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

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-10.

This bill follows through on one of the key elements of the priority to tackle crime that the government set out in the Speech from the Throne. Bill C-10 proposes a number of tougher mandatory minimum penalties to ensure that appropriately high sentences are imposed on those who commit serious or repeat firearms offences.

This bill is not about universal mandatory minimum penalties. It introduces targeted mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes and ensures that those who carry out these crimes will be penalized. This bill clearly sends a message that Canadians do not accept this behaviour.

Before describing the proposals themselves, I would like to take a few minutes to explain the nature of the problem that Bill C-10 seeks to address. This bill is aimed at tackling the problem of gun violence, particularly gang related gun violence which is prevalent in Canada's major urban centres.

In looking at the gun crime problem, it is important that we acknowledge what our role is in this fight. Firearms crime is a difficult problem. There are many partners involved in responding to this concern. The police are, of course, on the front line. Canadians were reminded a few weeks ago, with the shooting death of Constable John Atkinson of Windsor, Ontario, of the risks that police face in protecting us against those who use firearms for a criminal purpose. Those risks are real and unfortunately, often deadly.

On the issue of gun crimes in Canada, the police have told us that they remain very concerned about the number of guns they encounter in their investigations. They tell us they are coming across more illegal handguns, particularly in the hands of gang members or those involved in the drug trade.

I mentioned earlier how there are many partners involved directly in this fight. The police are not the only group with a strong role to play and who have voiced recent concerns about firearm violence. Other levels of government, provincial and municipal, have key areas of responsibility as well.

With respect to gun crimes, many provincial governments have requested that this issue be tackled aggressively. At the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice in Whitehorse last November, it was the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario in particular that sought a resolution for tougher legislative measures for firearms offences, including higher minimum penalties. The other provincial ministers agreed.

Provincial attorneys general are responsible for the vast majority of the prosecutions of firearms offences in this country. Last November they agreed that more needed to be done to tackle this problem. Since then, several of them have reiterated their desire to have tougher measures in place. As Bill C-10 responds to most of their concerns with respect to mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, it represents a positive and strong first step toward accomplishing some of the common goals in this fight.

Several provincial prosecutors have expressed the concern that the existing mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences are frequently being imposed as the sentence, while in many cases a penalty higher than the minimum should be imposed given the seriousness of the offence and the offender in question. Mandatory minimum penalties are intended to be just that, a minimum penalty, a floor, not a ceiling.

It would not be acceptable for the government to become complacent and to fail to listen to the concerns being expressed by those directly involved in the criminal justice system in dealing with this problem. Furthermore, the government is not only listening to the concerns expressed by police, prosecutors and the provinces, the people of Canada have said they want action from the federal government to help fight gun crimes. With Bill C-10, this government is responding to that call.

The federal government has a strong role to play to help further reduce gun crimes. We have policing responsibilities and we will follow through on our commitment to put more RCMP officers on the streets. This government also committed in the budget to invest in crime prevention measures to keep young people away from gangs, guns and drugs.

As parliamentarians, we are this country's lawmakers. It is incumbent upon us to see that our laws provide appropriate and adequate measures to address this pressing problem.

Some members of the House may be of the view that the current gun crime problem does not require a response such as the one contained in Bill C-10. However, the facts are clear that gun crime is a growing problem in Canadian cities and towns.

For example, in 2004 Winnipeg experienced a threefold increase in its firearm homicide rate, bringing it to over three times the national rate. In that same year the number of firearm robberies doubled in the province of Nova Scotia, bringing its rate to just behind the leading rate in the province of Quebec.

Toronto's rate of firearm homicides in recent years has been frequently reported on, but that city is not alone in having rates higher than the national average. The rate in Edmonton has also increased. Vancouver has consistently had substantially higher rates over the last decade, five and six times the national rate.

Handgun crime is a problem in our cities. This is particularly true in connection with organized crime, including street gang activity such as in the drug trade or in turf wars. The statistics also show that while crimes committed with non-restricted long guns are down, handguns and other restricted or prohibited firearms have become the weapon of choice for those who use firearms to commit crimes. It is important to note that handguns in this country have been registered, or supposed to have been registered, since 1934.

This leads me to the proposals contained in Bill C-10. Some may comment that the escalating penalty schemes proposed in Bill C-10 seem rather complicated. This follows from the need to provide for different schemes for different offences, which is directly related to the specific nature of the current crime problem involving guns that I have just described.

The escalating minimum penalty scheme for serious offences involving the use of firearms is based on specific aggravating factors most commonly present in the guns and gang context. The higher minimum penalties of five years on a first offence, seven years on a second offence and ten years on a third offence will apply when the offence involves the use of a handgun or other restricted or prohibited firearms. They will also apply if the commission of the offence is in connection with a criminal organization and any firearm is used.

I would note that while these factors are common factors in urban gun crime, they will apply to offences in both urban and rural settings. The following offences are targeted under the scheme of five, seven and ten year minimum penalties: attempted murder; discharging a firearm with intent; sexual assault with a weapon; aggravated sexual assault; kidnapping; hostage taking; robbery; and extortion.

Also, when we talk about the first offence, second offence and third offence, it is important to note that any prior conviction in the last ten years, excluding time spent in custody for using a firearm in the commission of an offence, will count as a prior conviction and will trigger the enhanced minimum penalties for repeat offences.

Enhanced minimum penalties are also proposed in Bill C-10 for various serious crimes in which firearms are not used but are involved. The escalating minimum penalties in the case of serious non-use offences are based on repeat offences and not on whether the aggravating factors are relevant to the serious use offences.

The escalating scheme of minimum penalties will be three years for a first offence and five years for a second offence or subsequent offence for the following most serious offences: possession of a loaded, restricted or prohibited firearm; firearms trafficking; possession for the purpose of trafficking; making an automatic firearm; firearms smuggling; and a new offence of robbery to steal a firearm.

The police especially are interested in the higher mandatory minimums for the possession of loaded or restricted firearms. More and more of them are turning up in automobiles. When the police check the cars, they are finding loaded firearms inside.

The benefit of that kind of a charge is that often civilian witnesses are not involved. It is the police officer's testimony, taking the weapon, which is the crux of the evidence. In fact, it is very important to have those higher minimum penalties. In this context of course, civilian witnesses cannot be intimidated because it is essentially only the police involved.

I would also point out the illegal possession of these firearms is becoming a growing concern. In Vancouver, the police tell us that 97% of firearms, the handguns, found there are in fact smuggled in from the United States. The registration of handguns does not deter the determined criminals in terms of even handguns.

An 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 schemes: possession of a firearm obtained by a crime, possession of a firearm contrary to a court order, a new offence of breaking and entering to steal a firearm, and the additional offence of using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of other offences which attracts a consecutive minimum penalty.

For the serious non-use offences, it is important to note that prior convictions in the last 10 years will trigger the higher minimum penalties applicable in repeat offences. This would exclude the time in custody because we do not want to give credit for the time a person has been involved with handguns when serving time in custody, so it would exclude time in custody for both use offences and non-use offences.

Mandatory minimum penalties that are targeted at particular offences have been effective at reducing crime. Not only do they address the real problems of criminal conduct by denouncing the behaviour to society, but they have been shown to reduce criminal conduct. Studies by Steven Levitt in the Journal of Law and Economics in 1999 and in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2004 showed that there is a direct link between mandatory minimum prison penalties and a decline in crime rates and criminal behaviour.

I would like to speak to constitutional considerations. As Bill C-10 addresses the issues of penalties on imprisonment, it raises considerations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 12 of the charter provides that people have the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual penalties. It is important to note that the courts have in fact upheld mandatory minimum prison sentences. There is nothing unconstitutional about mandatory minimum prison sentences. It is how they are applied and in what context which is important.

The courts in Canada have been frequently called upon to assess the constitutional validity of the mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment currently set out in the Criminal Code and, in particular, many of the ones that apply to firearms offences. In examining those provisions the courts have recognized that Parliament is entitled to take appropriate measures to address the pressing problem of firearm related crimes.

It is indeed Parliament's role to set the range of penalties which it deems appropriate for Criminal Code offences. That is not the role of the courts. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians. In doing so we need to ensure that our response is founded on recognized sentencing principles.

It is 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. The Criminal Code provides that the purpose of sentencing is to impose sanctions on offenders that are just, in order to 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 crimes, and separate offenders from society where necessary, as well as to assist in rehabilitating offenders, have them accept responsibility for their actions, and repair the harm that they have caused to victims or the community.

I would submit to members of the House and to Canadians in general that the proposed mandatory minimum penalties contained in Bill C-10 are not so high as to outrage public decency. They are certainly strong measures, but they are reasonable and they are a real response to a problem that is increasing in our cities and plaguing our cities.

Much effort went into ensuring that they are appropriately tailored to the pressing nature of the current gun crime problems. The highest level of 10 years for using a firearm and five years for other serious firearms related offences will apply to repeat firearms offences.

The manner in which the highest minimum penalties will apply is intended to ensure that they do not result in grossly disproportionate sentences being handed down. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether it could be considered intolerable to send those guilty of these offences to jail for at least these set minimum terms.

If an accused for example were charged with attempted murder using a handgun and he or she has two prior convictions in the last 10 years for robberies with a firearm would a minimum penalty of 10 years constitute cruel and unusual punishment? When it comes to looking at each of the proposals under that kind of lens, we will find that the minimum penalties proposed in Bill C-10 appropriately reflect the seriousness of those offences.

I would remind the House of the other parties' commitment to mandatory minimum prison sentences. The New Democratic Party indicated that it would agree to mandatory minimum prison sentences of four years for firearms and indeed the justice critic for the NDP has said that a five and seven year range would be constitutionally acceptable. I would suggest that when we are talking about third offences, 10 years is certainly not outside the scope.

I would also point out that the Liberal Party itself, during the election, supported mandatory minimum prison sentences for gun crimes. The Liberal premier of Ontario, the attorney general, and the mayor of Toronto have all supported these kinds of measures and these are all measures that are going to address a very serious problem.

Canada's new government has said that it will tackle crime to make our streets safer. Bill C-10 is one of the first initiatives the government has taken toward realizing that goal. That is because we consider gun crimes to be a very serious threat to public safety.

I am confident that we will have the support of most of the members of the House for these measures. I look forward to discussing and studying the proposals contained in Bill C-10 in greater detail in committee with other members of the House.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the minister about the issue he has put on the table.

It was the Liberal Party of Canada in 1995 that put many of the mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. It fact, there are four year mandatory minimums. As he correctly stated, this is a floor not a ceiling.

However, there have been, to my knowledge, no studies in Canada, no research into the impact of the 1995 firearms legislation. The only study, Meredith, Steinke and Palmer, in 1994 examined mandatory minimum one year sentences for offenders convicted for using a firearm in the commission of an offence found in section 85 of the Criminal Code. The researchers found that charges under this section were often used in plea negotiations and about two-thirds of the charges laid were stayed, withdrawn or dismissed.

In addition, the study showed that when Crown attorneys proceeded with charges under section 85, there was a lower probability of conviction. The justice minister knows that, unlike other countries that have mandatory minimum sentences, there are no escape clauses, no escape ways to get out of that exceptional circumstance.

The minister said a few things in his speech that interest me greatly. First of all, I would like to ask him to table all of the studies that he relies on when he talks about the legislation because I, and many members of my caucus, have read intensively in this area over the last number of months and consulted.

The second thing I would like to tell him is that our four year mandatory minimum sentences were deemed constitutional, but the seven year mandatory minimums for drug trafficking were not. That is Regina v. Morrisey, if the minister needs to know of the case.

Canadians really want an effective piece of legislation. It is normal when one prepares this, and I know the minister has not had a chance to have the meetings with the territorial and provincial ministers of justice. That was done under the previous government. I know work was needed in this area. We were striving in a comprehensive way to work cooperatively to have a good solution.

I would like the minister to table his material with respect to constitutional arguments, so that we can all understand what he is relying upon. I would like to ask the minister, why did he not consult, prior to introducing the legislation, many of those special interest stakeholder groups that are knowledgeable in the area and that normally would be consulted on criminal law? Why did he not ask them for their assistance or run it by them to refine this, so he would not run into the traps that come when we go too far, overreach too much and ignore really, the best evidence we have before us? Why is it that he did this?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable for the member to suggest we tender for studies for this when there are many studies out there. Look at the Kyoto accord, for example. There were absolutely no studies, yet the former government relied on it and were willing to spend billions dollars on that program.

However, with respect to consulting, we did that. The department does not act in a vacuum. When a new minister comes in, he relies on the consulting that has occurred. I personally consulted with police and other organizations on this issue. Therefore, the idea that somehow the legislation has grown up in a vacuum in the last three months is wrong.

