offences for material benefit and any class of firearm is used. So it's important to remember that any class of firearm used in the context of a gang activity and the criminal activity involved in that applies.

The second factor is whether a restricted or prohibited firearm is used. As you all know, these weapons are hand guns, automatic weapons, or long guns that have been in some way modified.

I would like to take a moment to clarify a few things about this last point, because I note that it seemed to generate a fair bit of confusion during second reading debate. Bill C-10 does not propose to provide higher mandatory minimum penalties only when restricted or prohibited firearms are involved. It is true that this is a specific aggravating factor that will trigger the higher mandatory minimum penalties for the eight serious use crimes targeted by this bill.

However, the other aggravating factor that's applicable to these offences, whether the offence was committed in connection with a criminal organization or gang, does not require that the firearm used in the offence be a restricted or prohibited firearm. It could be any firearm, including a non-restricted long gun where that long gun is used in furtherance of a criminal gang activity. A gang member who uses a firearm of any sort to accomplish their criminal ends will be subject to the mandatory minimum penalties contained in this bill.

I also want to make it clear that the serious so-called non-use offences, which I will describe in a moment, do not make a distinction based on the type of firearm, except in one case where it already exists as an essential element of the offence. We have included the specific aggravating factor of using a restricted or prohibited firearm in serious use offences because it is directly linked to the nature of the crimes we are targeting.

As I have previous explained, this bill is the result of the increasing popularity of hand guns with street gangs and drug traffickers. Bill C-10 defines a prior conviction as a conviction that has occurred in the last ten years, excluding time in custody. In other words, if an individual has been convicted of using a firearm in the commission of an offence within ten years of the conviction before the court, it will count as a prior offence. In calculating the ten years, the court will exclude any time spent in custody. If the offender has a prior conviction within the ten-year period, it will trigger the enhanced mandatory minimum penalty.

Therefore, for example, someone who is convicted of a robbery using a hand gun with two prior convictions for robberies with a firearm in the last ten years will face a mandatory ten-year minimum penalty. The prior conviction or convictions could involve another firearms use offence as well, such as attempted murder using a firearm.

Enhanced mandatory minimum penalties are also proposed in Bill C-10 for other serious offences involving firearms but in which the firearms are not actually used. The escalating minimum penalties in the case of serious non-use offences are based only on repeat firearms offences. The escalating scheme will be three years for a first offence and five years for a second or subsequent offence for the following serious non-use offences.

First is possession of a loaded, restricted, or prohibited firearm. That's something the police have specifically brought to my attention--the prevalence, especially in big cities like Toronto, and the presence of these loaded firearms in motor vehicles especially.

Then we have firearms trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, making an automatic firearm, firearm smuggling, and a new offence of robbery to steal a firearm. As an example, someone involved in the business of supplying illegal handguns to people and convicted of a firearms trafficking offence would face a mandatory penalty of three years' imprisonment. If the accused had a prior record for illegally possessing a restricted firearm with ammunition, the person would face a five-year mandatory minimum penalty.

A three-step escalating minimum penalty scheme of one year on a first offence, three years on a second offence, and five years on a third or subsequent offence will apply for the following offences: possession of a firearm obtained by a crime, possession of a firearm contrary to court order, a new offence of breaking and entering to steal a firearm, and the offence of using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of other indictable offences. As an example, someone who is convicted of breaking and entering into cottages to steal firearms that can subsequently be diverted onto the street would face at least one year in prison, and if that person has a criminal record for firearms trafficking, let's say two counts in the last ten years, then that person faces a five-year mandatory minimum penalty.

These penalties directly target the supply of handguns and restricted weapons to the criminals on our streets. They are a proportionate and necessary response to the handgun problem we face and they target the business of illegally supplying firearms. For the non-use offences, it is important to note that prior convictions in the last ten years, excluding time spent in custody for both use offences and non-use offences, will trigger the higher mandatory minimum penalties applicable in repeat offences.

