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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for his good work in committee on this particular bill.

I would like to ask him why he believes that the Conservatives, and I guess the NDP, are ignoring what happens in committee? Why are they ignoring the evidence, some of which he just mentioned and I have other evidence from committee, that basically shows that long, lengthy mandatory sentences would make society more dangerous? The member mentioned plea bargaining or prisoners being more dangerous when they get out.

Our committees perform very important work, and all parties agree that the major work is done in committees. The government is now ignoring all the results of committee work. Are the Conservatives doing it just for ideological reasons? Are they saying they will make society less safe just for ideological reasons? That does not make any sense. It is not because they cannot read or understand what people are saying. They understand what witnesses and experts say in committee. Do the Conservatives not agree with committees at all?

The Conservatives are sort of the laughing stock of accountability this week because of the leaked document from the Prime Minister's Office. The government whip said today that the party did produce it and suggested that it was for blockading or obstructing committees.

Why does my colleague think the Conservatives, and much to the surprise of many the NDP, support the bill given all the evidence that he has outlined, that I outlined in my speech, and that witnesses and experts have outlined that suggest these lengthy mandatory minimums would make society more dangerous? We heard more overwhelming evidence in committee than we normally hear on a topic.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his question. Far be it from me to put the New Democrats and the Conservatives on the same footing. I believe this would not be fair, given the fine analysis that was made by the NDP justice critic. So I would not put the NDP and the Conservative Party on the same footing. However, I appreciate my colleague's concern toward the somewhat narrow-minded, stubborn and rigid nature of the government. Of course, when witnesses come to us with scientific literature supporting their views, we would expect this to be taken into account in the development of public policies.

It is obviously our duty to pass legislation on the basis of compelling evidence, and I know that this government does not have much consideration for such arguments. I share the member's sadness, I invite him to remain strong in this ordeal and I remind him that it will be up to our fellow citizens to dismiss this bad government as soon as they have an opportunity to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to my colleague from the Bloc, it is now my turn to point out all the inconsistencies of the two opposition parties to my right.

However, let me start with an acknowledgment that this is a piece of legislation that does divide the House. I think that division is also reflective of the situation in the country. I do not believe that there is a member in this House who does not want to do whatever we can do to protect our citizens. That is the absolute first and primary responsibility of any democratically elected government. It is not a responsibility that I believe any members in this House ignore or shirk in any way.

What Bill C-10 is really about is what methods best protect our citizens.

There are givens. The NDP recognizes that the overall violent crime rate in Canada has been dropping. I think this is quite provable by solid statistics for at least the last 25 years, as we have been keeping better statistics around crime rates. There is really no debate with regard to this. It is an accepted fact.

However, there are within that criminal activity certain areas where in fact from time to time we will see spikes in certain crimes or where some crime rates in fact are going up. One of the areas in which we have seen an increase has been crime with the use of guns, the use of handguns and illegal guns in particular, but long guns as well, and involving street gangs and youths in particular.

I have to say that most of those guns that get into the hands of the street gangs and the youth of this country and are then used in serious criminal activity almost always flow from organized crime activity. Many of the guns are smuggled in from the United States, where organized crime is the major actor behind that conduct.

That is the reality of what we are faced with in this country at this time. What we attempted to do with this legislation was to take a significant overreaction by the Conservative Party in the form of the present government and reduce the more radical parts of the bill to achieve what we felt was the proper method to respond to that specific crime statistic and crime conduct.

Is this perfect? I will be the first to admit that I do not think so. Is it better than what the Conservatives proposed? Yes. Is it better than what the Liberals proposed in the last election? If the Liberals' promise had been carried out, there would have been even more severe minimum mandatory penalties, not nearly as well focused, and that is a key point.

I also want to say for my colleagues from the Bloc that it is interesting to hear them rant against this bill, but we in this House passed mandatory minimums to fight impaired driving. Again, it was a condition in the country that had to be dealt with. The rate of impaired driving was going up. The casualities on the ground, on our streets and in our cities were horrendous. We used mandatory minimums to deal with it, and the Bloc supported it, as did the Liberals and the Conservatives and my party.

In the last Parliament, led to a significant degree by a charge from both the Bloc and the Conservatives, we introduced a whole bunch of mandatory minimums into child abuse charges, some of which I simply could not accept because they were so overblown and so irresponsible, in effect, but the Bloc members supported that. Not only did their member on the committee who led the charge support it, but when the bill came to the House they supported it 100%. There were a lot of mandatory minimums in that bill.