With respect to the issue of drug trafficking, the striking down of the seven year mandatory, I suggest my colleague go back to that decision and read exactly what it said. It basically said that for the importation of marijuana into the country, a seven year minimum was not a proportionate response, when by having one joint it would attract a seven year minimum.

The legislation is specifically geared to very serious use offences and serious non-use offences. It builds upon the constitutional cases that have surrounded the development of mandatory minimum sentences.

With respect to the study, the member knows, having been in the justice committee, that there are essentially no conclusive or other studies on mandatory minimum sentencing in Canada. That is inconclusive. I would direct her to the Steven Levitt study in the “Journal of Law and Economics, 1999” and the Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004, which shows that there is a direct link between mandatory minimum penalties and a decline in crime rates and criminal behaviour.

The Liberal Party is still of the view that the streets in Canada are as safe as they were 30 years ago. If the member actually thinks that, why does she not take a walk in downtown Toronto, downtown Winnipeg and downtown Vancouver. After that walk, think back 20 or 30 years as to what these streets were like at that time. Now our peace officers and our civilians have to face the threat of gunfire, gun crimes and increasing numbers of handguns found in cars.

In the legislation, we are working to restore the confidence of the people of Canada in the justice system. This is a measured response and an appropriate response to a crime problem that has become very serious.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister did not announce the position of the Bloc Québécois in his speech. He would have quickly realized that we have studies showing that minimum penalties have not solved anything.

Since the hon. Minister of Justice used to be the Attorney General of Manitoba, he must surely be aware of a process we criminal lawyers know and regularly use: plea bargaining. Therefore, since he has probably been through it, he knows that we counsel for the defence use plea bargaining when we are dealing with a charge of attempted murder. We say that we will never plead guilty to attempted murder resulting in a minimum sentence of imprisonment, but we would plead guilty if the charge were reduced to an accusation of aggravated assault, and, presto, there it is. The minister knows that is how it will go.

He knows that he is also going to clog up the court calendars and the courts, and above all that he is going to add to the prison population. Maybe he wants that, but it is not what we in the Bloc want.

But what is incredible is that Bill C-10 only applies to handguns. Why does the Minister not want to include rifles and shotguns in this bill? When we read it, we actually see that such weapons are excluded. We know, though, that in recent years the crimes he wants to punish were committed with shotguns, in the regions.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Justice for a brief answer, please.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting, coming from a province that is plagued by organized crime, where there is a measure that is specifically directed at organized crime, that the member of the Bloc Québécois would stand and advocate essentially on behalf of the organized crime population.

On the issue of an increase in the population in our prisons of people who commit attempted murder, discharge a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion, my colleagues asks why should those people go to jail. They should be in jail. Our citizens deserve protection.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we begin debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code, minimum penalties for offences involving firearms.

I welcome the debate because it will allow us, at least on this side of the House, to engage Canadians, assisting them understanding a vital part of the criminal justice system sentencing provisions. I expect the government's speeches will continue with the slogan that the bill is about being tough on crime.

First, all members of the House are concerned with their communities being safe. Unfortunately, we cannot legislate safety, but we all need a system of justice that works and works effectively. It is the responsibility of the government to put bills before us that are evidenced based and that will enhance the effectiveness of our criminal justice regime.

Amendments to the Criminal Code should not be ideologically driven, or rushed or arbitrary. There should be rational thought and analysis, something which hopefully could be supportable by all parties in the House. Good analysis, evidence and rationality is self-evident.

As I will with every bill put forward, I examined it with an eye to look for supportable legislation. Criminal Code amendments should complement and enhance an ongoing coherent and properly financed crime prevention strategy. Both are important to our communities. We need something more than budgets which mainly aim at increasing incarceration and overloading jails.

The Criminal Code contains 42 mandatory minimum penalties. The sentencing judge can use his or her discretion when sentencing to opt for higher than the mandatory minimum. In other words, a mandatory minimum is a floor not a ceiling. Generally speaking these 42 infractions fall within the following criteria: impaired driving and blood alcohol over .08; betting and bookmaking; high treason; first and second degree murder; use of a firearm in an indictable offence; use of a firearm in 10 listed offences; possession, trafficking et cetera of various prohibited firearms; sexual interference; invitation to sexual touching; sexual exploitation; making, transmitting, possessing, accessing child pornography, procuring and committing sexual activities of minors; prostitution of minors; and living off the avails of child prostitution.

The 10 listed offences include mandatory minimums if a firearm is used in commission with the offences of criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, causing bodily harm with intent to harm, sexual assault with a weapon, a firearm, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, extortion and hostage taking.

Mandatory minimum penalties are also in the Criminal Code for: first, the use of a firearm or the intention in the commission of an indictable offence; and second, possession of firearm knowing it is unauthorized. Mandatory minimum penalties are also found in the Criminal Code for possession of restricted or prohibited firearms with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, weapons trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking, making an automatic firearm and importing or exporting of a firearm knowing that it is unauthorized.

The bill before us today goes much further than the existing mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. Historically, mandatory minimum penalties have been used with great restraint. Mandatory minimums undermine the fundamental principle of proportionality. That is what gets us in trouble with the charter. The chief sentencing principles are enshrined in the Criminal Code and judges set a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence and conduct of the offender.

I will briefly outline what Bill C-10 does, a bill which is certainly not a bill that a lay person could easily read and understand.

The bill introduces three new levels of mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving firearms or committed in connection with a gang. The first set of offences concerns serious offences which are committed with a restricted firearm or if the offence is committed with a gang. In this category are attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

Each of these crimes on their own carry mandatory minimum sentences under the existing legislation if they are committed with a firearm. The MMP, the mandatory minimum penalty, is four years. The new legislation would increase the mandatory minimum penalty on the crime if it is committed with a restricted or prohibited firearm or if the offence is committed in connection with a gang. The proposed mandatory minimum sentences are five years on a first offence, seven years if the accused has one previous what I call use convictions and ten years if the accused has more than one prior use conviction.

Please note that under the existing legislation the term firearms was used whereas this legislation changes this to restricted or prohibited firearm in some of the sections. In lay people's terms this means that some of these amendments do not apply to long guns.

The four year MMP remains in the Criminal Code for the same crimes committed for non-restricted or non-prohibited firearms as per the previous government laws. When asked about why this distinction was made, the justice officials suggested that this was a policy decision made by the current government.

For determination of prior convictions, all eight of the use offences are considered as part of the pool of common offences. For example, if an individual is accused of hostage taking and that person has a previous conviction of a sexual assault, that will trigger the higher MMP of seven years. The offence will not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day which the individual was convicted of the earlier offence and the day the person was convicted of the second offence.

A closer reading, however, points out that if the offender was incarcerated at any time, the clock on determining the 10 year period does not count any time while being incarcerated. Therefore, as written in Bill C-10, this period could extend in reality to a much longer period.

Bill C-10 proposes new or higher mandatory minimum sentences for several serious non-use offences in the Criminal Code: unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm with ammunition and for reasons of trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, making an automatic firearm, firearm smuggling and the new offence of robbery where a firearm is stolen. The new mandatory minimum sentences for these offences would be three years on the first offence and five years if the person has a prior conviction of either a use or non-use offence.

The new legislation proposes new mandatory minimum sentences for the following non-use offences, namely, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, possession of a firearm contrary to court order and a new offence of breaking and entering and stealing or intending to steal a firearm. The mandatory minimum sentences for these offences would be one year on the first offence, three years if the accused has one prior use or serious non-use conviction and five years if the accused has more than one use or serious non-use conviction.

These same mandatory minimum sentences would apply for a separate offence of using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of other offences, for example, the offences not listed in the use category I just outlined. Bill C-10 introduces a few new offences in the Criminal Code: breaking and entering and stealing or intending to steal a firearm and robbery with intent to steal or stealing a firearm and, in addition to section 230 of the Criminal Code, constructive murder.

The former government had similar offences in the last Parliament with Bill C-82, which was never debated having been given a first reading in November 2005 and the opposition defeating the government shortly thereafter. There are also questions as to the constitutionality with respect to parts of section 230.

I will give one example of what this means if this bill is passed. Contrast the mandatory minimum sentences for each situation. In situation (a), if an individual commits a robbery, for example, at a corner store while armed with a fully loaded long gun, and the individual has a lengthy record, including numerous prior convictions for other firearm related offences, under proposed subparagraph 344(1)(a), the individual would face a mandatory minimum sentence of four years.

In situation (b), if an individual commits a robbery but is armed with an unloaded handgun and the individual is a first time offender with no criminal record, under proposed subparagraph 344(1)(a), the person would face a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, one year more. The same would apply if, instead of robbery, the offences were sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking or extortion.

This shows that the length of the MMP, the mandatory minimum penalty, in the proposed legislation is based on the legal status of the firearm in question rather than on the extent of actual danger to the public presented by the situation. I also want to point out that the net has widened on these mandatory minimum penalties by the reality of section 21 of the Criminal Code, “Parties to offence”, which draws in people aiding and abetting the perpetrators of crime. For instance, if a girlfriend acts as a lookout or a getaway driver on that robbery with no action on the inside perpetrator's use of the firearm, that person could also be subject to the mandatory minimum.

We should be clear about what mandatory minimum sentences do. They take away the sitting judge's discretion in cases heard in our courtrooms. There is no exception, no escape clause and no discretion. Without mandatory minimums or with lower mandatory minimums as exist today in our Criminal Code, many of which were installed by the former Liberal government with respect to gun crimes, the courts are given the discretion to fashion a sentence that is much more proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the offender and, also very important, to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in each case.

In essence, mandatory minimum sentences conflict with the sentencing principles contained in sections 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code, particularly with respect to the fundamental principle of proportionality.

Mandatory minimum sentences pose charter risks under section 12. We know the Minister of Justice has even acknowledged this.

We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a seven year mandatory minimum penalty for importing narcotics. We also know that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the MMP of four years for the use of a firearm and criminal negligence causing a death, and that, by the way, was the case I meant on R. v. Morrisey. In that case the Supreme Court commented on the negative effects of the mandatory minimum sentences in introducing rigidity into the sentencing process.

In 1987 the Canadian Sentencing Commission and most Canadian commissions that have considered the issue in the last 40 years have repeatedly recommended the abolition of mandatory minimum sentences, except for murder and treason. Research into the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences have shown that they do not have any special deterrent or educative effect and are no more effective than less serious sanctions in preventing crime.

However, it must be made clear that it does not mean people do not go to jail. This was confirmed in a 2002 comprehensive study commissioned by the Department of Justice and written by Gabor and Crutcher entitled, “Mandatory Minimum Penalties: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures” Specifically, this study found that there was no correlation between the crime rate and the severity of punishment.

In the last four years, many U.S. jurisdictions have moved away from the MMP regime. On January 12, 2005, the U.S. supreme court decided in United States v. Booker that the sixth amendment was violated by the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the U.S. sentencing guidelines and held that the current federal sentencing guidelines should be considered advisory only, not mandatory.

On January 21, 2005, in the eighth circuit, in United States v. Coffey, this decision applied that previous decision made in United States v. Booker and confirmed that the U.S. federal sentencing guidelines were now advisory and no longer mandatory.

By 2003, about 25 states in the United States had passed laws eliminating some of the lengthy mandatory minimum sentences given the distortion, the increased costs and the high rates of incarceration that have resulted from rigid sentencing schemes.

In Australia, it has been found that aboriginal and other disempowered groups have been overly affected by mandatory minimum sentencing laws. In the U.S., a 1998 national law journal suggested that the harshest impact of mandatory minimum sentences was felt by African Americans. The data indicated, for example, that African American women had eight times more chance of being charged, convicted and sentenced under the mandatory sentencing laws than European American women. The overrepresentation of blacks is also a Canadian problem according to the systemic racism and racial profiling studies by Tanovich, Wortley, the Cole Gittens report and other reports done in Canada.

In Canada, minimums are expected to also disproportionately impact aboriginal offenders. We already have some Gladue courts for good reason. Mandatory minimum sentences are linked to wrongful convictions through plea bargaining since alleged offenders can easily be coerced into pleading guilty to a lesser charge when they face a stiff mandatory minimum sentence.

Crown prosecutors, for a variety of reasons, often circumvent the application of mandatory minimum sentences. The existence of an MMP sometimes results in charges being stayed or withdrawn. Accordingly, decisions regarding the appropriate punishment are now being transferred, and this is important, from the discretion of the judiciary to the discretion of the prosecution.

A 2005 survey of judges compiled by the Department of Justice found that slightly over half felt that mandatory minimum sentences hindered their ability to impose a just sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences promote an all or nothing approach. From the standpoint of public security, is it not better to ensure conviction and the imposition of an appropriate sentence based on the individual case facts and law, instead of risking that an accused not face trial or not be convicted of an offence?