There are a few reasons why two different penalty schemes are proposed for the non-use offences. First of all, several of these offences can cover quite a broad range of potential conduct with varying degrees of severity. Second, in the case of the offence of possessing a firearm contrary to court order, it does not currently attract a mandatory minimum penalty, but Bill C-10 will make an amendment to do so. On the other hand, clause 85, which is the additional charge of having a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence like robbery, currently has a one-year mandatory minimum penalty on a first offence and three years on a second offence. These mandatory minimum penalties are being maintained in light of the fact that the courts are already required to impose those mandatory penalties consecutively to the penalties imposed for the underlying offence. However, a five-year minimum is being introduced for a third or subsequent offence.

Bill C-10 also proposes to create two new offences, one for breaking and entering to steal a firearm and another for robbery to steal a firearm. These amendments, which are firearm-specific, are intended to reflect the more serious nature of these offences where the accused are seeking to obtain illegal firearms, whether for their own use or to feed the illicit gun trade. These proposals also provide tough escalating minimum penalties consistent with the overall penalty scheme for serious firearm offences proposed in this bill.

Before closing, I'd like to speak about constitutional considerations. As Bill C-10 addresses the issue of penalties of imprisonment, it raises considerations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 12 of the charter provides that people have the right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment. The courts in Canada have frequently been called upon to assess the constitutional validity of the mandatory minimum penalties and imprisonment currently set out in the Criminal Code, and in particular many of those that apply to firearms offences. In examining these provisions, the courts have recognized that Parliament is entitled to take appropriate measures to address the pressing problem of firearms-related crimes. In proposing the new range of penalties for certain firearms offences, we have taken under consideration the sentencing principles currently set out in the Criminal Code.

The code provides as a fundamental principle of the Canadian sentencing regime that a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. It also provides that the purpose of sentencing is to impose sanctions on offenders that are just and that contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.

Accordingly, the objectives in sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender and others from committing offences, and separate offenders from society where necessary. Sentences must also assist in rehabilitating offenders, cause offenders to accept responsibility for their actions, and repair the harm they have caused to victims or the community.

The manner in which the highest mandatory minimum penalties will apply is intended to ensure they do not result in grossly disproportionate sentences. The highest level of ten years for using a firearm and five years for the non-use offences are reserved only for repeat firearm offenders. If an offender has a relevant and recent history of committing firearms offences, that is, within the past ten years, it's not unreasonable to ensure the specific sentencing goals of deterrence, denunciation, and separation of serious offenders from society are given priority by the sentencing court.

While the overall trend in firearms offences is generally downward, when it comes to guns and gangs, Canada has not yet made meaningful progress in tackling the challenge. With Bill C-10, we are aiming to make a positive dent in the recent trend of illegal firearms use and possession by street gangs. By specifically targeting serious firearms offences and repeat firearms offenders or organized criminals and recognizing the types of firearms they are using, Bill C-10 focuses on the problem it seeks to tackle.

This bill offers police and prosecutors the tools they have said they need to ensure that serious firearms offences are met with serious sanctions, especially when committed by street gangs.

Thank you very much.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, concerning Bill C-17, I suggest to you there have been many comments made, and some in a political forum—the other place. I want to make sure, and Mr. Cotler and all Canadians want to make sure, that you have an opportunity to say here today that you have the utmost respect for the judiciary, which I'm sure as an officer of the court you do.

I'd like to hear you say it, because the questioning is in this line of thinking. There have been comments made in the press and in the other place about Liberal judges. Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, as you well know, take away some discretion of judges in certain circumstances, which could be seen as a disdain for judicial discretion. In fact, the whole process with respect to Justice Rothstein's confirmation could be seen as putting judges on public example. Notwithstanding that it was a very positive experience in this instance, it could be seen as putting judges on public display for public approval by elected politicians.

