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.

Motions in Amendment

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the experts in committee generally said that mandatory minimum sentences did not provide the desired results, except in a few very specific cases, and only when it was a first conviction and a first offence.

In cases where subsequent mandatory minimum sentences apply—during a second or third conviction—the intended purpose is not achieved. The experts generally said that minimum sentences did not work for reducing crime, except when very specific crimes were targeted and if mandatory minimum sentences were imposed only on a first offence. Going any further would limit judicial discretion and prevent judges from taking into consideration the suspect's reality, the victim's reality, the impact the commission of the crime had on the victims and the community where the crime was committed and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. This could be justified for a first conviction because society has decided that a certain type of criminal offence is reprehensible and that a clear message must be sent. We want to ensure that the offender is removed from society for a set amount of time. However, according to some studies, mandatory minimum sentences in cases of recidivism do not make the community more safe; they make it less safe.

The Conservative and New Democratic MPs heard the same testimony that the Bloc and Liberal MPs did in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. These two political parties, the one forming the government and the other one forming the smallest opposition party, have decided to disregard the expert testimony they heard. They have decided to disregard all the studies, the experience in the United States—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. During this five-minute period for questions and comments, only one question has been asked, and one response given.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the members to calm down, since things seem to be getting a little out of hand. We must be calm while doing our work.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10.

We must remember that, unlike what some government members have been insinuating, violent crime and the number of homicides are on the decline in Canada. Since 1992, crime rates have been decreasing in Canada, and there is every reason to be happy. Is crime going down because our economy is doing well, because, demographically, there are fewer young people? These are explanations that should be considered.

Let us talk about the solutions put forward by the government. It does not tend to take action in terms of prevention, to trust the judges, and to invest in social programs, but rather to resort to incarceration. It is inclined to go for mandatory minimum penalties, in its push for incarceration.

We in the Bloc Québécois are convinced that there are situations that call for incarceration. Moreover, it was the Bloc Québécois that took the initiative in the mid-1990s to propose measures to combat street gangs and criminal biker gangs. The Liberal government at the time said that the conspiracy provisions were enough to dismantle biker gangs. The Bloc Québécois, together with the police association and a number of other stakeholders, called for a new offence and new legislation. In response, the government introduced Bill C-95, which was amended by Bills C-24 and C-36.

Today, the government is addressing a real problem, compounded by the street gang phenomenon: the use of firearms in the commission of crimes. But the government is taking the wrong approach. It is focussing on certain specific offences, which are admittedly serious, disturbing and reprehensible. I am referring to attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion. For each of these offences, the government wants to increase three-year minimum sentences to five, five-year minimums to seven and seven-year minimums to as much as 10. The government is completely ignoring the fact that true deterrence means that a judge who is sentencing someone who has committed an offence involving a firearm, which is reprehensible, must assess the overall context in which the offence was committed. Does the individual have a criminal record? Was the offence premeditated? Did the individual act on behalf of a street gang or organized crime? In light of these factors and using judicial discretion, the judge must hand down the most appropriate sentence. In criminal law and especially in sentencing, the punishment must fit the crime. It is not a question of being soft on crime or saying that individuals should not be convicted.

Why are minimum sentences not the answer to the problem we are trying to solve?

First, let us start with the studies that were provided by the Department of Justice.

When former minister Allan Rock—I do not know if I am conjuring up good memories or bad in this House—had Bill C-68 passed to create the firearms registry—a registry the police want to have and which is consulted 11,000 times every day across Canada and that the Conservatives want to abolish—he created mandatory minimum sentences for a certain number of offences, particularly those involving firearms. Minimum sentences of four years were created. The logic behind minimum sentences is that they are deterrents and studies have been done to determine whether their intended purpose is being achieved. Allow me to read what an expert said at the University of Ottawa, which is a good university. Criminal lawyer Julian Roberts, from the University of Ottawa, conducted a study in 1977 for the Department of Justice of Canada, which the parliamentary secretary should have consulted. He found that, “Although mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations...the studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations”—he was referring to the rate of recidivism—“and no discernible effect on crime rates”.