As the last speaker mentioned, the Bloc members also led the charge in introducing, properly so, mandatory minimums with regard to organized crime.

In each case, with the exception of some of those in the child abuse file, it was appropriate for this legislature to do that. It was appropriate because we had a specific problem in this country with regard to that criminal activity. If we are going to use mandatory minimums, we have to be sure we use them in a focused manner.

Again, I am highly critical of the Liberals. When they were in power, they introduced between 45 to 60 new mandatory minimums, depending on how we use the sections, in their 13 years in government. Thus, when they stand in the House and criticize the NDP for supporting mandatory minimums, they are being highly hypocritical, quite frankly, in particular because they used that method so often that it loses its effectiveness.

We saw this in particular with regard to impaired driving. We put together a program in this country, led by citizens' advocates, our police, our judiciary and, yes, members of the House at that time. The message that went out to the country was that we had a major problem with impaired driving and our laws were not adequate to deal with it, not only with regard to the actual legislation but also the enforcement.

In that period, we brought in the use of the breathalyzer, which as an enforcement tool was phenomenal. I happened to be practising criminal law at that time, doing defence work, and I know how easy it was to get people off on the impaired driving charges at that time, but as soon as the breathalyzer came in and there was a scientific method to show that the person in fact was impaired, the ability to get acquittals dropped dramatically.

We had a really good enforcement methodology, a good technique and a new technology. As governments, both provincial and federal, we spent the money to make sure that our police officers across the country had access to that technology. We had a major advertising and promotion campaign to fight against impaired driving, to get the message out to society at all levels that it was wrong, and yes, we introduced mandatory minimums. We had mandatory minimum suspensions for licences. We had mandatory minimum fines. Also, if there was more than one conviction, if there were subsequent convictions, the person was looking at jail time.

That is the system we have in this country. Again, is it perfect and has it stopped impaired driving completely? No, but we have reduced the rate of impaired driving in this country quite dramatically.

That is what we are trying to do. That is what the NDP is trying to do in supporting the legislation as it has been amended. We have to do the same thing. We must have legislation in place that sends a message from this House, the House that governs this country, that we are going to be very serious in how we treat individual criminals who are convicted of serious crimes involving guns. This is the message that goes out with the passage of the bill.

At the same time, we know it is not enough. In fact, I again will be critical of the government and the Conservatives for trying to get the message out that this is the be-all and end-all and we are going to make our streets safe by passing this particular bill, 100%. That is a false message. That is not what is going to happen. It is going to have some impact, but we need to be doing much more. In fact, the impact of the legislation, I always say, is relatively minor compared to what we have to do in other areas, enforcement being one of those other two areas.

Part of this was interesting in that we had the opportunity to go to Toronto and take some evidence from the chief of police there, Chief Blair, and hear about some of the experiences he had in dealing with some of the street gangs, the exact people we are trying to get at with this legislation, and about some of the methods he put into place. He was able to do so only because additional moneys were given to him by the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto to focus specifically on the gangs and specifically on gun crime.

He was quite successful. The violent crime rate in one area of the city was reduced by 40% in one year. It was a phenomenal experience and is attributable to his skill and that of his officers, but also, at the governmental level, resources were deployed. We need to do that in a number of other communities across the country. The government needs to help in that regard, because certainly there are provinces, and I think in particular of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where additional resources are needed for provinces that are not as wealthy as Ontario and do not have the ability to deploy resources.

Coming back to it, what we are dealing with here is legislation, yes, recognizing that it is of small impact, and enforcement, yes, because it has a much greater impact, but there is a third area in which we need to be doing much more work. Again I am critical of the government because it has not spent enough money. There are all sorts of programs that need to be deployed, again specifically targeting youth, and particularly the youth in our inner core cities, not exclusively but primarily, programs that will get them before they get attracted to those street gangs and get involved in criminal activity at a very young age.

That is not happening right now. The government has spent very little money in this regard. It is not well targeted, but at the very base it is no sufficient. We can pass this bill, and we should, but we cannot say to the country that we really are doing what we are supposed to be doing to prevent these crimes from happening unless we put additional resources into crime prevention. There are a lot of good programs out there, a number of which we can identify, and we should be assisting them to a much greater extent than we have up to this point.