The punishment should fit the crime and not be a distortion either way, which can easily occur with mandatory minimum sentences.

I do not know whether the legislation had increased hand gun crime in mind and specific locations in Canada, as we heard the minister say, but the reality we face as legislators in this House is that the Criminal Code operates from Nunavut where there is no federal penitentiary and sentences are served in Ontario, to Saskatchewan which has been trying very hard to constructively deal with the over-representation of first nations in the penal system, to Vancouver and eastern Canada.

Yes, we support increased resources to the police and communities. We also support money for educational employment and community sport for at risk populations, whether they are in downtown Toronto or in a small town in rural Alberta.

Neil Boyd, a Simon Fraser criminologist, estimates that with this legislation over 23 new prisons with astronomical associated costs would need to be built in order to meet the expected influx of prisoners who will be created by the Conservative government's criminal law agenda. From provincial institutions to federal prisons, it would cost taxpayers huge resources to incarcerate this many people. Is it the best use of resources? Can a more well-rounded, smart and effective system be designed which does help prevent crime and give confidence in the justice system and the rightful discretion to our judiciary?

With all the talk of accountability, some of the stakeholders, who normally assist in the legislative process during the consultative stage, were not consulted prior to the introduction of the legislation. I believe that not every provincial or territorial minister of justice or attorney general knew the contents of the bill as introduced. We do know that general consultations occurred with them by the former government at the semi-annual meetings of ministers of justice and work was warranted and wanted in the area.

What about the Canadian public, the taxpayer? The Department of Justice reports that the public does support some mandatory minimum sentences, which we have, especially for the most serious crimes of violence and especially if they are polled without knowing or being able to consider the potential deficiencies associated with mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment.

We now know that in both Australia and the U.S. public support for mandatory minimum sentences has declined in recent years. In reality, very few countries in the world have created mandatory minimum sentences, which we have here in Canada with the minimum four year term of custody created by the former Liberal government in 1995 on gun crimes.

Where is the new evidence by the Minister of Justice to support the case for Bill C-10 as written? We already know that the best that can be said of enhanced sentences for firearms and crime reduction are that findings are inconsistent or unclear, again supported by the minister's own words. This is a generous interpretation however. There is no evidence that sentencing disparities are reduced by the use of mandatory minimum sentences and a number of unintentional adverse affects and distortions in traditional patterns of sentencing have been well documented.

Where is the Canadian research that would lend support to this bill? It does not exist. We already know, from his appearance at the justice committee, that the Minister of Justice was challenged by every opposition party in Parliament on his use of crime statistics. He continues to disparage the judiciary in his casual public comments. We want constitutional laws in Canada. We need a solid working and just system of criminal justice to serve Canadians.

The Department of Justice's research and statistical division paper on “Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions”, authored by Julian Roberts, is a good overview for information on sentencing arrangements in a number of common law jurisdictions around the world.

Anthony Doob and Carla Cesaroni at the Centre of Criminology wrote a 2001 mandatory minimum sentence paper. The list of the impacts of mandatory minimum sentences is an important part of that paper.

If the bill gets to committee we will need to hear from many of these people. For our part, we will be against the legislation as being bad policy and very questionable law. The government could have presented a properly balanced bill but it chose to message its core group instead. Everyone loses when government chooses not to govern responsibly and instead play politics with the Criminal Code of Canada.

There are no simple solutions to complex problems. This is not a campaign. We have serious work to accomplish in Parliament. Gun crime and gang violence should be properly addressed and we will be here to help.

All I hear from the new Conservative government is about simple messaging. It is not worthy in Bill C-10. This is not supportable criminal law legislation. This is hurried legislation with inadequate consultation and the refinement needed to ensure it would work effectively. This has now become a pattern with the Conservative government. Canadians deserve better.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I note the member's comment that this is not the election campaign. Indeed, how true that is. During the election, those members were all in favour of mandatory minimum prison sentences. As soon as the election is over, of course, their new-found conversion is gone and they have betrayed the people again.

In respect of the issue of playing politics with the Criminal Code, is that not interesting? The Criminal Code is in fact a policy statement enshrined in law. That is for politicians. My learned colleague keeps on wanting to defer all discretion and all responsibility over to the judges. That is an abdication of responsibility of Parliament. We need to ensure that we are responsible as politicians and that we do not continue to give it over to the judges.

Again I note a comment, the statement in respect of the mandatory minimum prison sentence of seven years on the importation of drugs, and again the member has misrepresented the facts. I would invite Canadians to go back and read that particular decision as to why that particular mandatory minimum was struck down. Similarly in the referenced vehicle case out of the Supreme Court of Canada, when we do not have an appropriate degree of mens rea, we cannot have mandatory minimum prison sentences.

The last comment I would want to make is simply that what the American evidence shows is that if we move to targeted offences it is absolutely working in terms of reducing crime, as we have seen, for example, in New York, but I know that my colleagues in the Liberal Party do not want to see people who commit attempted murder or sexual assault with weapons going back into jail. They want them out on the street. That is an abdication of responsibility to the people of Canada.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Questions and comments will resume when the debate resumes later this day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When we were last discussing the bill, the hon. member for London West had eight minutes left. I recognize the hon. member for London West.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice had questioned me. Instead of putting before this chamber the evidence that he was using, he went back to make more attacks on the judiciary. This is wrong.

We have a respect in this country for our court system. Most Canadians have a high regard for members of our judiciary because they do difficult jobs for us and society.

The minister has to be reminded that the Attorney General of Canada is normally the person who should stand up for the judiciary in public debate and actually is the highest legal officer of this Parliament. What we have is someone who seems to think its is fine to casually talk about our judiciary in a manner that does not show it the respect that it deserves.

We have a Criminal Code in this country. It sets out the penalties across the country, not just for one location but for everywhere, not just for people in one region but for all the diverse multitudes in Canada.

We know there are issues. We have to go back each time and look at what the Department of Justice in its 1994 report by the Firearms Control Task Force said about the mandatory minimums and what was said on the data at that time. There has been a lot more data compiled in various jurisdictions around the world since then, but this is not a bad summary to start off with.

I will go over some of the things. Charges with minimums are often plea bargained. The public is not aware of which offences are covered by minimums. The participants in the justice system alter their behaviour to mitigate the harshness of the sentence. Discretion shifts from the judges to the prosecutors. Minimums result in lower conviction rates. We are getting the reverse of what we are after with the wrong population.

The Minister of Justice in his comments to me made it sound like members on this side of the House do not want to have convictions on serious matters. Absolutely we do. We want the right people in jail and we want them there for whatever time period. We have a floor on many mandatory minimums. It is a floor, not a ceiling.

The judges have the discretion if we leave it with them to consider the circumstances of every case and make the sentence higher or lower, depending on the circumstances. The circumstances of the case applied to the law will give the most just result in our Canadian democratic society.

We do not want rough justice in this country. We do not want approximations. We do not want a one size fits all justice. We want situations where the proper people are kept in jail. Some of them should stay there for a long time, there is no doubt, especially violent repeat offenders.

We have those 10 listed offences right now with the gun crimes. We put them there. Our Liberal government put them there. Do not tell me there was not something done. It has been done. We have not had a study that shows the results of that legislation at this time.

Let us return to the same Department of Justice review of the data. As a means of incapacitation, that is taking somebody out of society, a person who is in jail cannot commit another crime. Minimums are estimated to have no more than a modest impact on crime rates for the target offence. There have been more studies on this but they are inconclusive. Minimums result in increased prison populations. Keep in mind that the stats at that time said it cost $62,000 to house federal inmates. We know that in federal prisons it is a higher. It varies somewhat but it is a little higher than this on an annualized basis. Minimums increase trial rates.

Mr. Speaker, am I at my eight minutes?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

You are running into the questions and comments period. You might want to have other questions.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I will wrap up my comments, Mr. Speaker. Minimums increase trial rates. Individuals will go to trial because the sanctions are so high. In the past it was said that judges get around the minimums. They will probably take a lesser, included charge and give a longer sentence.

There are different ways to get around the system with either juries, judges, prosecutors or even police at the charge stage. One can get around the system if its perceived to be too hard.

We came up with a better and smarter way. I know we had a tripartite way of dealing with it that not only had an ability to get the legislation done, and if had been reasonable legislation, this side of the House would have supported it. However, we needed to have more effective enforcement and we agree that we have more police on the ground now. When they are in the communities, they do have that effect. I think it is a good thing.

Social initiatives that address the root causes of crime are important too. I know that with our gun schemes, we were going to put $50 million in crime prevention strategies in downtown Toronto. This number is not equaled by the current government. The Conservatives should rethink it. They should bring us something that has more of a holistic approach, more of a rational approach, then maybe we could get to crime and punishment that is effective and could support on this side of the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Yukon will have little over a minute for a question and an answer.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, Dan Gardner did an excellent article in the Ottawa Citizen last week. There were only five examples that the justice department and the minister could come up with in support of the bill and research then found that some of it was not even supportive of the bill. A vast majority of research says that these mandatory minimums are harmful to society and do not solve the problem. Could the member comment on the research that has been done on this?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there will be a speech in the House later evaluating those research papers and members should pay attention to it.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased and honoured to speak on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues as we begin the debate on the second reading of Bill C-10 to substantially amend the Criminal Code. On behalf of the government, the Minister of Justice is asking the House to adopt this bill, which was introduced on May 4, that will make the law tougher by imposing minimum prison sentences for offences involving firearms.

According to the bill introduced by the minister, the Criminal Code will be amended to set out minimum prison sentences of five, seven or even ten years—depending on whether it is a repeat crime—for eight serious offences involving the use of a firearm. The prison sentence will be determined according to several factors, including whether the firearm in question is a restricted or prohibited weapon, or whether there is a link between the offence and a criminal organization. The bill also sets out minimum prison sentences of one to five years depending on whether it is a repeat offence linked to other gun crimes.

Finally the obsessive hard-line approach of the Conservatives, founded on their dominant law-and-order ideology, shall once again be manifested in the creation of two new offences: breaking and entering with intent to steal a firearm, and robbery to steal a firearm.

My colleagues and I have given the wording of the bill a very attentive reading and thorough analysis, and too many concerns came up which prevented us from simply taking a positive view of its principle, at this stage of its passage.

We are fundamentally opposed to the very approach of the Conservative government which, true to itself, is cultivating an obsession with security and proposing excessively populist solutions, guided by purely electoral ambitions and scornful of the possible solutions, and above all of concrete results. Not only are the solutions put forward by the Conservatives based on mistaken premises, but worse still, they are harmful, ineffective and will contribute nothing to the real improvement of citizen safety.

The wave of violence in the city of Toronto last year, together with the excessive media coverage it was given, was probably a major contributor to reinforcing the idea that the streets of our communities have become more dangerous than before. Repetitive media coverage of a tragedy and the attention that citizens develop to these horrifying images can probably distort the reality of a situation. That is precisely what the Conservatives are skilfully cultivating to create a veritable psychosis in the population.

In other words, the Conservatives are utilizing tragedies reported in the evening news to wage an insidious campaign of fear mongering and thereby promote their simplistic solutions, which, they hope, will find a select place in the collective unconscious under the false pretext of a resolute initiative to stamp our crime and violence.

The method is as old as the world, but the recent experience of the Bush administration south of the border demonstrates the limits of populist propaganda. Similarly, the Conservatives’ premise that the most effective way to battle crime and wipe out violent behaviour is to adopt tougher enforcement measures is singularly mistaken, and flies in the face of the most basic logic.

It is not the fear of serving a long and difficult prison sentence that will dissuade an individual from committing a crime, even a violent crime. This is purely and simply because the individual whose plan led him to commit such a serious offence as an armed crime, simply does not have the same state of mind or heightened awareness of the true seriousness of the act he is preparing to commit as would an honest citizen. Criminologists and other experts on individual criminal behaviour define this psychological state of mind as an unbalanced perception of invulnerability. The criminal mind is convinced of the fact that it is not running any risk of being caught.

From that perspective, the spectre or threat of a long prison term does not apply to the individual. It thus becomes totally illusory as a dissuasive factor.

This state of affairs applies equally to the likelihood of recidivism by an offender sentenced for a major crime. As I was saying, the state of mind and the predisposition to commit another violent crime is often seen by the individual as an unexplained failure of an act that went awry. So, bad luck and the unconscious assurance that next time he will not be caught. But there is more. The court's obligation to impose minimum sentences, especially in the case of offences involving firearms, implies as well a limitation of the means of preventing crime and the prospects for the rehabilitation of the individuals. This is because the judges hearing the case of an individual found guilty of crimes subject to the provisions of the bill before us will inevitably and needlessly have their hands tied by the requirement in the legislation to sentence the person to prison.