In other words, just because some countries, some legislatures, or some justice systems have mandatory minimum sentences that restrict judicial discretion, that does not mean they have lower crime rates. All the studies show that a true deterrent to crime is the real fear criminals have of being caught red-handed and ultimately being charged. Being caught has more to do with our ability to lay charges, with having police in the field, with the ability of crown prosecutors to review the evidence, and so forth.

Furthermore, several witnesses told us about the perverse effects of mandatory minimum sentences. I would like to quote some of the witnesses. André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal—which is also a good university—said:

Minimum sentencing encourages defence lawyers to negotiate plea bargains for their clients in exchange for charges that do not require minimum sentencing. Minimum sentencing can also force a judge to acquit an individual rather than be obliged to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances, for cases in which an appropriate penalty would be a conditional sentence, community service or a few weeks in jail.

Obviously, minimum sentencing can have extremely perverse consequences. We are not saying that people who commit offences with firearms should be let go. What we are saying is that there are maximum sentences and that judges have the discretion to impose appropriate sentences somewhere between the maximum sentences and acquittal, sentences that take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the offence. That is why the Bloc Québécois, which has an extremely tough attitude toward criminals when severity is required, does not want to have anything to do with the artificial, ineffective logic underlying mandatory minimum sentencing. That is why we do not support either the bill or the amendments.

We have proposed a whole range of solutions to the government, solutions that include maintaining the gun registry, reviewing the parole issue, reviewing the double time issue, and doubling the budget for the national crime prevention strategy. We think that all of these options are far more appropriate than automatic sentencing, which does not stand up to scrutiny and which makes Bill C-10 a very bad bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Hochelaga on his speech. I know that he was present when the evidence was presented to the committee. He knows that there are no other studies or statistics.

On the other side, we have the Conservative members of the committee. There is the member for Wild Rose who was very honest and clearly stated—he is probably the most honest member in this House—that he does not need any studies or statistics to support this bill.

Then we have once again the parliamentary secretary who said in this House that there are studies and statistics in support of Bill C-10.

Do studies or statistics exist, were they submitted at our hearings and do they basically support the bill?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I congratulate my colleague who also worked on Bills C-9 and C-10, because there are links to be made between the two.

It is true that the government has not been able to provide convincing and conclusive data. I believe that is what my colleague is getting at with his question. It is the role of parliamentarians to make decisions based on convincing and conclusive data. Naturally, we must be wary when we are told that statistics, witnesses and rigour are not necessary. However, that does not mean that our desire to back up our claims with scientific studies cannot be reconciled with raw instinct and pure common sense.

It is true that our fellow citizens are worried about offences committed with firearms. It is true that at this time there are street gangs in the major urban centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. But there are ways of effectively dealing with street gangs, firearms, and the flow of firearms. We can never say it enough times. It is quite a contradiction for the government to want to abolish the gun registry that police forces wish to have, on the one hand, and to have mandatory minimum sentences, on the other hand. That is very contradictory, lacks logic, and shows a lack of respect for those who support this gun registry, which, naturally, must be managed effectively.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sat through the justice and human rights committee hearings both in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament and, in the previous Parliament, the Liberals consistently supported mandatory minimums in numerous areas and passed laws to introduce them. Even though they heard the same evidence, they went ahead and introduced mandatory minimums. In fact, during their 13 years in government they introduced 40 to 45 mandatory minimums into the Criminal Code.

I would just like the member's comments on the position the Liberals are taking now, which is that we cannot have any mandatory minimums or at least that we should have no mandatory minimums of this scale. It is similar with the Bloc members where, in the last Parliament, they voted in favour of mandatory minimums.

I am wondering under what circumstances the member would see it as appropriate for us to have mandatory minimums.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall that, a few years ago, our neo-Bolshevik colleagues failed to grace this House with their presence to vote when the hon. member for Richelieu introduced a bill to protect workers. Of course, I am referring to the anti-scab measures. I doubt it would occur to my neo-Bolshevik colleague to say that, because of their cowardly refusal to be present in this House to support workers at one time, this invalidates the principle that anti-scab provisions are needed. The issue here is that we voted in favour of mandatory minimum sentences in the matter—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In recent weeks, various types of unparliamentary language have been called out of order. One example is that when I used the word “fascist” it was ruled to be out of order and unparliamentary. My colleague is now calling us “Bolsheviks”. Both words are types of governments that we frown upon in this Parliament. We do not approve of calling each other names.