There is one final area that I want to cover with regard to the nature of this bill and what could have been done in addition to it. I have said this in the House repeatedly. Every time I get up to speak to a government crime bill, I raise it, and I am going to do so again. Perhaps at some point the government will finally get the message.

I accuse the government of this and I will convict it as well: the government has been guilty of highlighting specific crimes with specific bills. Then the government is critical of the opposition for taking too long to get those bills back through the House. This bill in particular is a classic example of how the alternative would have been so much more effective and efficient, both in using the time of the House and in terms of dealing with the problem.

We have a bill, Bill C-10, which deals with mandatory minimums for gun crimes, for guns that are used in serious violent crimes. In effect that is what the bill is about. Currently before our justice committee we have another bill that deals with crime of a serious violent nature involving guns. It is a bail bill. It is a reverse onus bill. It is one that all the parties support. It is one that would go through very quickly.

It is one that could very easily have been combined with Bill C-10 a year ago, so that Bill C-10 would have been about both mandatory minimums and bail review, the reverse onus of bail. That bill would now be before the House. We would be voting on it either this week or next and it would be on its way to the Senate and hopefully shortly after that would be the law of the land.

However, what is going to happen is that the bill is not going to get back to the House before we break for the summer. It is probably not going to get through the process until the latter part of this year and then go on to the Senate and royal assent and the rest of it. Roughly a year later, it is going to come into effect.

We need that bill. We need it in conjunction with this mandatory minimums bill that we are dealing with. It was a logical one to do.

This can be repeated. I do not know how many crime bills we have had from the government. I think there have been 10, 12 or 15 up to this point, since January of last year. Any number of them could have been combined and we could have gone through this.

For members of the House, who already know this, but for the Canadian public as well, the same witnesses repeatedly appear before committee, whether it is the police associations, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, sometimes retired judiciary people, advocates around crime, defence lawyer associations, bar associations or academics in this field. We keep hearing the same people over and over again. They could have come once to give us their evidence on a whole bunch of points. However, the government is insistent, and I accuse it of doing this for straight partisan purposes, to try to highlight that it is tough on crime, that will do this, then it will do that and it will do the other thing.

The reality is it could have been done all at once. If there were one all encompassing bill, we could have done that. With those 10, 12 or 15 bills, we could have done all of that and we could have added in a whole bunch of the private members' bills on crime. I cannot even remember all the numbers of the bills that I am supposed to deal with as the justice critic for my party, and I am sure the justice critics of the other parties are in the same boat. There have been that many, if we combine both the government bills and the ones coming as private members' bills.

There have been well over 20 in the last 15, 16 months. All of them could have been combined in an omnibus bill. A lot more amendments need to be made to the Criminal Code to clear up some of the problems, and to the Evidence Act and other parts of the criminal process.

The justice department, through the work it has been doing over the last number of years, very well qualified, would know what sections we need to encompass in an omnibus piece of criminal law. If we had done that, the government would have been unable to say that it was in favour of mandatory minimums, that it was in favour of this or that. It lost that political flavour, and that is to its eternal shame.

The NDP will support the bill now that it has been amended in line with what members believe is a responsible, focused way to deal with mandatory minimums vis-à-vis crimes that involve guns of a serious violent nature.

I encourage the government, once again, to look at its crime agenda legislation and find ways of bringing the bills together so we can get this done in a much more efficient way and Canadian people overall can be better protected than they are at the present time.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the member said, in particular the other major steps that need to be taken to reduce crime. I commend him for mitigating an overreacted bill.

I have a comment and then I will ask a question.

First, I put on the record for the public the fact that the bill does not increase maximums. It does not allow judges to give more severe penalties. One would think that if someone wanted to be tough on crime, there would be more maximums. This does not allow judges to impose increased penalties.

If it does not do that, which is a surprise to many people, what does it do? It reduces the judge's discretion at the lower level. Those who commit less serious crimes in that category would get lighter sentences as opposed to the maximum sentence.

What does the NDP believe is accomplished by reducing the discretion of judges for less serious offenders in that category, the ones who would be getting lower sentences?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are really two parts to the question asked by my colleague, the member for Yukon.

In terms of the judicial discretion, it limits the judge's discretion, and I recognize that. What it does accomplish is it is part of the message we are trying to send to the country as a whole, to law-abiding citizens who are frustrated at times when they see sentences they believe are too lenient. We know that happens. Judges are not perfect. I am a very strong proponent, as I think most members of the know, of our judiciary.