If we assume that judges are the individuals most familiar with the details and circumstances of a crime that was committed, since they must analyze the case and render a decision, their ability to determine the most appropriate sentence would thus be limited, in light of all of the facts that will have been submitted.

There is an old common law principle justice must not only be done, but also seen to be done. Thus, convicting someone to several years of prison will certainly please a certain portion of society and give them a false sense of security, but this will do nothing to resolve the causes of that individual's behaviour.

For a long time now, the Bloc Québécois has made it clear that we strongly advocate fighting crime using an approach based on the rehabilitation of offenders. The Bloc believes that the most efficient means of truly limiting the scourge of violence is by first attacking its origins. The Bloc Québécois supports a model of justice whose cornerstone rests on a individualized process that takes into account the unique nature of each case. The model proposes lasting, truly deterrent solutions that are based on rehabilitation.

Despite the Conservative Party's firm language, the government's approach is doomed to failure and will do nothing to address the situation. At best, we will imprison people who will brood about their frustrations for years and very likely form a desire for revenge against the system that punished them instead of helping them rehabilitate themselves.

Of course, there will always be certain people for whom the value system that guides society will never be anything more than another constraint to break free of. But individuals who are deemed to be beyond redemption are not released and remain incarcerated.

By increasing minimum sentences according to the number of previous convictions, the government is admitting that its proposal is ineffective. The minister is calling for even stricter sentences for repeat offenders because he understands that their initial prison term, without guidance, will serve no purpose and that the sentence, as strict as it may be, will not have the desired deterrent effect. Then there is the highly predictable impact that serving a long and difficult sentence in a penitentiary—a nightmarish prospect that offers no comfort—will have on someone convicted of a first offence.

Penitentiaries are often described as veritable crime schools. There is a good chance, then, that during a mandatory five-year minimum sentence, an individual who may not have been headed for a life of crime will have access to all the tools he needs to complete his criminal education, so to speak.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the government, and particularly the Departments of Justice and Public Safety, work to restore public confidence in the parole process if they really want to make sweeping reforms to the justice system.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know how early it is in the day and how often the faces in the seats keep changing but this is the beginning of third reading debate on the budget implementation bill. We have had the bill introduced. We had second reading debate. The bill went to committee. The committee studied the bill and referred the bill back to the House. Now we are on the last leg of debate on the budget implementation bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. There seems to be some confusion in the House. It is my understanding that the bill to which the hon. member is speaking is Bill C-13 which was just passed. We have now moved to debate on Bill C-10. Is the member speaking to Bill C-10?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

No, Mr. Speaker. I was just advised about the change of plans so I will let someone else add to the wisdom of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Resuming debate on Bill C-10.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was the intention of the House and of all parties to debate third reading of Bill C-13 at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

It may have been the intention of some members but before I took the Chair I observed what I thought to be the passage of Bill C-13 without any dissent, or division for that matter. I believe the matter has now been decided.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding, although I may be wrong, that it was the report stage the House passed and that we would now be entering into debate on third reading.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Apparently both were done. The Speaker did call for debate when the question was put on third reading and no one rose. The question was then put on third reading and the bill was carried without dissent or division. It sometimes happens in the House that the intentions people have do not always fully manifest themselves.

We are now in debate on Bill C-10 and we will resume debate with the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-10. This is a bill that will improve the safety of all Canadians by ensuring that violent criminals who use firearms to commit their offences will receive serious prison time, consistent with the gravity of their offence.

This bill addresses two groups of offences. The one group involves offences in which a firearm is used in the commission of another crime, namely, the so-called “use offences”. The second group involves the possession of illegal firearms, namely, the “non-use offences”.

Let me deal with the first group. Bill C-10 would impose mandatory minimum penalties where a gun is used in the commission of a serious Criminal Code offence. These offences would include attempted murder, discharge of a firearm with intent, sexual and aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery, extortion, et cetera.

If a restricted or prohibited weapon is used in the commission of any of those offences or if such guns are used in relation to gang activity, a first time offender will receive an automatic five year prison sentence. Penalties will escalate to 7 and 10 years depending on the number of prior offences for the same or similar gun crime.

Clearly, this bill targets repeat and violent offenders who must be kept off the street for the good of our communities. It also provides a deterrent to youths who are involved in gangs, forcing them to weigh the consequences of their actions before engaging in crime.

The second group of offences involves the illegal possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm. Some of the offences targeted include the unauthorized possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm with ammunition, firearms trafficking, stealing a firearm, possession of a firearm for the purpose of trafficking in drugs, making an automatic firearm, or perhaps firearms smuggling. For these non-use offences, an offender would receive one year in prison, which escalates to three years where there is one prior use or non-use conviction, and up to five years in prison if the offender has more than one prior use or non-use conviction.

Among other things, this legislation is aimed directly at the gun trafficking industry. Virtually all gang related crimes we see across Canada are committed not by those who purchase guns legally and register them, but by people who purchase firearms illegally on the black markets or steal them from legitimate gun owners.

In my home province of British Columbia, it is estimated that gang related shootings or murders occur, on average, at least once every month. The rate of increase in gang activity in B.C. is astonishing. Most of it is fuelled by the drug trade, mainly in high grade marijuana, and carried out by young people with illegal firearms who have complete disregard for the safety and lives of those around them. This legislation will not only send a clear message that gun activity will have serious consequences, but it will also take these criminals off the streets for longer periods of time.

To place this in context, I would like to give several examples of some of the crimes that have recently been committed in British Columbia. In December of 2005, Laurie Tinga was seriously wounded by a stray bullet while watching television in her home. The 40 year old woman was the victim of a shootout in her townhouse courtyard in Port Moody. Police had reason to believe the gun battle was the result of a drug deal gone sour.

In October of 2005, two gang members were gunned down in Vancouver at a Vietnamese restaurant. Police believed it was a targeted attack carried out by rival gang members.

Just last month at another Vancouver restaurant, one customer died and another was critically wounded after a man with a gun attempted to rob an Asian restaurant. When the patrons of this restaurant attempted to stop the robbery, the gunman opened fire.

These gun crimes are occurring across the country at an alarming rate. What is more alarming is that too often innocent residents are caught in the crossfire.

I want to stress that the bill does not represent an across the board increase in mandatory minimum sentences. Rather, it targets crimes that are specifically related to gang activity, repeat and violent offenders.

This new legislation is especially good news for my constituency of Abbotsford, which for the past number of years has seen a dramatic increase in guns, gangs and gun related violence. The proliferation of marijuana grow ops and crystal meth labs in my community has meant a significant increase in gangs and organized crime.

As is common across Canada, our Abbotsford police force simply does not have the resources to locate and tear down every marijuana grow op or crystal meth lab. The ones they do manage to destroy are quickly replaced with others.

Since Abbotsford shares a border with the United States, it is part of a complex web of organized crime on the Lower Mainland. Drugs such as high grade marijuana are regularly exchanged for firearms from the U.S. These are the same firearms that are being used to commit the wide range of gang related crimes we are witnessing across Canada.

Although both American and Canadian border security officials are quite vigilant in protecting our borders and stopping the cross-border gun trade, there is only so much they can do when the same people go to prison for short periods of time and are turned back onto the streets only to take up crime once again.

The gun and drug trades are quite lucrative industries and lure a number of young people into the gang lifestyle. These mandatory minimum penalties under Bill C-10 will go a long way in discouraging youths from taking up this behaviour, but this government is also concerned with preventing young people, through community initiatives, from becoming involved in a life of crime in the first place.

In our first federal budget, this government invested $20 million in a plan for communities. This money will be focused on preventing youth crime and helping young people stay away from guns and gangs. I believe that both this bill and our prevention initiatives will work together to reduce the number of gun related deaths in Canada.

If we do not send a clear message to criminals that the consequences will now far outweigh the benefits of using handguns to carry out crime, gun violence will continue to increase. The clear message we are sending is this: be prepared to go to prison if a serious gun offence is committed, period.

I believe these penalty schemes will also be an important tool for police, who must place themselves in potentially deadly situations on a daily basis. The police will now be able to know that should the courts send an offender to prison for committing a firearms offence, that is not an offender they will be encountering back on the streets for a very long time.

About a week ago, three people, including an Abbotsford resident, were charged with abducting a young woman at gunpoint and assaulting her in Mission.

Also, on the same day, two men were charged with attempted murder in Abbotsford after a man was found shot and beaten in his home on Mt. Lehman Road. What a shame. What a shameful loss of life.

Abbotsford resident Roger McCormick was shot seven times, five times in the head, when a group of three men wearing balaclavas and black vests invaded his home with guns in search of marijuana. His wife was actually killed in that offence.

In January 2004, two Abbotsford youths, 18 and 20 years old, were gunned down on the sidewalk and seriously injured on Montvue Street.

In February 2004, the second nightclub shooting in less than a month occurred in Abbotsford. Two men entered an establishment carrying concealed handguns and opened fire. Luckily, the targets of the shots escaped injury.

In August 2005, a 24 year old Abbotsford man sitting in his car was struck by bullets fired by a man in an adjacent park.

I could go on, but I think it is clear that my community has a serious gun problem. I believe Canada has a serious gun problem.

In order to end the cycle of gun violence, this government is committed to fulfilling our election promise to get tough on serious criminals. We owe nothing less to the Canadian public than to protect them to the fullest. I believe Bill C-10 is the way to do that.

Effective deterrents, including escalating mandatory minimum jail terms, are an important step in reducing crime on our streets. So is choking off the supply of illegal handguns. By addressing both problems, we will save lives.

British Columbians and residents of Abbotsford are tired of watching criminals execute violence and get off with a slap on the wrist. Finally we have a government that is committed to the right of law-abiding citizens to live in safety and security. That is a promise we made during the election. This bill delivers on that promise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my hon. colleague and I do not share his opinion whatsoever.

Before I was elected in 2004, I worked as a defence lawyer and criminal lawyer for 20 years. I saw the arrival of additional sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a gun. These penalties are now four years. We went from one year to three and then four years. Unless my colleague opposite has more recent information, we do not have any studies that show that the increase in minimum sentences for gun-related crimes has reduced crime. If my colleague has any studies on the matter, I would like him to table them in this House.

If this bill passes, how will my colleague reduce what is referred to in Canada as plea bargaining? Let us say that I am a defence lawyer and my client is charged with a gun crime. What will we do? We will push the procedure to the maximum, as far as possible. We will ask the Crown to drop the gun possession charge in exchange for a guilty plea to a charge of assault with a weapon instead of attempted murder, for example. That does not solve anything.

If so much is to be resolved with this bill, why did the hon. Minister of Justice forget to include hunting rifles and shotguns in this bill? That is my question. We have studies that show that crimes committed over the past few years, in rural areas, were committed with rifles and shotguns. Why did the government fail to include rifles and shotguns in its bill?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member, although I am not going to speak for the justice minister, who can certainly speak for himself. I will say, though, that I believe the member and I differ dramatically on whether mandatory minimum sentences in fact are going to make a difference. There is significant research, especially in different jurisdictions within the United States, that mandatory minimum sentences do have a very positive impact on the reduction of crime, especially violent crime and gun related crime.

I would also refer the hon. member to the fact that even members of the judiciary have commented on the fact that they are concerned with the sentences that are being levied. I refer him to one particular report, which incidentally just came out on June 3, a couple of days ago, in the Vancouver Sun, in which provincial court judge Carol Baird Ellan actually expressed surprise that “even repeat offenders don't often get stiff prison time in B.C.” She indicated that she was “bound by precedent and recommendations from experienced lawyers” in sentencing a 36 year old woman who had robbed a restaurant. In fact, this adult had a record, a cornucopia of convictions: theft, forgery, being unlawfully at large, possession of a weapon, robbery, aggravated assault, assaulting a police officer, drug trafficking, and possession.

However, said the judge, “her hands were legally bound”. The article states that “instead of five years of imprisonment, Baird Ellan last week handed a sometimes-violent woman with a long record only 22 months in jail for a terrifying abduction and robbery”. That is the problem Canadians face. It is a problem in my community. It may not be a problem in the hon. member's community, but it certainly is in the rest of Canada. This bill specifically addresses that problem.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again I listened with interest to the hon. member. In fact, in his maiden speech, he also referred to problems in his area that were mainly drug related.

In terms of the bill, we are dealing almost entirely with firearms, but there are many other ways in which people are assaulted. They are assaulted with knives and also today with syringes, which people use in the drug trade and which may contain AIDS. All of these are also are assaults on individuals. Could the hon. member comment briefly? We are dealing mainly with firearms, but the root cause of a lot of the problems that he refers to is the drug trade in his area.

We do not have mandatory sentencing for a lot of the drug trade, but should that also be included in terms of mandatory sentences for those who are involved with second and third offences for the sale and growing of marijuana?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit in which that question was raised.