If one legitimate form of government that has fallen out favour, i.e. “fascism”, is unparliamentary, would it not also be unparliamentary to call someone another form of government that has fallen out of favour, and that is “Bolshevism”?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I urge my hon. colleague to be very vigilant and very careful. It seems to me that, by comparing the word “fascist” to the word “socialist” or the term “neo-Bolshevik”, he is taking liberties with history that are not his to take. I also hope he understands that I did not mean to make the slightest allusion to any authoritarian ideology, nor did I intend to insult him.

Thus, he should be very careful and more vigilant.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Hochelaga for their interventions. The Chair will take the matter under advisement as to whether calling someone a neo-Bolshevik is unparliamentary. If there is a need on the part of the Chair to get back to the House, then the House will be gotten back to.

The hon. member's time has almost expired.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, basically, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh always comes back to this.

It is true that my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg lent his support to a vote. It is true that we voted on the principle of mandatory minimum sentences in cases of child pornography.

Every rule can have its exceptions, of course, but generally speaking, and certainly in the matter at hand, we do not believe that the use of a mandatory minimum sentence will serve our purposes here.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the use of mandatory minimums, the history in Canada has been, for a long period of time, to look with great concern on the use of that technique in dealing with sentencing individuals who have been convicted of crimes.

It has been generally frowned upon, both by historical legislatures at this level and by our courts. I think back to a period of time, which was a long time ago, going through law school and having the mandatory minimum of seven years for importing drugs into Canada. Shortly after the charter came into effect in 1982, that was struck down by our courts.

In a riding like mine, which has a large number of people moving back and forth between Canada and the United States on a daily basis, one can imagine the number of individuals who were convicted and sentenced to jail for seven years for the simple possession of a small quantity of marijuana.

When the charter came into effect, the courts took the opportunity to strike that down. That is a good example of a mandatory minimum that was grossly inappropriate to the crime and the consequences of the crime.

When we look at mandatory minimums we must ask ourselves when it is appropriate to use them. I will use an example of when it was appropriate in a campaign that worked extremely well, which was with regard to impaired driving as a result of the consumption of alcohol.

What happened, historically, was that large groups of people, MADD in particular, but also our police forces, our judiciary and the legislature, recognized that we had a major problem with impaired driving due to alcohol consumption and that we needed to do something about it, which we did.

We introduced massive education programs to determine the seriousness of the problem and to deter people from using alcohol. We introduced legislation for mandatory minimums, fines, suspension of licences and, in certain cases, jail time. These things had a significant and effective impact. It has tabled off in the last few years but it significantly dropped the rate of impaired driving in this country.

When we hear the Liberals and the Bloc stand and say that it never worked, we need to think of the impaired driving program and that campaign which was effective in driving the rate of that crime down significantly.

What we are faced with today is the use of firearms by a small group of people, which is one of the reasons we were prepared to push the Conservative government strongly to back down from the extreme positions it has taken with some of the provisions of Bill C-10 and brought forth these amendments that are contained in the motions that are currently before us.

Where the principles lie when we use mandatory minimums is to focus on the specific crime and determine whether the use of mandatory minimums will have some impact. We know that it only has an impact if there is an overall campaign, and there is that campaign in this country. We are saying to criminals who are prepared to use guns to commit a crime, serious violent crimes in particular, that we as a legislature will penalize them for the crime. Our police officers are saying that on the street and our judges are saying that in the courtrooms. What we are doing here is being part of that overall campaign to drive the use of guns in violent crimes, in particular, completely out of the country.

We are focused on the specific crimes, which is what the bill does. It looks specifically at serious violent crimes and uses mandatory minimums to say that we condemn the use of guns in those circumstances. We are telling criminals that if they insist on pursuing that type of activity they will face a serious penalty if, at the end of the day, they are convicted of that crime. It fits within the scheme of when we would use it.