I think there is no better judiciary in the world than ours. There may be some that are as good, but there are none that are better. However, judges are not divine. They are human and they make mistakes from time to time. We are saying to them that when the crime is of a certain nature, this is the minimum they have to give.

It does not do anything for discretion except to limit it somewhat, but it does make the sentences more consistent across the country. We get some variation across the country, so to some degree it tightens that up in terms of what it does with regard to the lower end and not having any increases at the other end.

The vast majority of these crimes, if we try to add mandatory minimums at the top end, I believe those would be struck down by our courts, under the charter, as being cruel and unusual punishment. With respect to any attempt to add mandatory minimums at the top end beyond the seven years, I think the Supreme Court and other courts of appeal have made it clear that the seven years is the maximum they are prepared to tolerate under the charter with regard to these types of crimes.

At the lower end, I agree. This is a valid criticism of the legislation. We are probably sacrificing a few people who judges might, because of extenuating circumstances, give lower penalties than the mandatory of five years. Of course, the mandatory for these in just about every case where it is now four at the present time will go to five. It will not be a big difference.

There are cases of extenuating circumstances. I always think of a story I was told as I was lobbied by some groups that were opposed to the mandatory minimums. It was about an individual who had suffered a severe head injury as the result of a trauma in a motor vehicle accident. He was married, had children and was living a pretty normal middle class life by Canadian standards. There was a complete change in his personality. His intelligence level was lowered dramatically. He came under the influence of his brother who was a long-time criminal and was involved in a serious robbery involving guns.

If one takes that kind of fact situation, one would think he would get five years. What one hopes for, and what in fact happened in that case, is a negotiated deal where the charges are reduced on the basis of what the crown says. The fall back is that if the issue is to be dealt with, to a great extent it will be our crowns who will have to deal with it.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the start, rather like my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, that I believe the majority of members in this House want to work effectively against crime, particularly the most violent kinds of crime. Where we do not agree is on the way to achieve that. As representatives of a democracy, are we going to give the people of this country what they expect or are we going to give them the benefit of what we learn, given our role, from the consultation that we have to carry out, from deeper examination of the references to the science of criminology, which is not an exact science like mathematics, physics or chemistry, but which is certainly a science on the same level as psychology or sociology, in deciding what are the most effective methods? On the government side, they are trying to give the impression to the people that they are doing something to address those crimes that we all want to deal with.

The reason that we object to the bills that are now before us is that they will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of violent crimes in Canada. While that number is to be deplored, it is still lower than in most other parts of the world. It is also true that it is lower than in those countries that we consider to be civilized countries, without giving too many examples. It is also much lower than the model from which the Conservatives have taken their inspiration, that is to say, our neighbours to the south. We know that our southern neighbours have a homicide rate that is three times higher than in Canada, and four times higher than in Quebec. Yet, that country puts six times as many people in jail as we do in Canada. On a per capita basis, there are six times as many people in prison in the United States as in Canada. However, in sociological terms our two countries are similar. The difference, which I am only too willing to point out, is that we are less accepting of extremes of poverty and the gap between the rich and poor. That definitely has sociological consequences. In that respect, if you ask any educated American, and I have done so many times, why there are so many homicides in the United States compared to Canada, the inevitable answer is the lack of gun control and the wider circulation of firearms.

The solution we know—I believe it has been confirmed— is to first deal with weapons and not to try to correct the situation after the crimes have been committed. That is also what is paradoxical, and there is the same paradox in the United States. People want tougher sentences, but wider access to firearms whereas, if we did the opposite, we would get the opposite result: that is a reduction that would probably be comparable to other civilized countries, when we think of western countries, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. Including those in central Europe.

We are absolutely convinced—and it is science that tells us, namely criminology— that minimums do nothing. Why do they do nothing? First, because the criminals do not know them. Not only do they not know them, even we, we do not know them. If journalists asked members, after we had voted on this issue, to explain what minimum related to what law they had voted for, I am convinced that less than half the members, and perhaps a great deal less than half, would be able to answer that question.

I am convinced that, in this House, not even 5% of members know how many minimum sentences there are in the Criminal Code. If we do not know that number, how can we think that offenders will know what offences are punishable by a minimum sentence? To start with, they do not know that. Then, when they are about to commit a crime, they do not think about the sentence which they could be given. They are too busy preparing to commit their crime, and most of the time, we do not know about their intention.