I would suggest to the member that this bill is a very good start. When restricted and prohibited weapons are being used, almost always it is the case that they are being used for illegal purposes, whether it is simply a possession issue or whether it is an actual use situation where they are being used in the commission of a crime. My suggestion to him is that this is a good first step in moving forward and addressing some of the elements that are used in committing a crime.

Guns, especially illegal guns, the ones that are prohibited and restricted, should not be in the hands of individuals in Canada. When they are used in a crime, they are obviously used for the purpose of hurting and killing people.

I would encourage the member and his party to support this legislation. If other legislation, for example against the use of knives, is warranted, we would be pleased to consider that. I would encourage him to consider this bill as the first step in toughening up some of these laws to make sure Canadians are safe going forward.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech.

We have heard some criticism from those who at this time would not like to get tougher on gang violence and crime. I want to quote from the Liberal platform in the last election:

A Liberal government will re-introduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, and to double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun-related crimes.

The NDP platform said it would:

Increase the mandatory minimum penalty for possession, sale and importation of illegal arms such as hand guns, assault rifles and automatic weapons.

We should flavour the comments from across the way with the fact that when there was recent criminal activity, those members were in favour of mandatory minimums. They were in favour of mandatory minimums during the election, but now after the election they are backing away from that position.

I am wondering if the member would comment on the need to be steadfast when we are dealing with an ongoing problem like the gun crimes we are seeing in Toronto. Gang related crimes are by and large being committed with handguns. Perhaps the member would comment on the need for us to maintain our positions and to send a message that as a government, in a non-partisan way, none of us is going to tolerate criminals and gang members using handguns to commit crimes on city streets.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the last time we were addressing conditional sentencing reform in this House, there was a member opposite who suggested that we do not have a crime problem in Canada and that the status quo was acceptable. I am not sure that is reflected in the party opposite. My feeling is there are members opposite who are seriously considering the legislation before the House and who will support it simply because it is a commitment they made, it is sensible and it is supported by Canadians across this country.

Crime is a serious problem in Canada. When Canadians are polled, they concur in that assessment. It is not only a perception; the facts bear it out. Serious violent crimes and repeat offences are on the rise, despite the contention of some of the members opposite.

It is true that we need to be steadfast. We cannot simply sit on our duffs and do absolutely nothing. This government is committed to follow through on its promises. We were elected on a platform of change. One of the five priorities was to move forward with mandatory minimum sentences. We are going to deliver on that promise.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this discussion on mandatory minimum sentences.

It was our Liberal government that tabled a number of changes to the laws to deal with the recent increase in gun related crime. My riding of Etobicoke North has been faced with a lot of that type of activity. Unfortunately, we have had a lot of drug related and gang related crime. A little over 100 people were arrested in a police bust in Rexdale in my riding recently. They were allegedly involved with guns, drugs and trafficking and many other horrendous crimes. I was pleased to see them arrested. The justice system will now have to process those individuals and determine their guilt or innocence.

There has been far too much gun related crime in Toronto. That is why I supported our government's tabling of an increase in mandatory minimum sentences and a whole package of measures designed to deal with the increase in gun violence.

My colleague on this side of the House made a very interesting point. We are dealing with gun violence here, but in many other cities in Canada a gun is not the weapon of choice. I am told that in cities like Regina knives seem to be the weapon of choice. Nonetheless, I am certainly prepared to support in the first instance some measures to counteract gun violence.

What members opposite have not been taking into account significantly enough in my judgment is that we need to deal with this issue with a broadly based holistic approach. Our approach included putting more money into our national crime prevention program which works very well.

There are a number of community based programs in my riding where the objective is to try to reach young people. Many of them are from dysfunctional families, homes where one parent is working, homes where there is a history of abuse and violence. The programs provide them with an outlet after school where they can get involved in things like learning how to use a computer, basketball, arts and crafts, programs like that. The idea is to keep them away from the malls where they go after school and get involved with their peers in gangs and drugs and violence. They end up taking the wrong path instead of trying to become constructive members of our society. That is something we have stressed. Let me give the House an example.

In addition to the national crime prevention program that is under way in my riding, there is another program, Breaking the Cycle, which is funded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. It works with young men and women who want to get out of a gang. It provides them with the support they need. It is very difficult to exit a gang because of the peer pressure. Besides trying to leave a gang, the young people may not have finished their schooling and may not be able to get a job.

The program is working very successfully. A graduation ceremony was held in January when 15 or so young people graduated. They are now taking the message out to their peers that they do not need to become members of a gang, that they can live productive and happy lives.

That is part and parcel of the integrated approach that our Liberal government proposed. It is not just a matter of locking up people and throwing away the key. We have to get tougher and I am supportive of tougher measures, but the measures have to align themselves with the charter. A provision in the charter says that the penalty must match the crime.

I will certainly be studying the bill before us today. I know the committee will be studying it, as will my colleagues who are more intimately involved with the review. I have to wonder if the provisions that have been tabled will meet the charter test because without that, we are wasting our time. We can pass all the laws we want, but they will be rejected when they are challenged under the charter, because the penalty will not match the crime.

Our former Liberal government introduced measures and indicated we would introduce measures before the opposition parties brought on the election. We could have had these laws passed today if there had not been an election. The legislation had been tabled and the policies announced to improve our witness protection programs.

I recall talking to the Chief of Police in Toronto, Mr. Blair, who is doing a fine job of trying to deal with some of the criminality in Toronto. He said, “We do not need programs to ship a whole number of people down to South America for plastic surgery and the like. We have some of those programs. We need programs to help people testify anonymously with the protection of the court”. We had worked with the various judicial authorities to bring that into play.

In my riding of Etobicoke North crimes are being committed but people are not coming forward with information. The police know there are witnesses. The police know that people know who committed the crimes but the police cannot get them to volunteer the information. In some cases we understand why they cannot. People are petrified of coming forward. Even though there are anonymous toll-free numbers, people will not come forward. I am glad to see that in the last while more people are coming forward.

We had proposed some enhanced witness protection programs. We also had proposed the reverse onus on bail.

What I hear in my riding of Etobicoke North is that when young people are arrested for dealing in drugs and maybe having an illegal gun, they go to the courts and they are released on bail and in some cases they reoffend.

We had proposed a reverse onus and it had some support. If a person committed a gun crime, the burden of proof would be on the individual who has been arrested to demonstrate to the court that he or she should be released on bail. It would not be the other way, where the burden of proof is on the court to show that the person should not be released on bail. That is something else that we had proposed. I do not know where that is in terms of the Conservative government proposals.

I was very proud that the prime minister at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, came to my riding of Etobicoke North and announced that we were going to ban handguns. In the political context of Canada at the time, that was a courageous move. I am sure he knew that the announcement of a ban on handguns might not reverberate very well in parts of rural Canada where guns have become a religion in some cases. He did that and I was very pleased. I can say that it reverberated very well in my riding of Etobicoke North where handguns have become a very big problem.

Some argue that this is the Liberal approach to dealing with gun violence, to ban handguns. Unfortunately that is how the media portrayed it. They conveniently forgot, as did the opposition parties, that the ban on handguns was a part of a whole package of policy initiatives, some of which I have just described: mandatory minimums; looking at witness protection; looking at reverse onus; looking at enhancing our community based programming. The media and the opposition parties said this was the Liberal approach, banning handguns, and they said that the contribution would be minimal.

I would have to admit that banning handguns would provide only a marginal benefit. I would concede that point. But when we are talking about human beings being gunned down in our streets, if we are able to save one life or two lives, then it is worthwhile.

I do know that banning handguns would have had a negative impact on gun collectors. Those people were the primary group who would have been disadvantaged, and it would have been unfortunate. I do not think the Conservative government is going to bring in a ban on handguns, so I am talking about it in the past tense. I think that is a fair assumption to work on.

However, some of the collectors who have purchased handguns totally legally have registered them, totally legally have been licensed to own a gun, and they have stored them in the legal way that they are supposed to. The reality is that in Toronto and perhaps in other municipal centres these criminals know where the guns are. They go in and use dynamite or whatever it takes to get these guns.

We know from statements made by Mayor David Miller and Police Chief Blair in Toronto that many of those handguns were used and have been used in violent crimes in the city of Toronto. So, is it not worthwhile to deal with that particular issue?

We know that handguns that are being used for crime are not registered by criminals. I think this is the point that really frustrates me. It fits within the Conservative Party's set of values to attack the Liberal Party in the sense that the gun registry was supposed to solve the problems with violent crime and gun crimes. The Liberal government never made such a claim. It would be laughable to make that claim.

What we do know for sure is that the police chiefs support the gun registry. Some of the rank and file police officers do not like it but on balance the Canadian Professional Police Association passed a resolution and it supports the gun registry. It supports the gun registry because there are about 5,000 enquiries each and every day from law enforcement people across this great country to the gun registry. Police officers find it a useful tool.

Is it the tool that is going to end gun violence in Canada? Let us be serious. Of course, we know that it is not going to eliminate gun violence in Canada but it is a useful tool.

We would think that the Conservatives would understand economics but they do not. There is a concept in economics called sunk cost. It did cost more than it should have to build the gun registry system. Over a number of years, the total if we add it all up over many years, the development costs are pushing a billion dollars. It could have cost less. There are reasons for that which most Canadians understand now and that is the way that the project was conceived and designed.

We think that cost overruns on major systems development projects are something unique to the Canada Firearms Centre or to the federal government in terms of the gun registry. Believe me, I have seen in the private sector more megasystems projects blown in terms of their budgets that we can shake a stick at.

Does it make it right? Of course not. When we get into a megasystems development project, we can have problems. We can have problems because we do not define the business processes clearly enough, we do not lock into place the policy quickly enough, and we may have a moving target which starts to escalate into cost overruns.

We also know that there are many gun users in Canada who deliberately tried to subvert the gun registry by submitting forms which they knew were wrong and then getting them back and forth, so they had to recorrect them and recorrect them. This was a deliberate step to overburden the Canada Firearms Centre with a lot of extra work. We know that this was a mischievous thing that was done.

That does not explain the whole issue of the cost overruns in the gun registry but the point I am getting at is that it is a sunk cost. Whatever has been spent to build the gun registry, the money is gone. We cannot bring it back.

Therefore the question is this. Is the gun registry serving any useful purpose today? Is it being managed in a fiscally responsible way? The answer to both those questions, and I hear my colleagues who have the right answer, is yes. It is because the costs have been managed down now to an annual operating cost of around $20 million a year. That is the cost of operating the gun registry.

The members opposite often get mixed up or deliberately try to confuse Canadians about gun licensing. I know that they are not thinking about disbanding the gun licensing. I hope they are not talking about that because individuals who want to buy a gun must go through a police check, determine if they are stable enough to own a gun, and then they get a licence if they are successful in that.

The Canadian Firearms Centre has rejected about 8,000 applications over the last few years because the people had some record of criminality or violence in the past, so presumably we should not get rid of licensing.

If we look at the total cost of the Canadian Firearms Centre, the annual cost of operating it is around $80 million, of which $20 million is for the gun registry. The other $60 million is for the licensing. There are 5,000 enquiries per day from law enforcement officers. Where they find it useful, and I know the members opposite know this, is particularly on domestic violence calls. They go onto the gun registry and it helps them because they know that if there are guns registered then they have a different problem if they are going to that domestic violence call.

Of course some would say that some people have not registered their guns. They should give police the benefit of the doubt. They are intelligent people. They know that if they go onto the gun registry and they do not see any guns registered at that home, it is not a slam dunk case that there are no guns there because the guns could be there illegally and not registered. This is not rocket science.

The point is that it is a tool and it is a useful tool. The police, rather than these armchair quarterbacks, are in the trenches day in and day out. They know what works. They know what is of value to them. How can these armchair quarterbacks decide what is a useful tool for the police and what is not? The police support the gun registry.

Conveniently, the Conservatives are saying that they will only eliminate the long gun registry. Well that is convenient because long guns happen to fit into the profile of the people who support them in their constituencies.

They say they will still register the handguns, but here is an interesting fact. I think I heard a misquote in this House earlier that long guns are responsible for more murder and suicides in Canada than handguns. One might say that does not sound right. Intuitively that sounds wrong, that handguns are the problem.

The point is that we know that in rural parts of Canada there are a lot of long guns around. Some of them are needed for hunting or whatever, and in many cases they could be registered, but the point is that in cases of domestic violence or suicides, people use these long guns to commit these crimes.

For the Conservative Party to conveniently say it is not going to register long guns, which we know politically is a very beneficial position for it to take, ignores the fact that long guns are involved in a lot of crime and criminality in Canada as well, so it is not a very good solution.