Now we have BillC-17, and the concern is this. There are provisions in Bill C-17, for many of which the ship has gone by in the public somewhat, and we're on the road to finally getting a settlement of the issue. But there are contained in Bill C-17 issues with respect to...let's call it “the rule of 80”, or the ability of judges to go supernumerary in certain provinces. Supernumerary judges may not be under the same leash or chain from their respective chief justices as are full-fledged justices. This bill, when passed, will result in more supernumerary judges; I know that from the field.

I want to hear from you first of all on this issue of respect for judges. I want to hear from you, if I may be so bold as to ask, what you are going to do to get these supernumeraries to work. Are you going to appoint other judges to fill the backlog of vacancies that exist? Was there any rhetoric from you or your department with respect to getting chief justices to get their supernumerary judges to work to make the system work? You will realize there's a heavy caseload coming down the pike in justice. We will need our judges.

The two-part question, in short, is, do you have respect for judges, and will you resource the field enough so that justice gets done?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question, but if it is an uncomfortable policy question, then you can suggest that I ask the minister or someone else.

Just for clarification, under Bill C-10—there was a little discussion on that earlier when the minister was here—my understanding is that for the mandatory minimum component, long guns would be excluded from that proposition. Is that your understanding?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

No, I have to finish. You had your time, with respect, and I listened carefully.

With respect to Bill C-10, which introduced a number of measures that we think—and this is a debate—will serve to reduce crime with firearms, three of the four Liberals present chose not to support it, and that's certainly their right. That's why I say, when we want to put a focus on crime with firearms, I find it curious that they give the appearance of wanting to have a focus on something else.

Now, on the anecdotal side—and anecdotal evidence has to be taken as such, and for security reasons I can only give some information here—our policing forces have told me that in one very densely populated area of our country, and I'd prefer not to say which, both their human and their listening-in intelligence on things that go on shows, from the street, that when we tabled Bill C-10 there was considerable discussion among those who choose criminal activity, and especially those who operate in the area of trafficking in firearms, that we were getting tough, that mandatory jail was probably going to be the result if they were apprehended, and that they were going to move their focus of business.

Now, I don't know what they're going into. I hope it's legal business—I doubt it is—but we're hearing anecdotally that just tabling and moving this legislation through is having an impact on the street. We hope that's true, and time will tell.

Criminal Code

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minority government across the way would like Canadians to believe, the current system with respect to dangerous offenders and long term offenders does work well.

Unfortunately, Bill C-27 seems to me to be more motivated by the Conservatives' partisan political agenda than by a real desire to better protect Canadians. It is unfortunate that this minority government thinks its partisan agenda is more important than the greater good of its citizens.

Even more importantly, Bill C-27 is a direct attack on a key concept in the Canadian justice system: the presumption of innocence.

In Canada, the presumption of innocence is guaranteed by section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that any person charged with an offence has the right “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”.

One wonders in that last term, with the spate of Conservative appointments to the judiciary, whether we could find an independent and impartial judge of recent appointment who has not been a major contributor to the Conservative Party or has fundamental Christian beliefs. All of the appointments have not been filled and I would not make that comment until they are. One hopes for impartiality and independence in the tribunals.

The real point in this legislation is whether the person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent. There are two parts to this: the part of the trial and the part of the mini-trial with respect to the designation of dangerous offender.

The reversal of the burden of proof set out in Bill C-27 is questionable.

Many legal experts have already said that the legislation could be challenged in court. Their arguments seem to me to be serious enough to warrant taking the time to examine this seriously.

In light of the provisions of the charter, Bill C-27 creates a problematic situation with regard to the reversal of onus. The burden shifts. In the past the Supreme Court of Canada has said that the presumption of innocence will be violated whenever a trier of fact may be led to convict an accused person, even though there is reasonable doubt as to some essential element of the offence. I think all parties are on the same page with respect to the conviction of the accused and the burden of proof.