Some crimes are essentially impulsive actions, such as crimes inspired by jealousy or, in some cases, by anger, but they are the exception. Nevertheless, do Conservatives think that criminals make a cold-blooded calculation under those circumstances and, if the risk is too great, decide not to commit the offence whereas if the risk is less great, they decide to act? This is not the way criminals think when they commit a crime. This is not even the way ordinary people think. Therefore, this approach is useless.

Science simply confirms how useless it is. The Canadian experience on minimum sentences is quite interesting. Let us take a look at the harshest minimum sentence which ever existed, except for major crimes such as first or second degree murder, where the minimum is not 20 or 25 years, but life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years in the case of first degree murder and for 10 to 20 years in the case of second degree murder, as recommended by the jury.

In Canada there was a seven-year minimum prison sentence for importing marijuana. When I was in university, I had never heard of marijuana. I was called to the bar in 1966 and I was immediately hired at the Montreal crown prosecutors' office. I worked there for 11 months and then I was hired at the federal crown prosecutors' office where I started handling cases involving hashish and marijuana. That is when I became informed on marijuana and hashish. At the time it was referred to as Indian hemp—the common name for the plant according to Flore laurentienne by Brother Marie-Victorin—but the plant had no hallucinogenic effects. This is no longer the case today. It has been imported and today's crops are much stronger.

At the time, there was no marijuana in Canada. I had never heard of it when I was a student. I completed my education a long time ago: in 1966. That is when the trend began. There were seven-year minimum prison sentences and, contrary to what the Conservatives might say sometimes, that these minimum sentences were never imposed, I am here to say that they were at first. Not only were seven-year minimum sentences or more imposed for importing marijuana, but I saw a case where a two-year prison sentence was imposed for simple possession.

It finally became apparent that marijuana was one of the least dangerous drugs. Nonetheless, all this realization and change came about when the seven-year minimum sentence already existed in law. The effectiveness of such a severe sentence—as a deterrent—can be measured. In Canada we have had the opposite experience and enjoyed some success. Obviously, this will never be absolute and we will never get rid of certain types of crimes. However, we have made remarkable progress when it comes to drinking and driving, so much so that it is no longer the number one cause of accidents in Canada.

Unlike the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, I remember when there were minimum sentences for repeat impaired driving offences: 15 days for a second offence and 3 months for a third offence.

Nothing has changed in the law when it comes to degree of incarceration, but a lot of progress has been made.

How have we done that? We did it through greater awareness and through education. We also did it when we finally made it easier to prove the offence by introducing breathalyzers and enabling police officers to set up roadblocks. At the beginning, during holidays, the first roadblocks found that approximately 10% of drivers were drunk, while today it is less than 1%. This is objective and compelling proof. We have not increased the severity of the laws and crime has decreased. In the other case, there was a considerable increase in marijuana trafficking, although the sentence is severe.

Bank robberies is the third example. When I started practising, if a person was killed during a bank robbery, it was called constructive murder. This was the case as soon as a person was killed. Some people were found guilty of murdering their accomplice even though they had been killed by a security officer. If that was how the robbery ended, it was the death sentence. My colleagues no doubt know that since the death penalty was abolished in Canada, the homicide rate has steadily decreased, to the point where it is no longer an argument for those who want to reinstate the death penalty. No one is talking about it. It is obvious that the severity of the penalty is not what stops people.

A few years ago, a very good, successful film was made in Quebec called Monica la Mitraille. Monica la Mitraille was a remarkable woman—and I am not being complimentary—who led a group of bank robbers. She was remarkable in the literal sense of the word. At the time, if a person committed murder, they were sentenced to the death penalty. She was not the only one.

I began practising in the late 1960s and practised until 1993, when my political career began. I recall that, early on, in Montreal, there were a great deal of bank robberies, enough to fill the newspapers. There was at least one a day to draw the attention of the Journal de Montréal, as well as the trials and so on. There are hardly any bank robberies any more today. Is that because of more severe penalties? Not at all. Banks are now built better. Prevention has made it more difficult to commit bank robberies and the potential proceeds are limited compared to the risk of getting caught.

Thus, if we want to lower crime rates, we have to think more about the “before” and less about the “after”. But, when we think about the “after” and we still go on the assumption that criminals plan based on sentencing, we think about the worst possible way the crime might be committed and then declare that it warrants a particular sentence. That is how minimum sentences are set. Minimums of five years or seven years are not negligible minimums. That is because we thought about the most serious cases. However, we are forgetting something. The sentences set out for the most serious cases are the same sentences that judges must impose on less serious cases. This is where the injustice lies and what I find most appalling.