The point I want to make is that we must ensure that laws meet the test of the charter. We must deal with mandatory minimums, but we must deal with a whole suite of solutions. That includes local people and communities taking responsibility.

I am glad to see that in my riding of Etobicoke North, the local churches and community groups are saying that they have to take some personal responsibility and get involved in gun-related violence. We are seeing that happen. It cannot all be government. It has to be the people and their families. It has to start in the churches, in the gurdwaras, in the temples, in the mosques and in the synagogues. It has to start in the schools and in the homes.

We incarcerate people for a long period of time and when they come out, they are criminals again, so let us look at this in a sensible way and an intelligent way. I will certainly be interested to see if what is proposed today meets the test of the charter and whether it is going to get people off the streets who are using guns, who are involved in drugs and committing these violent crimes.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member was not present in the justice committee during the debate on the gun registry back in the 1990s. I do not think he was here yet. I would like him to know that we heard comments in the justice committee at that time regarding the gun registry and that is exactly what this bill was about.

That bill, Bill C-68, was a crime bill according to the Liberals. It was to fight crime and it was said that it would be successful in reducing crime, et cetera. The member said that is not the case. I can assure him that was the case. The minister at that time was Allan Rock and I can guarantee we heard that not only in the committee but in the House of Commons in a number of speeches. I want to correct him on that.

I agree with a number of things that he mentioned in regard to other programs that are required in order to curb crime. This has been the problem all along. During the years of my serving on the justice committee, we would constantly get omnibus bills from the Liberal government with all kinds of different things in it. Some things could be supported and some could not. I do not know what kind of legislation the Liberals thought they could pass when some of it was okay and some of it was not. It reminds me of when I was a kid and my mother used to put sugar in the medicine to make it go down.

As far as I am concerned and as far as the Conservative Party is concerned, we think we need to stick to the issue, which is: what are we going to do about those who are convicted of gun crimes? I applaud the justice minister in keeping it to that point. We will move in the direction of all these other issues as time progresses.

The member also said that the penalty should match the crime. This is my main point, that the penalty should match the crime. That is what the charter of rights says, according to the member. That is what it says it must do. I would like to know from the member, who should determine that? Should it be the Liberal lawyers, judges, or maybe it should be the House of Commons, the representatives of the people of Canada?

That is where the Liberal government always fell down. It wanted to throw it into the hands of lawyers and the courts, the decisions of what penalty should match a crime. The Canadian citizens should decide what that penalty should be. Does the member agree with that statement and if not, why not?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Wild Rose has been in the House for a while. It is true that I was elected in 1996 and at that time the gun law had already been passed, but I supported it nonetheless.

The member makes the same classic mistake or deliberately tries to mislead Canadians by saying that the gun registry was positioned as something that was going to solve gun crime. I am sure the minister at the time, Mr. Rock, never said that. If the member for Wild Rose has copies of Hansard he would like to produce that show the former Minister of Justice at the time saying that the gun registry was going to solve the problem of gun crime, I would very much like to see it because he did not say that, I am sure.

The second question the member asked surprised me as he has been around here for a while. With regard to the issue of whether the penalty fits the crime, ultimately if Parliament passes certain laws and are challenged in the courts, perhaps up to the Supreme Court of Canada, it will be the courts that decide whether the punishment fits the crime.

[An hon. member]

Should it be that way?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

The thing the member should remember is that the Constitution was repatriated some years ago with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only option available to Parliament then would be to override that and use the notwithstanding clause, something I would not support. I do not think it was designed for the federal government to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member for Etobicoke North a moment to perhaps correct a comment he made in one of his speeches. It has been recently noted that the Liberal Party of Canada has started to look more like the Liberal Party of Toronto. We saw it no more than in both the leadership race and the former prime minister's announcement. In the middle of the campaign he announced, on the fly, that he would do something he knew was outright impossible. That was the banning of handguns.

The member made a comment at mid-point in his speech. He said that in rural Canada, a place that I represent proudly as a New Democrat, guns were a religion. Is this a registered religion or is there some kind of undertone within his speech to denigrate or put down Canadians who live in rural Canada?

A study was done last year in my region. Ten to one are the dollars that we send to Ottawa versus what we get back. This research was done by the Parliamentary Library. There is incredible support for his city and other cities across this region. I find it both offensive and absolutely wrong when I hear that guns are somehow a religion in a place I represent. This must be corrected with haste.

My primary question is with respect to first nations. A lot of commentary has been made about minimum mandatory sentencing and the impact it will have on the population in our prisons. Has the member seen anything from the government or from his own party to help alleviate the overburdening of prisons with first nations populations?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has a problem with religion. Perhaps he would like to apologize to the House later for drawing that inference.

Skeena—Bulkley Valley is an area where long guns are what people like. His constituents love to hear him say what he has said.

Members will notice that the member did not challenge the fact that long guns are responsible for more murders and suicides in Canada than handguns. He conveniently sidestepped that. Maybe his researcher has not done the homework, or maybe he is conveniently ignoring that fact.

We need to look at the interests of all Canadians. We should look at what is best for Canada and what will reduce the levels of criminality, even though over the last many years there has been a decline in criminality in Canada. However, there has been a spike in some of the violent crimes. In cities such as Toronto there have been more violent crimes.

In my riding this weekend, following the arrests of the people were alleged to have been involved in terrorist activities, the International Muslims Organization mosque was vandalized by people who presumably were taking some revenge. We do not know the motivation. We do not know who did it. This is the kind of hatred we need to fight in Canada. We want to ensure that, in this particular context, the punishment indeed fits the crime in minimum mandatory sentences and that it passes the charter test.

To pass a law in Parliament, knowing that it could be struck down or will be struck down, is a waste of time. I will be very interested to know the balance. I will support increasing mandatory minimums, but it must meet the charter test. It must be able to go through the courts and successfully fight off any challenges that might occur.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear some of the comments and speeches from other members and also some of the questions and answers. It is quite enlightening.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this very significant bill. It is a bill that is in keeping with the campaign and election commitments made by the Conservative Party of Canada to Canadians.

We said that we would toughen up the laws on crime, target crime and criminals in an effective and efficient manner. We said that we would bring in penalties that would send a message to gangs, to those who preyed on citizens and to those who used handguns in the commission of violent offences. We said that we, as a Canadian society and as a Parliament, would not tolerate that any more.

Bill C-10 proposes escalating minimum penalties that are specifically tailored to the nature of the current gun crime problem in Canada.

Just to correct the record, the member mentioned that handguns were not a significant part of the problem and that somehow long guns were. This legislation targets handgun crimes. Sixty-five per cent of homicides in Canada are committed with handguns. The vast majority of those handguns are illegal guns. They are unregistered and many of them are smuggled in to Canada by gangs.

It is suggested somehow that we should continue targeting law-abiding hunters, gun collectors and farmers. For 10 years we have lived with the gun registry, a Liberal scheme which targeted law-abiding citizens rather than criminals, and this is a ridiculous assertion.

This is aggressive and decisive legislation. It uses appropriate and adequate measures. It is aimed at curbing gang and gun violence, particularly crimes committed with handguns.

The bill is not directed at law-abiding firearm owners or aboriginal Canadians who use firearms for hunting or target shooting. Frankly, it is a refreshing approach. We have a crime problem. The proposed bill targets criminals who continue to use firearms in the commission of serious crimes.

I am very pleased the government has taken action to get tougher on serious firearms offenders. I am certain that many Canadians feel, as I do, that our gun control laws should be directed at those who use firearms for criminal purposes and not at hunters and farmers who use firearms for legitimate purposes.

The approach taken in Bill C-10 is appropriately directed at the gun crime problem. Bill C-10 proposes tough criminal sanctions for those who commit serious firearms offences, with significantly tougher mandatory minimum penalties for those who have a criminal record that includes serious firearms offences. We are sending the message through this that if a person continues to offend, there will be escalating consequences.

The escalating minimum penalties depend on the nature and level of seriousness of the offence. For a series of serious use offences, enhanced minimum penalties will apply when one of two aggravating factors is present.

The first possibility is whether a firearm was used in the commission of an offence that is linked to a criminal organization; that is a gang. Over the last few years in Toronto and elsewhere, we have seen a complete escalation of gang violence and gang members using handguns to victimize other Canadians.

The second aggravating factor is whether a restricted or prohibited firearm, such as a handgun, is used in the commission of that offence. If either of those factors is present in the commission of 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 or extortion, the following mandatory minimum penalties will apply.

Members will see that these are reasonable penalties in light of the offences I just named: five years on a first offence; seven years if the accused has on their criminal record a prior conviction entered in the last 10 years for having used a firearm in the commission of an offence; or 10 years if the accused has more than one prior use conviction. This is an escalating penalty for those who are repeat offenders.

For other serious offences in which a firearm was not used in its commission but involved firearms, different escalating mandatory minimum penalties would apply. These offences do not require the presence of aggravating factors such as the use of restricted or prohibited firearms or a connection with organized crime. These escalating minimum penalties are based on repeat offending for the offences of: possession of a loaded, restricted or prohibited firearm; firearms trafficking; possession for the purpose of trafficking; making an automatic firearm; firearm smuggling; and a new offence of robbery where a firearm is stolen. This would apply to what the previous speaker talked about where gang members targeted legitimate firearm owners. The previous government's solution to that problem was to continue targeting law-abiding citizens, thereby further victimizing the victim. We are going to target these criminals and that is what we should be doing.

The following mandatory minimum penalties will apply in these cases: three years on a first offence; and five years if the accused has a prior conviction. For the offences of possession of a firearm obtained by crime, possession of a firearm contrary to a court order, a new offence of breaking and entering with intent to steal a firearm, using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of other indictable offences, the following mandatory minimum penalties will apply: one year on the first offence; three years if the accused has a prior conviction in the last 10 years for having used a firearm in the commission of an offence; or five years if the accused has more than one such conviction.

The firearm offences targeted in proposed Bill C-10 are very serious offences. It appropriately targets serious or repeat firearm offenders. It does so in a tough but measured way based on relevant aggravating factors. The bill aims at ensuring that appropriately tough sentences are imposed on gun offenders and that Canadians are protected from threats posed by gangs and the use of firearms.

Parliament is responsible for setting the range of penalties, both maximum and minimum penalties, which it considers appropriate for Criminal Code offences. Next to murder, the penalties for firearms offences are the harshest in the Criminal Code, particularly in regard to the application of minimum penalties.

Proposed Bill C-10 builds on the existing approach with respect to minimum penalties for firearms offences and it does so in a way that is consistent with existing sentencing principles.

The principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code provide that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have specified objectives. These objectives include denunciation, deterrence, separating offenders from society if necessary, rehabilitation and providing reparation to victims and communities. It is all too often that victims and communities are last on our list of priorities. The bill aims to move them into a priority and show Canadians that we take the concerns of victims and communities seriously. We will do what is necessary to ensure that victims are not re-victimized and that communities in Canada are safe.

These objectives are also meant to promote acceptance of responsibility and acknowledgement of harm done to victims and communities.

Another important principle is that of proportionality. In other words, a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. When we speak about the principle of proportionality, full consideration must be given to both the gravity of the offences and the moral blameworthiness of an offender.

Bill C-10 readjusts the penalty ranges for a number of serious firearms offences to raise the lower end of the sentence that can be imposed. This is being done to specify that, compared to other crimes, serious and repeat gun crimes should be punishable by more severe sentences. I think Canadians have said overwhelmingly, and parliamentarians are listening, that this is the approach they want. They want us to take an approach that targets criminals, gun crimes and repeat offenders especially.

Violent gun crimes such as handgun robberies, supplying criminal gang members with illegal guns or attempting to kill gang rivals are the types of serious gun crimes being targeted by Bill C-10. Those who commit these types of offences are more morally blameworthy, as these crimes often take place in our communities, thus putting the greater public at risk. We also have seen tragic examples of this, where a conflict between gang members who may be from rival gangs has resulted in an innocent person being caught in the crossfire and being injured or even killed.

Much effort went into ensuring that the penalties proposed in Bill C-10 are appropriately tailored to the current gun crime problem. The highest levels of 10 years for using a firearm and five years for other serious firearms related offences will be applied to repeat firearms offences. The manner in which the highest minimum penalties will apply is intended to ensure that they do not result in grossly disproportionate sentences being handed down.

We must also note the other important principles of sentencing, including that of denunciation. Gun crimes are very serious offences, and I think everyone in this House acknowledges that, but this bill says it is appropriate that serious and, in particular, repeat firearm offenders be punished severely. Bill C-10 does not propose to amend the penalties for all firearm offences contained in the Criminal Code. It targets only serious firearm offences. Gun violence cannot be tolerated. Serious and repeat firearm offenders deserve to be punished in a manner that reflects the degree of condemnation our society considers appropriate for this kind of illegal and violent conduct.