Although the proposed legislation does reverse the onus, we must keep in mind that this reversal only comes into play once the offender has been found guilty of the designated, serious violent or sexual offence three times. Each time the offender is accused, he would have benefited already from the presumption of innocence. Thank God that has not been taken away. This essential principle will not be changed by Bill C-27 as it relates to the finding of guilt, but what about the effect of this guilt?

Under the proposed legislation, the offender who has been found guilty already three times of one of the listed offences in Bill C-27 will no longer be presumed innocent. As a matter of sentencing law and not constitutional law, the Supreme Court has previously held that on sentencing, any aggravating fact that is not admitted by the offender, must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. Let us keep that clear. On sentencing, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that we still have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt when it comes to the aggravating circumstances in that conviction. I would say it again if I thought the other side was listening or could understand.

This rule has since been codified under section 724(3)(e) of the Criminal Code, that big book the criminal law is in. In the context of dangerous offender applications, section 753 (1.1) would undo this long standing judicial principle and rule.

Furthermore, some could argue that not only does Bill C-27 deprive offenders of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as stated in section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is more telling and more appropriate to the argument before us today, it also allows for deprivation of liberty as stated in section 7 of the same charter. This creates the right not to be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, a key term.

It is not clear that transferring the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused, as set out in Bill C-27, respects the principles of fundamental justice. It is not at all clear. For a long time now, the concept of fundamental justice has been one of our justice system's guiding principles. This applies to the legal system in Moncton, in New Brunswick and in Canada, as well as to all countries whose legal system is based on British common law—the root of our own common law—including the United States.

I would even go so far as to say that the Crown's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of aggravating factors when determining the sentence is now a widely accepted concept. It is so widely accepted in our justice system that it can now be called a principle of fundamental justice, as it is written in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.

Under the current provision of the dangerous offender section of the Criminal Code, which is charter proof, 360 offenders have been designated as dangerous offenders and are currently behind bars. The system works.

Once again the minority government is all about sentences and law and order. My colleagues on the other side of the House might argue that these measures will protect innocent Canadians. As I have just said, section 7, the reasonable demands of having fundamental justice at any stage in the judicial determinations, puts in question whether this law, as presented and not yet amended at committee albeit, is in danger of falling like a house of cards on the dangerous offender designation system that already exists. It was put in place and monitored by Liberal governments. It was in the process of being improved because of the R. v. Johnson decision until the wrench was thrown in the problem.

The Conservatives have become the architects of disaster in suggesting we put in the reverse onus and the “three strikes you're out” because Arnold Schwarzenegger and those guys like it. What they are doing is possibly putting in jeopardy the whole system and that is not going to be good for victims.

Most of the justice legislation currently before the House will do little to protect Canadians and do very little for the victims. In fact, by cutting conditional sentences, sending more convicted individuals to the criminal schools of higher education, our jails, by building more jails and cramping the budget room for other needed programs, by putting longer sentences in place that will surely bring out a whole new round of graduated criminals determined to do more harm to victims and by cutting preventive and rehabilitation programs, we have no reason to think the crime rate is going to go down in Canada.

Furthermore, many studies, which is not germane to this discussion but very much germane to the discussions we have had at the justice committee, clearly indicate there is absolutely no link between harsher sentences and a lower crime rate.

It is quite telling at the committee level. When the proponents of the Conservative agenda on law and order are asked to bring witnesses who will prove empirically and objectively how these programs will work, they have very few names to present. On the other side, the people who suggest that harsher sentences do not lower crime rates have a plethora of witnesses available. That comes down to a determination by the Conservative minority government that most of those are criminal lawyers, professors and people who believe the criminal.

We have to ask ourselves this. If it is a truism that more sentences, harsher sentences and more people in jail will result in lower crime rates and a safer society, where is the proof? Canadians want the proof. Liberals want the proof. Liberals have been determined, with a justice program of over 13 years, to continually work with the outdated Criminal Code to modify the laws, as Canada grows, to protect society and victims.