I always thought our system of criminal law was exceptional, figuring that it is better to run the risk of releasing a guilty party, rather than convicting an innocent person. Much the same applies to sentencing. Why would we risk imposing the minimum sentences intended for the most serious cases on less serious cases? This type of injustice is just as serious as convicting an innocent person.

There is one more thing that could be convincing. I remember already having this debate here in the House. People have given me examples of circumstances in which the minimum would clearly be appropriate and in which a judge did not impose such a sentence. For one thing, I have heard very few details to explain such exceptional sentences.

Moreover, we are never told about the outcome at the appeal level. Considering the number of rulings made each day under the criminal justice system of a country of 30 million people, it is inevitable that judges, who have a great deal of discretion—and it is important that they have such discretion to be able to properly review each specific case before deciding to deprive an individual of his freedom—impose thousands of sentences. It is also inevitable that, in such a subjective area—this is not an exact science—mistakes are sometimes made. Is the solution to turn this Parliament into a court of appeal? Under our system, there is a way to correct these exceptional sentences, and that is through the appeal process. Some may give me more examples. If I am asked whether I think that a sentence imposed in a specific case—about which I am only informed of a couple of facts—is justified or not, my answer will be the same, namely: was the decision appealed and what did the court of appeal decide? We, as a Parliament, should only get involved if the court of appeal were to make a number of rulings that we would deem unjustified. It is important that sentences be fair and appropriate, and that they be perceived as such. This is a fundamental rule in the fight against crime. When a judge imposes a sentence, he must take into consideration who the offender is, and he must determine why he committed these crimes, whether they are part of a continuing process, whether the offender can be rehabilitated, and what role he played in the crime that took place. Those are the questions that the judge must ask himself. This is not an automatic process, where the judge concludes that he must impose this or that sentence, because he is bound to do so under a minimum penalty provision in the legislation.

I am convinced, and so is the government itself, that the only reason why it wants to impose these minimum penalties is not because this will help reduce the number of such crimes. In fact, I would be curious—and I do not think that the government ever mentioned it—to know what the goal is here. On the basis of what criteria would we be able to determine, five years from now, whether this legislation has been successful or not? Personally, I believe that, regardless of the legislation, things will go in a certain direction because of circumstances that have nothing to do with whether or not minimum penalties are imposed.

What is remarkable is that this government has decided not to get involved beforehand, or to get involved beforehand, but by imposing criteria. I find it strange. It wants to increase penalties, but at the same time it wants to make it easier to have access to firearms. This is the American way, and we know what the results are.

With respect to prevention, it has cut all grants for crime prevention projects while criteria are being defined. For one thing, that is killing a number of these projects, which are not receiving grants in a timely manner. Among other criteria, the government wants to provide grants only for short term projects that show demonstrable results in the short term. I would like the government to apply the same criteria to their bills. This means no more grants for the Société québécoise de criminologie and in-depth studies on crime. That is typical of this government. It pretends. It sees a problem and pretends to act on it. Its reaction is the most basic: if crimes are committed, it is because the punishments are not severe enough. So, it increases the punishments instead of doing as we have so often done in Quebec, through prevention for example, with remarkable success.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers mentioned impaired driving and the successful effect of minimums. I want to make sure that people realize we are comparing apples and oranges here. It is not the same thing. I would not want people to have the view that it was just minimum prison sentences that had an effect. As the member just mentioned, and appropriately, it was the increased enforcement of roadside checks, regardless of the penalty. As criminologists say, the chance of getting caught is what reduces offences. Some of those minimums are related to fines and prohibition of driving; they do not put criminals in jail where they could learn more crimes.

The member talked about the United States. Would he like Canada to move more toward the system in the United States where there are three and a half times the number of murders? That country has already tried mandatory minimums. Perhaps he would confirm that many states are removing the minimums because they found that they did not work.

By keeping prisoners in jail longer, they could learn more crimes and could become more dangerous to society when they come out. This would make Canada more dangerous. Does the member think it would be better to invest money in more rehabilitation, in education, in adapting criminals? In that way when they did come out they would be less likely to reoffend and it would make Canada safer. The possibility of reoffending is a major problem today.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon must be a good lawyer; he only asks questions to which he already knows the answer. The answer is yes. The money would obviously be better invested in crime prevention and in education.