Tougher mandatory minimum penalties not only serve to seriously denounce unlawful conduct; they also ensure that serious offenders are put behind bars for a long period of time. Longer sentences mean that violent offenders are prevented from continuing to harm our society and to injure innocent men, women and children with guns.

The separation of violent offenders from society is an important sentencing goal. The government is responsible, with other levels of government, for ensuring greater public safety and strengthening the criminal justice system. This law is our way of doing just that.

Police agencies in urban areas across Canada are noticing a recent escalation in certain types of firearm violence. These include drug trade and turf wars, gang related homicides, and an increasing proportion of firearm homicides being committed with handguns. The fact is that this proportion went from 27% in 1974 to 65% in 2004. Sixty-five per cent of homicides in Canada now are being committed with these handguns. Police are also noticing an increase in handgun robberies in some cities and in illegal handgun possession by gang members. All of these are targeted by Bill C-10.

The mandatory minimum penalties proposed by Bill C-10 have been carefully tailored to ensure that only those convicted of serious firearms offences or those who have a history of firearms offences are punished more severely. Furthermore, the specific aggravating factors of having used a handgun or other restricted or prohibited firearm, or of having committed the offence for the benefit of a criminal organization, are designed to ensure that the higher minimum penalties are appropriately targeted at the current problem with guns and gangs.

This bill is targeted at criminal gangs. Whether or not they are paying attention and will think twice before committing a serious crime with a firearm remains to be seen, but nonetheless we are going to send that message. It is appropriate for the government to send a clear message to deter those who would use a firearm to commit a crime. This bill does that. It sends a clear message.

Moreover, it is important to note that these minimum penalties are not being proposed as the only solution to the problem, as some in the opposition have suggested. The existence of minimum penalties alone is not enough to effectively deter offenders. Measures to help prevent crime before it happens are also needed in order to deter would-be firearm offenders.

The government has also announced that it will dedicate $20 million specifically to programs that help keep young people away from guns, gangs and drugs.

Furthermore, in order to ensure the effectiveness of deterrent measures in legislation, the government will also invest in law enforcement to increase the police presence on the street. This also was addressed in the budget. The government has committed to putting more police on Canada's streets to tackle our gun crime, gun smuggling and drug trafficking problems.

It is this combination of strategic preventive measures, targeted law enforcement and tough punitive responses that will have the greatest impact on these crimes.

Canadians have told us that they want us to get tough on crime and we have listened. Guns and gangs remain a public safety threat. This bill addresses that threat. Criminals are going to be held accountable. Sentences will match the severity of the crime. Violent and repeat firearm offenders will be off the streets so that they will be unable to reoffend. While these mandatory minimum sentences are indeed tough, they are founded on several of the key existing sentencing principles.

In conclusion, this bill seeks to ensure that effective and appropriate justice is administered to criminals and that all Canadians are protected from all manner of criminal threats, in particular from threats posed by gangs and the use of firearms. Implementation of this bill ensures that Canada's criminal justice system will be one in which Canadians can have trust and confidence.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice critic pointed out that in certain cases mandatory minimums may in fact create circumstances where plea bargaining is more prevalent, and indeed, that people will get off with lesser sentences simply because the courts may feel this is inappropriate. There is a problem about the courts respecting the intent of mandatory minimum sentences.

I wonder if the member would care to share with the House any thoughts he has from the research that he has done about the effectiveness of the courts in terms of operating under a system where mandatory minimums already are in place.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is putting in place clear directions to crown prosecutors and the courts that we as a Parliament and as a society take gun crime seriously. This is why we are putting these mandatory minimums in place. We believe that prosecutors and crown attorneys are going to hear this message and use these mandatory minimums effectively.

We have to remember that in the last election almost all parties proposed an increase in mandatory minimum penalties. We know that over the course of the last election and during the campaign there were some high profile handgun crimes and murders committed in some of our major cities. There was a reaction from some parties. This party is continuing to call for getting tough on those who, one, are using guns in the commission of gang related crimes and, two, are using restricted or prohibited firearms to commit those crimes.

We are sending a clear message. This message goes throughout all of society. It goes to the gang members, the legal system, the crown prosecutors and the judges, that Parliament, representing Canadian society, is saying it wants these sentences imposed when someone uses a handgun to commit an offence against another Canadian citizen. I think this bill is going to do that very effectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the speaker before me. In his opinion, why is the homicide rate in the United States three times higher than it is in Canada?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the United States is another country. My role as a member of Parliament is to work to make Canadian society safe. It is America's responsibility to deal with its problems.

This bill is a Canadian solution to what is a Canadian problem. For a long time in cities in Canada we have not had as much of a gang problem or as much of a handgun problem. Some people felt it could not happen in Canada. I would hope that if there is any lesson that can be learned from the last few years, and even from recent events, it is that it is not appropriate to ever say that something could not happen in Canada.

We are taking an approach which sends a message that we are going to be tough on criminals and tough on crime. We are not going to take the approach that was taken in the past in targeting law-abiding citizens. We are going to target criminals. That is exactly what this bill does. It is designed to make Canada safer, Canadian citizens safer and Canadian cities and rural communities safer.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, whenever I have attended police board meetings in my city, I have heard the police repeatedly ask for more funding for more police to do preventative work on the street and more funding for youth initiatives to prevent youths from joining gangs in the first place. I do not see this bill achieving either of these goals.

Would the member explain why unrestricted firearms, most long guns and shotguns, were excluded from the legislation when we know that these firearms were largely involved in the murder of enforcement officers in the last few years?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, as I mentioned in my speech, this bill is one component of our overall strategy to tackle crime.

As I also mentioned, our budget provides funding for more police officers. Increased numbers of front line police officers are going to be necessary to crack down on crime. We are doing that. We are increasing funding for police officers. We are providing funding for those very youth initiatives that the member mentioned. I also mentioned in my speech that funding for initiatives to prevent youth from getting involved in crime is also necessary.

We can make no mistake about this, though, in that another component of a crime prevention strategy has to be tough sentencing for those who ultimately make the decision that they are going to use a firearm in the commission of an offence. This bill is targeted specifically at those criminal offenders, those who partake in gang related activities. It is tailored toward the violent crimes that we saw taking place in Toronto, for example, where gangs were using handguns in the commission of offences.

As a matter of fact, there are mandatory minimum penalties in law. Once this bill is passed, the situation will be that there will be mandatory minimum penalties for the use of any type of firearm in the commission of an offence.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are mandatory minimums already in law. Our government and previous governments before us put those mandatory minimums in there.

The point that my colleague from the party opposite made is a very important one. The reality is that the Conservatives have, with the organization of this bill, made mandatory minimums for long guns lower than the mandatory minimums for restricted weapons. That is a concern for many people.

I also want to ask this member a factual question. In his comments yesterday, the Minister of Justice directed us to Steven Levitt's studies in the Journal of Law and Economics, 1999, and the Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004, which show that there is a direct link between mandatory minimum penalties and a decline in crime rates and criminal behaviour.

The minister did not mention any other studies. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if these are the two studies the government is principally relying upon. I do not know if there are any more that he would like to direct us to, but are these the two studies being relied upon, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice in this House yesterday to all members?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, the concern as to the application of this piece of legislation, to suggest that some people are concerned that one type of firearm or another is not included, someone could certainly bring forward any amendments to this piece of legislation.

The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned in my speech, we are targeting the gang violence in our big cities. Oftentimes, 65% of those crimes are being committed with handguns which would be restricted or prohibited weapons. That is very specifically what Canadians were seeing over the last few years. That is what the bill seeks to target. To be clear, after this bill is passed, mandatory minimums will be in place for all serious firearms offences, whether they be done with a long gun or a handgun.

With respect to the issue of studies, there are all types of jurisdictions, including our own, that have mandatory minimums for some offences. We are going to have to study the results coming out of those. To be clear, the Liberal Party and the NDP in the last election were proposing to toughen up mandatory minimum sentences. Presumably that also was based on their feeling that there was a need to get tougher and to send a deterrent message that there would be mandatory minimum sentences for the commission of gun crimes. The vast majority of MPs in this House ran under that very platform.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, in this debate, we must remember that we are all pursuing the same objective, that of less crime and greater security. We differ in our opinions of how to achieve it.

Next, it is important to say that no solution will guarantee less crime, but there may be one that would ensure more. The criminal approach is of necessity complex, because the reasons people commit crimes vary, and the crimes are not of the same type either. Frankly, I do not think there are people here who would likely turn to a life of crime. We must avoid comparing their psychology to our own. That too is important.

I have practised law since 1966. The job I sought to begin my career was not available in 1966. So it was by chance that I ended up in criminal law, without ever thinking I would be working in that area. My professor of criminal law, who became assistant deputy minister, wanted to hire four new young people as law counsel in the office of the crown attorney, on their completion of university. I found this fascinating work as soon as I started it. I stayed in it for the rest of my career. Then I worked one year with the provincial crown and six months with the federal crown. Private firms came after me, and I opened my own office shortly after.

From the outset, I wondered why people commit crimes. First I noticed that, almost without exception, their lives were not very rich. I have thought about that throughout my career, for 40 years. I remain convinced that the solution the government wants to apply now, drawn from the American approach, is not a good one. Regardless of what my party decided, I would have voted against this solution.

I succeeded in my career as a criminal lawyer. I was the first criminal lawyer selected to be president of the bar in Quebec, the highest honour bestowed upon members of my profession. Afterward, I was a minister for nine and a half years, mainly public safety minister. I reorganized our police services and brought about reforms. I also started and finished the fight against major organized crime groups, including the most dangerous one, the Hell's Angels, by creating a new squad of officers from various police corps so they could work together and share information. We called it the Carcajou squad. In the spring of 2001, we were the only jurisdiction in the world to put an end to that very dangerous organization.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

Please do not applaud for that. I do not deserve all of the credit, which must be shared by all of the people who worked on this. That squad was difficult to maintain, by the way.

I am for law and order, but I support finding the most efficient way to achieve it. I have compared European and American methods. The problem is interesting: most people think that crime is increasing, but it is actually decreasing. Anyone who checks Juristat will find that crime is decreasing.

People also think that judges are not being harsh enough. How can we determine whether judges are being harsh enough, Mr. Speaker? Look at how judges use incarceration. Yearly statistics on incarceration rates in different countries are available. Although Canada is not at the top of that list, it certainly ranks pretty high up.

Canada imprisons more people than Australia, than Italy, than Germany, than Austria, than France, than Sweden, than Finland, than Switzerland, than Denmark and than Norway. Those are countries we often compare ourselves to. But Canada imprisons far fewer people than the United States.

In 2002, the last date for which statistics are available, Canada imprisoned 116 people per 100,000 population; the United States imprisoned 702 people per 100,000 population. The United States is where I most often hear some of the arguments that have been made. Get tough on criminals, that is the solution. The United States is tough, much tougher on criminals than us. And yet if you go to the United States, you run a three times higher risk of being killed than in Canada. And in the United States, you are at an eight times higher risk of being killed with a firearm than in Canada.

So is that solution working? Can we really say that our judges, who sentence more people to imprisonment than the other civilized countries we compare ourselves too, are not tough enough?

There is something else that makes our job extremely difficult, because I recognize that the position I am taking is not a popular position. But I believe that when we are in government, there are things that we know precisely because it is our job to know them, and we have access to documents. We thought about these things before gaining public office. When a majority of people are on the wrong track, we have a duty to try to get them back on the right track.

There is a reason why people believe that crime is going up: the less crime there is, the more attention is given to the crimes that are committed, to keep the percentage of news coverage devoted to crime up to more or less the same level as everywhere else. A murder in New York does not make the headlines, but a murder in Montreal or Toronto is still big news. Obviously, the papers talk about the most horrific crimes, because those are the ones that get people’s attention the most. We are therefore told about the worst crimes and we still feel worried about crime. I realized this years ago, even before I entered politics: people think that crime is going up, when in fact it is going down.

As well, what sentences are being handed down? In this speech and in the ones that came before my own, I have not yet heard anyone talk about sentences that have been affirmed by the Court of Appeal. How many sentences may be handed down every day in a country like Canada? I would say that tens of thousands of sentences may be handed down every day in this country. Even with thousands, my goodness, in a system where there really are no simple rules, a system that is not mathematical, do we imagine that there will not sometimes be judges who make mistakes? What is the solution, then? Is it to require that all judges hand down minimum sentences, and tell them that they may not impose the real sentences that they ought to be imposing? Is the solution not, rather, to appeal to the Court of Appeal? Why not appeal all these sentences we have been told about, if they are that horrible?

There is a third reason why people have the wrong impression about crime. The media do not very often report the reasons that judges give to justify their sentences.