In a non-partisan half second I say that is the same goal for the Bloc Québécois as well as the NDP. I know it is the same goal for the Conservatives because they keep saying it. However, they do not act in furtherance of that objective. They in fact act against that objective. They are not making the communities safer by locking everyone up. We ought to really take a non-partisan moment and say that if there is proof that these things work, show us. We are open to it.

In summary, Bill C-27 is no different than most justice bills recently tabled. It puts the political agenda of the Conservatives before the greater good of Canadians. The proof of that is they have overloaded the committee with so much work. Probably all the justice bills they keep tabling have no real intention of coming back to Parliament before what we perceive will be the next election.

Canadians have to ask, what was the objective in that? What was the objective in putting forward Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 separately? We now know that the list of witnesses is the very same and the hearings will take double the time. Why not propose them as one bill? The reason is simple. The Conservatives want to scare people into thinking we do not have a safe society. We do have a safe society. We support law and order. We support the victims in the community. We support the average Canadian who wants to be safe in his or her home.

Average Canadians are safe in their homes, even on Halloween when we have politicians masquerading as the proponents of law and order and when we have policy written on the back of a napkin dressed up as the law of the country.

We should take our duties more seriously. We should be earnest parliamentarians and pass good laws, not laws that are destined to be broken down by the loopholes contained in them by Conservative writers.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Point of order.

We can't work this way. There is a sacred principle within parliamentary democracy: ministers appear before committees because of their ministerial responsibility. We began this meeting 15 minutes late. We are entitled to two questions, the Liberals are entitled to three. The Minister was our first witness. Out of all witnesses, he is the one who should be most available to answer our questions.

When you sat in opposition, you insisted on having ministers appear before committees every two weeks. I don't understand this. Mr. Chairman, if this is how you plan to chair this committee, there will be no cooperation on our part. I'd like to remind you that we have a majority here.

Yesterday, you asked for our cooperation to have the Minister appear on Bill C-10 despite the motion we had passed. I agreed to that, given the fact that the Minister has a busy schedule, but now the Minister, our first witness on a bill dealing with a constitutional matter, in other words judicial appointments, leaves, despite the fact that a former minister has not had an opportunity to ask a question nor has my colleague. If this how you intend to chair this committee, if this is how you want to have this committee operate, Mr. Chairman, you're not going to see many bills passed between now and Christmas. Mark my words.

Justice

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over my time as the member of Parliament for the tri-cities, no issue has been more frequently raised by my constituents than the frustration over the seeming injustice in our justice system.

I and this Conservative government have heard those concerns and we are taking action to make our streets safer.

For example, we have introduced tough new legislation. Bill C-9 will limit or eliminate house arrest for dangerous violent criminals. Bill C-10 will establish a mandatory minimum amount of jail time for gun violence. Bill C-19 will create a new Criminal Code offence for street racing. Bill C-22 will raise the age of protection to 16 and protect tens of thousands of children from sexual abuse.

In our budget we committed millions toward tougher border security and millions more toward hiring new police officers from coast to coast.

The first responsibility of the state, before all else, is to protect law-abiding citizens from those who would do them harm. For 13 years the Liberals did nothing and for 13 years the NDP encouraged the Liberals to soften our already soft laws on crime.

This Conservative government is getting tough on crime and protecting Canadian families.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, very briefly. The government's driving the ship here, and if their interest was really getting this legislation through, they could have done a lot of things more efficiently. The bills could have been drafted a little tighter and they could have been drafted in the same bill.

I really deeply suspect that the politicization of the justice issues lies at their feet, particularly when you have a press conference every week on a new justice initiative. So this is more about politics than a good working committee. We're going to have almost all the same witnesses for Bill C-10 as we had for Bill C-9. We're going to hear almost the same people all over again. Why couldn't it have been one bill? I know why, because there are another two months' or three months' news stories on a different bill in a different area.

You're hoisted by your own petard here, folks. I'm going to support the Bloc.