In fact, as I said earlier, the U.S. homicide rate is four times higher than that of Quebec, and three times higher than that of Canada as a whole. In Quebec, we have taken the Young Offenders Act very seriously. Our attitude was that the young offenders should be reformed rather than punished. We had already achieved quite spectacular results, with a crime rate 50% lower, or rather with Canada's crime rate being 50% higher than that of Quebec. I am talking about youth crime. This rate is then reflected in the various cohorts as offenders grow older.

My colleague raised two important points in his question. First, prison is crime school. I know very few people who received a harsh sentence and who managed to take control of their life—I know a few of them. Generally, the risk is very high that those who are incarcerated will be worse criminals when they get out than they were when they were sent to prison. Moreover, imprisonment is very expensive compared to other measures. According to the latest statistics, I believe that the present cost of keeping someone in prison in Canada in $88,000 a year. Imagine how much we could invest. That is what the Supreme Court indicated, very intelligently, when commenting on sentences to be served in the community.

However, provincial governments must invest in monitoring. I understand that this may be difficult. Nevertheless, I tried to do it in Quebec when I was public safety minister. It is true that many of our colleagues are opposed to that idea. When making budget cuts, we always cut funding for monitoring, but I always said that we must invest in monitoring. Many convicted criminals could serve their sentence in the community, with proper monitoring to ensure that they do not reoffend, at a much lower cost than $88,000 a year.

So, prison is less effective, more dangerous and a lot more expensive. With that money, we could do a lot more in the area of prevention and be successful, as we were in the case of impaired driving.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, does the member think that if we put in unnaturally long, unfair sentences in certain circumstances, prosecutors would make deals and either prosecute as a summary conviction or make other deals to avoid an unjust sentence? The person would not get the reasonable jail sentence that he might normally get and he would be out sooner than would have occurred under the previous system.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can give the member an answer—and I think he knows what that answer might be—but I also can give him glaring examples.

Could the member repeat the last part of his question?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Perhaps the hon. member for Yukon would like to repeat his question. I am not sure if the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin heard the last part of his question.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it was just about whether the prosecutors might plea bargain.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. That is what usually happened, especially with marijuana after about four or five years. It did not make sense. I remember people coming back from Acapulco with a small amount of marijuana because it was a lot better than what they could get here. Suddenly, they discovered they were facing a minimum sentence of seven years.

I think it perverts the legal system. The agreement was: “That is right, you will not be accused of possession even though it is for your own use. You will be accused of possession for the purpose of trafficking”. I remember it had become virtually automatic by a certain point. I evidently took the Crown by surprise when I said that someone had brought back a small amount of hashish from Morocco and had been accused of possession for the purpose of trafficking. I said I wanted to have a jury trial. I was told, “You cannot do that; we are not going to have a jury trial, because it is about possession for the purpose of trafficking”. I was convinced, though, that it was for this person’s own use.

Personally, I have never liked plea bargaining. I practised criminal law for over 30 years and I think it perverts the legal system. One of the things that plea bargaining leads to is not just the difficulty of introducing evidence but also situations like that one. Things like that will happen, inevitably.

Here is another example. When I started practising, there was a very strange charge in the Criminal Code of taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission. Fresh out of university, I innocently said to myself that taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission was theft and I wondered why this provision existed. It was because, for this offence, there was no minimum sentence of one year in jail. For automobile theft, a minimum sentence of one year in jail had been introduced. But then a problem had to be solved because it did not make sense to send too many people to jail. So another offence was created. It was exactly the same thing, except that in this case, there was no minimum. That is another harmful effect of provisions like these. They pervert the legal system.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

At this point in the debate the speeches will be 10 minutes and the period for questions and comments will be 5 minutes.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise after my colleague for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He has demonstrated the expertise developed in his career as a litigator, as Quebec's justice minister, and through various experiences that he has shared with us. We have had a good indication, from inside the justice system, of the extent to which the bill tabled by the Conservatives diverges from the justice system that we want to have.

Personally, I have no experience in this area. My reaction to this bill is more like that of any citizen, a father, a member of society, someone who has not necessarily had much contact with the justice apparatus as such but who tries to assess the common-sense merits of measures such as this one.