I am particularly critical of the Liberals and a little critical of the Bloc in this regard. The use we can make of this has been watered down because the Liberals used it so often when they were in power. In excess of 60 crimes now have mandatory minimums. This will add a number more. Quite frankly, a number of those 60 crimes do not need mandatory minimums, but that was done under the Liberal administration.

When I deal with the Conservatives on these issues, I tell them not to make the same mistakes. If they are going to use mandatory minimums they should use them sparingly, appropriately and in a focused fashion. If they were to do otherwise, they might as well not bother because mandatory minimums would not have any impact whatsoever. A mandatory minimum worked in the impaired driving situation, but had we done that on a whole series of other crimes of that nature, its effectiveness would have been extremely limited and reduced.

I told the Conservative Party, on behalf of the NDP, that as we promised in the last election, and as opposed to what the Liberals did, we kept our promise, that is what we did here, but we were not prepared to go to the extreme to which the Conservatives were prepared to go. That is why we have these amendments. It is quite clear in my mind and from all the opinions that we have heard, if we had included the mandatory minimum of 10 years on the third offence, it would have been struck down under our charter. Our courts have sent us clear messages that they are not prepared to allow mandatory minimums to go that far even on these serious crimes.

I proposed that amendment to the government. It accepted that. It was an acceptance of the reality of our jurisprudence at this period in time.

That is not to say at some point we may not move to a mandatory minimum of greater than the seven years which we have now, but at this point in time, with our jurisprudence in our courts in terms of proportionality of sentencing and under the charter, that is as far as we can go. I believe it is as far as our courts would allow us to go. Quite frankly, I agree with our courts in that regard.

If we pass these amendments, what clearly will go out is the message that we are serious when it comes to the use of guns in serious violent crimes. To some degree, the bill targets the street gangs and organized crime more extensively because most of the guns are smuggled into this country through more traditional organized crime groups and are sold to street gangs. We are telling those groups that we are not tolerating that any more. If they do not stop using guns in crimes, they will go to jail for an extended period of time. There is no discretion. They will go to jail for an extended period of time. That message has to be communicated.

I will finalize my comments with direction to the government. As with the mandatory minimum used in impaired driving, we have to have a very clear and focused educational program directed to those two groups that this is what is going to happen. We have to carry that out.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his little talk this morning. I do appreciate that during the campaign what I heard from the NDP members is pretty well what I am hearing in the House of Commons. They did stick with what they said they would do during the election and that is commendable.

The Liberals have turned a complete about face. I heard the same thing on the campaign trail that they heard about what they were going to do with mandatory minimums, particularly on the use of guns. What a change has come about since that time.

I cannot recall what riding in New Brunswick the member of the Liberal Party is from, but he said that I do not really care about numbers and all of that. I do not put a focus on the numbers. I have said many times that when somebody is killed through the use of a gun, or when some child is raped and murdered, that one victim is too many and we must take measures to ensure things like that do not happen again. I heard his talk about focus on certain aspects, but I did not hear a focus on the victims.

In my hometown a bank was held up and there was a devastating effect on the lives of the victims, the tellers, workers and patrons. That was just from that incident when the bank was held up by someone with a gun. There were shootings in a mall on Boxing Day. There were numerous victims. A young girl was killed in warfare between gangs. This has an impact on people who are caught in those situations. I can only imagine how the survivors at Virginia Tech feel--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Wild Rose, but he has taken a big piece of the time already.

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe raised the issue of numbers. The reality is that the use of handguns and rapid fire guns has increased. As opposed to what most of the Conservatives think, gun crimes overall have not.

Back to the point that I made, there are numbers that justify our focusing on this, and in particular focusing on those groups. Our responsibility as legislators here is to protect our society. That is our absolute number one responsibility. Any crime is one that we have to work and see if there are ways we can stop it or prevent it from ever happening. We should not play with the numbers too seriously. We have to look at programs and campaigns that will reduce the amount of crime in this country, down to zero hopefully some day.