This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Rob Nicholson Conservative
Second reading (Senate), as of June 14, 2007
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for escalating minimum penalties according to the number, if any, of previous convictions for serious offences involving the use of a firearm if the firearm is either a restricted or prohibited firearm or if the offence was committed in connection with a criminal organization, to provide for escalating minimum penalties according to the number, if any, of previous convictions for other firearm-related offences and to create two new offences: breaking and entering to steal a firearm and robbery to steal a firearm.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-10s:
Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine will be interested to know that we have been generous when it comes to the 10 minutes of allocated time. I paid very close attention to the amendments proposed by the hon. member and we will take them under advisement for the time being.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine on a point of order.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, given that you said you would not rule my motions out of order and would take them under advisement, I have a few points to raise, since I was unable to do so while tabling my motions.
The ruling to--
Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine will have the opportunity to submit the points that she was unable to raise during questions and comments.
We are beginning the questions and comments period and I invite the hon. member to make her comments during that time.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You said that, for the time being, you would not rule my motions out of order and that you would take the matter under advisement. I would like to take a few moments to provide the Speaker with some additional considerations before he makes a ruling on the admissibility of my motions rather than presenting them after the Speaker has made his decision, which could be an unfavourable one.
Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
If the hon. member is asking for a few moments to argue whether or not her amendments are admissible, I will gladly grant her a little bit of time. However, if she is asking to debate the original motion, I would like to point out that she has already taken up 150% of the time I granted to her. It is with pleasure that I will listen to her arguments regarding whether or not the amendments she has submitted are admissible.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I believe that my amendments are actually subamendments that—
Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, but the member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, in response to what you responded to the member opposite, I would like to question how this process is unfolding. It seems to me that we cannot begin a debate on these amendments that have just been put forward until we know whether or not they are in order.
If the member is going to rise and put forward arguments as to why they should be in order or--
Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. member for Vancouver East gives good advice. I appreciate it. However, we are not in debate right now. We are listening to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine argue on the eligibility of her amendments in order to help the Speaker to make an appropriate decision.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, will you then be allowing other parties to also comment on whether or not these amendments are admissible? If you are allowing the mover to do so, then there may be other points of view.
Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
That is a reasonable request. The member will be recognized if she rises at that moment.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the ruling you have just made that allows me to speak to the admissibility of the motions for subamendments that I have just tabled.
In fact, those of us on this side, the Liberal caucus, believe that these amendments in fact are admissible because they speak to the very heart of Bill C-10. If we look at Bill C-10, we see that it says very clearly “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act”.
I do understand that the legislative summary talks about increasing or “escalating minimum penalties”, but I think the Speaker is wise enough to know that the legislative summary that is found in a bill is not something that is debated or voted on in committee. It is not. What is in fact debated on and adopted or modified, for instance, is the title of the bill. The bill talks about “minimum penalties for offences involving firearms”. It does not talk about escalating. That is the first point.
Second, it is clearly what we heard in committee and it is clearly what the original bill itself did, which was to increase the minimum mandatories. Our subamendments do that. I believe that our subamendments are in fact admissible, because were they to be deemed not admissible I think it would be creating a dangerous precedent, like the precedent the Speaker set by ruling that a parliamentary secretary could table subamendments to the amendments that his own minister and government tabled.
I am not aware in the 10 years that I have been here that a competent Speaker has made such a ruling, because in doing so it effectively precludes any opposition party from bringing subamendments to report stage amendments that have been tabled by the government itself. That, Mr. Speaker, is a dangerous ruling.
On the other hand, a ruling to rule the Liberal subamendments at report stage admissible is a ruling that would follow in the tradition of precedents in the House. I will rest at that point, but I believe I have made the point very clearly, and I feel that I have made the case very clearly.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and refer to the page on subamendments that appears in Marleau and Montpetit at page 454. It states that:
Sub-amendments must be strictly relevant to the amendment and seek to modify the amendment, not the original question; they cannot enlarge on the amendment, introduce new matters foreign to the amendment or differ in substance from the amendment.
Every single one of these amendments clashes with that ruling in Marleau and Montpetit. They either destroy the intent of the amendments that were moved by the parliamentary secretary or change them so dramatically as to have the same effect.
These clearly are not proper subamendments. They should be ruled out of order. We should get on with the debate on the basic issues that are in fact properly before the House.
Again, Mr. Speaker, those words are at page 454 of Marleau and Montpetit. I would recommend that they be taken into consideration in making your determination, Mr. Speaker, as to the admissibility of these subamendments.
Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
As there are no further comments about this point of order, we will continue with questions and comments.
The hon. member for Hochelaga.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a bit with the hon. member, but I will put on my glasses so that I can really see her. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is quick to plead her case when circumstances warrant.
In the end, any amendments we can introduce will not alter the fact that this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill because it is an ideological construct that is not backed by scientific evidence.
We heard many witnesses in committee, as my colleagues on the committee will attest. I believe that, at the time, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine had not yet been appointed as opposition critic and that her predecessor was the member for London West.
Criminologists from the Université de Montréal, Carleton University and the University of Ottawa appeared before the committee and said that there was no scientific evidence, based on existing research, including studies commissioned by Justice Canada, by Julian Roberts, a researcher who was given the task of assessing the impact of Bill C-68. Does my colleague agree that minimum penalties are not a proven deterrent and that no scientific evidence was brought before the committee? Should we not be concerned that public policy is being formulated without scientific evidence to back it up?