It seems to me that the approach adopted by the Conservatives is more harmful and inefficient than others and that it will do nothing to improve the safety of citizens. It is harmful because it strips the judges of some of their responsibilities such as evaluating in a concrete manner the particular situation of each accused, of each individual found guilty, and determining the sentence. Imposing mandatory minimum sentences will have consequences for our justice system. It may well have the opposite effect to that desired by the current government.

This seems to stem from the desire to lower the crime rate. But when it comes to solutions, the other side of the House has adopted an approach developed in the U.S. that has not given the results we would like to achieve here.

Minimum sentences will needlessly tie the hands of judges.Judges are in the best position to determine the most appropriate sentence in light of the facts presented. I am certain that, if this law is enacted, in a few years situations will arise where judges will be very uncomfortable handing out a minimum sentence because it will not correspond to the desired outcome. It may even influence whether or not an individual is found guilty. At that point, the outcome may be the complete opposite of what was desired in the beginning. In addition, many experts are saying that the use of minimum sentences does not lead to a reduction in the crime rate or recidivism rate. This presumption is in part due to the show put on in the media.

This focuses on very specific situations without providing context. A snap decision has been made about penalties that may not seem harsh enough. Yet we have a whole legal system that includes appeal rights and the ability to pass judgment on the situation as a whole. I do not think that the Conservatives' plan will produce the desired results.

Criminologists are the experts. They have worked in the field and can provide expert advice, as was done with the Young Offenders Act. Quebec developed a preventive model that produced very good results. When the American approach blew in on a breeze from the right, the government wanted to go ahead with legislation to amend this situation. Major intervention was needed to ensure that the legislation made as few changes as possible with respect to young offenders in Quebec. Unfortunately, the bill before us could very well have similar consequences. When people read a newspaper article, it is very easy for them to say how awful it is that the sentence is not harsher than it is. It is important to know the details, to understand how things happened. Judges are competent individuals who have honed their expertise and who must consider a wide range of facts before handing down a sentence. In my opinion, automatic minimum sentencing will not help the justice system be truly just, which is the desired outcome. We believe that any measure to automate sentencing is a dangerous approach.

The Bloc does not believe that this is the way forward. We think it would be better to maintain the system that was developed in the past. It gives judges freedom and enables them to reach conclusions that reflect reality. Let us never forget that both sides have the right to appeal. The sense of responsibility will never disappear. People must be aware of that reality. This measure would take some of that responsibility away from judges. They would be forced to make automatic decisions.

If justice were administered by machines, as per the government's wishes, the result would not be desirable, whether it is for crime assessment, the impact on victims and the criminal, and the way of working toward rehabilitation. We will not contribute to rehabilitation with a measure such as the one we have before us.

The Bloc Québécois defends a model of justice based on a personalized process to ensure as much as possible that the least number of people become hardened criminals and the highest number of people are rehabilitated. Thus, they will be able to rebuild their lives, become law-abiding citizens once again and contribute to the development of society.

Way too many examples from the United States show that the approach provided by this bill has the opposite effect of what was intended in the first place. Thus, we end up with criminals with a greater likelihood of further criminal behaviour. I believe that the result is not what we were hoping for in the system in Quebec and in Canada.

If the federal government absolutely wants to make reforms, it must instead look at the nearly automatic nature of parole. Under the current system, many criminals are released after serving one-sixth of their sentence, while any release should be based on merit. We believe that the government would be better to look at this issue and to let judges maintain the right to make their decisions and to take all the circumstances into account. However, we must ensure that parole is not so automatic.

I believe that this approach is the right one. Let us remember the approach taken by the government throughout the consideration of this bill. Indeed, several amendments made in committee were agreed to. However, in the House, the government reversed all these decisions with the support of the NDP and came back to committee with a bill that the majority did not want.

In my opinion, the House of Commons should not support this bill. If it is adopted, in a few years, we could find that its impact has been the opposite of what was initially expected and that crime and especially repeat offences have gone up. People will receive minimum sentences and will experience the penitentiary system. In my opinion, this will have a negative impact. That is why it is important to find a different solution.

This bill is at third reading and will be voted on shortly. I invite the government to reconsider the whole situation, review all the expert advice we received and send this bill back to the committee for further discussion. If we adopt this bill as is, within a few years, we will probably have to review the work that has been done here, because the bill will not have produced the desired results.

I would have liked the House to take into account the expert advice we received and the committee's opinions in order to prevent the adoption of a bill that will not create a justice system that truly renders justice. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.