A few years ago, Anthony N. Doob, a researcher at York University in Toronto, did an interesting analysis of some 20 sentences handed down, of which there had been much talk in the media. He noticed that the judges generally gave 13 to 15 reasons to justify their sentences, and yet on average the papers reported only one and a quarter of them. So the public is aware of only one reason and a quarter. Guess which reason is chosen? Always the most sensational one, the one that seems most inconsistent.

However, he used certain target groups and had them read the sentences given by the judges. Most of his research subjects were in agreement with the decisions handed down. When people are properly informed of the reasons of Canadian judges—and they are comparable to those in other civilized countries—when they hand down sentences, they are in agreement.

I have always been struck by one other thing as well. In France, when there are jurors, it is they who decide on the sentence after a finding of guilt. In Canada, only the judges decide on the sentences. In 2002, France had an incarceration rate of 85 persons per 100,000 population, while we had a rate of 116 persons per 100,000. Thus ordinary people, when they are familiar with the situation, are generally less harsh than under other systems.

In Canada, we have the most striking proof that minimum sentences have little effect on the commission of crime. Take the case of marijuana. In 1966, I had never heard of marijuana. I heard about when I started working as a crown attorney in Montreal. At the time, marijuana was growing in Quebec. Indian hemp is in fact mentioned in La Flore laurentienne by Brother Marie-Victorin. However, the marijuana growing in Quebec had no effect because it did not contain THC, the chemical that produces the desired effect. That has since changed. So all the marijuana that began entering the country at the time of flower power, peace and love, and Woodstock was imported from outside Canada. What was the minimum sentence for importing marijuana? It was seven years. Now that is quite a deterrent.

In Canada, we also have a positive example of other means of modifying criminal behaviour. I am referring to impaired driving. Here again, when I began as a young crown attorney, impaired driving was a veritable scourge, even though there were two possible minimum sentences. A first offence received 15 days in prison. A repeat offence brought three months in prison.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we began to really tackle drinking and driving, and achieved results. I remember, when the roadblocks first started, the number of people in violation of the law were counted in percentage points. During roadblocks today, the number of people in violation are counted in fractions of percentage points. We therefore successfully educated the public very early and raised their awareness. I remember being surprised by my children. Although I had never suggested it, when my children went out with their friends, they would have a designated driver. No one ever thought of that kind of thing when I was their age.

Thus, we achieved positive results without making the laws any tougher. Even with iniquitous legislation--to such a degree that the Supreme Court later declared it unconstitutional--we were not able to stop marijuana from entering Canada.

What must be understood is that criminals are not familiar with minimum sentences. Besides, do we even know what they are? If I were to ask how many minimum sentences are specified in the Criminal Code and what they are, I am convinced that even lawyers would make mistakes. The primary characteristic of criminals is that they are maladjusted. I have observed that they tend to be socially maladjusted. Are we to believe that criminals know what the minimum sentences are? Are we to believe that they think about how they will be sentenced if they commit a crime? The main reason they commit a crime is because they think they will not be caught. They are seeking immediate gain. They believe this because they are often under the influence when they commit crime. Some get carried away.

There is no real answer to crime, I said. Crime is as complex as psychology, and psychology is the branch of medicine that offers no simple answers, like other branches of medicine sometimes do. Doctors can remove a tumour or prescribe medication, for example. Nevertheless, dealing with crime depends in part on psychology.

The key is to have educated, responsible, knowledgeable, intelligent people pass an appropriate sentence in each case. Certainly the seriousness of the offence is an important factor, but it is not the only one. Other considerations such as the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the offender's age and how the group influences the offender or how the offender influences the group must be taken into account before a stricter sentence is handed down.

Crime is not on the rise. I see that I have about three minutes left, so I will talk about what particularly strikes me. I am surprised to see the Conservatives following the Americans' lead. Objective data indicate that the United States incarcerates six times as many individuals as Canada does, yet three times as many Americans are victims of homicide. How can anyone say that this system works?

In sharing these facts, I am not trying to show contempt for my colleagues, but to convince them. I believe that the Conservatives think as most people do. However, knowing these facts, we must bring them to the public's attention to justify individualized sentencing, trusting in our judges and appointing better judges if necessary. I will say that the Conservative agenda offers other proposals that I agree with wholeheartedly. For example, having a larger police force is a good idea, but it needs to be distributed better. The problem of street gangs is being addressed through the combined efforts of police officers doing community work in the field and investigators planning operations.

In addition, as the expression goes, they want to “send a message” to criminals. My heavens, they might as well send a message to extraterrestrials. I am very interested, of course, in the origins of the world and think it is amazing that we send messages into space. We send the series of prime numbers, that is to say, the numbers that cannot be divided by any other number. We suppose that if a civilization is developed, like ours, it should have discovered this mathematical truth, and we are listening for its answer. We stand as much chance, though, of receiving an answer during our lifetimes to the messages we send to extraterrestrials as we do that our message will get through to criminals.

Criminals do not read the legislation. They are not familiar with it. When they plan a crime, their only concern is not getting caught.

That is why preventive measures are so effective. We had a preventive measure that was working. This government wants to get rid of it. The Conservatives will thereby go down in history. People will study what happened in the past objectively, and the Conservatives will be thought to have made a bad choice.

Why are there three times as many homicides in the United States? Any intelligent person would say it is because there are too many guns. The gun registry is important. It should be said that the Conservatives are smart enough, actually, not to want to abolish it completely, even though that is in their program, by the way. We must acknowledge that the handgun registry has had beneficial effects in Canada since 1934. It is probably one of the factors behind the huge difference between the number of homicides committed in the United States and in Canada.

We have a system that has reduced the number of homicides committed with guns by 10%, and they are withdrawing it as a preventive measure. This system has succeeded in reducing the number of homicides committed with rifles or shotguns by 43% and the number of armed robberies by 48%. The reason why women have such different opinions from men on registering guns is probably that the number of women killed by guns has fallen by 31% in 10 years.

They are withdrawing a preventive measure that works in order to institute minimums that do not.

We may well end up some day with the same results as people in the United States have already obtained with these measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for his comments. I am a lawyer as well and I am proud of my profession. It is good to hear the opinions of lawyers in this House. In my view, this government has been battling the judiciary for some time.

For example, there was the attack against the chief justice and rejection by the government of the recommendation of the Judicial Salary and Benefits Commission. Now there are two bills against justices and their discretionary power.

I completely agree with the member's comments. However, he omitted one thing on which I would like to hear his opinion: the failure to provide resources to the community after adoption of these bills. We must recognize that a much greater burden will be placed on communities. This requires probation supervisors in prisons.

The budgets provide $200 million for prisons, but only $20 million for community resources. This is not enough. I would like to hear the member's views on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. This is an aspect that I did not broach, and he is right to remind me of it.

I will add, to enlighten him fully, that the imprisonment of individuals costs a great deal. I think that he will agree. Much more effective monitoring systems could be established with the same money. As a result, we would not have the negative consequences that the prison atmosphere has on young people, who come out and themselves become criminals because of everything they learned inside. Because one day they come out.

Of course the comparison is ridiculous. We have to be wary of the comparison made by the hon. member between resources for incarceration and resources for outside monitoring. We should invest a lot more money, but it is more complicated to get the public to accept this, because it is more complex. It is more complex because the problem is complex.

I would add that people are always looking for models to the south of us, and forget to look around at home.

I would also note, since people seem to be saying that today’s big problem is street gangs, that these young people in the street gangs are yesterday’s juvenile delinquents from before the legislation was amended. The juvenile crime rate in Canada then was 50 times higher than in Quebec. Indeed the previous legislation gave Quebec an opportunity to adopt a philosophical principal that has shown its worth, the best measure, the right measure at the right time. One of my colleagues in the House has pointed this out on many occasions.

The rest of the country imposed on us and itself a purely objective system in order to punish young people as criminals, while we, in Quebec, tried to look at a young person at the scene of the crime and sought to find out how to stop him. A purely objective system was imposed on us.

I do not have the time, but I could tell you what some judges in Montreal told me about what the law forces them to do, even when they definitely feel that some intervention, even prison, might be justified despite the lack of violence in the offence. But they cannot send this young person to prison.

An objective system was imposed on us and we ended up with street gangs. Will we ask ourselves some questions at some point, and will we look elsewhere but the U.S. to find solutions to crime? At present, they imprison six times more people and they have three times more murders.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, on the thought of reducing expenditures utilized currently for our penal system, I would like to make a statement in relation to how, in my home community, someone beat someone to death with a baseball bat and received a nine-month suspended sentence to be served in the community. Does he feel that is a correct usage of our justice system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would never give just one reason for a sentence. I have chided journalists for making that mistake.

I would like to know all of the reasons given and how the judge justified the sentence, which I find totally inappropriate. If this sentence has been appealed, I would like to have the reference so that I can read the appeal court's decision.

We in this House must not act as an appeal court by changing one, two or a thousand sentences and imposing certain decisions on judges for millions of cases to come.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent presentation.

I would like to ask him a question. Statistics show that mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes does not necessarily make much of a difference. The member emphasized that sentences are much harsher in the United States than in Canada and Quebec. We also have fewer murders. Why are the Conservatives determined to move ahead with this bill despite all of the studies that have shown that such bills are irrelevant?

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

Mr. Speaker, I see it as a dogmatic position, inspired by solutions used in a country that does not have as good a record as we do. They invoke the same contradiction perpetrated by the Republicans in the southern United States: tough on crimes, liberal on arms. There you have the results for each side. I have given other explanations.

I recognize that my position is not a popular one. However, I believe that if we have the opportunity to calmly explain the facts to citizens, they will generally agree that the best solution is the individualization of each sentence by well-trained, enlightened, experienced professionals in the field.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I know the member does his work thoroughly and very well, has he come across any American study which he felt was suitable to support the position of the bill as it is currently written? Does he or anyone he is aware of know of any Canadian research that would support the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I often review the statistics and have found a few. Statistics can be used to justify anything. However, there have been barely any American or Canadian studies. There are just a few. Some people are examining them closely.

Recently, I read the works of Anthony Doob—an expert from York University— that demolish their work methods and show that it has no influence at all. Once again, I would like to mention a major Canadian example: a minimum sentence of seven years for importing marijuana. Is that enough of a deterrent? Some say that this sentence is never handed out. That is not true. I have seen people behind bars for seven years. I have seen quite a few. At some point, it did not make any sense and this sentence was no longer applied.

That is where the perversion of the system begins. Certain speakers spoke of it this morning. Plea bargaining is beginning to be used. I am not a cynic. I practised a profession in which there is a great deal of cynicism. Sometimes, the political profession also makes us cynical. I have never been a cynic. When I leave politics, I can probably have another very lucrative career as a lawyer, as I have noted that bad ways line the pockets of good lawyers. This is a mistake that will make many attorneys rich.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today in favour of Bill C-10, mandatory minimum penalties for firearm offences.

I and most members of the House believe there is no greater responsibility elected politicians have, whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level, than to ensure the safety and protection of those they were elected to represent, which is why I am standing in full support of the bill.

By providing for escalating minimum penalties for serious use and non-use offences involving firearms, the government is keeping its commitment to making our communities safer. The bill sends a message of deterrence and, perhaps just as important, if it is passed it will help restore the public's confidence in the judicial system in Canada.

The bill targets the growing problem of gang violence and proliferation of restricted weapons that have terrorized law-abiding citizens. It deals with the most egregious Criminal Code offences committed with a firearm, including rape, robbery, murder, manslaughter, extortion and kidnapping. In other words, it leaves alone the farmers and the duck hunters and their lawful use of long guns and goes after the miscreants who are responsible for the rising tide of violence on our once peaceful urban streets.

The use of a restricted or prohibited firearm, such as a handgun, by these criminals would result in a mandatory five year sentence for the first offence, a seven year sentence if the accused has a prior conviction, and 10 years if the accused has more than one prior use conviction.

For possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm, trafficking in firearms, possession of a firearm for the purpose of trafficking, making an automatic firearm, firearm smuggling and firearm theft, the mandatory minimum sentence would be three years for the first offence and five years for the second offence.

For possession of a firearm obtained by crime, possession contrary to a court order, break and enter to steal a firearm and use of an imitation firearm, the minimum mandatory sentence would be one year for the first offence, three years for a prior conviction and five years for more than one prior conviction.

In the last Parliament I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-215, which called for tough new mandatory minimum sentencing. The bill received support from attorneys general in Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia and various police associations from across Canada, including the Canadian Professional Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which collectively cover almost every police officer in Canada in excess of 70,000 members. They unanimously endorsed this approach to dealing with criminality.

During debate I had the opportunity to hear from many different experts in our criminal justice system and I can assure the House that there are many good examples of the efficacy of tough mandatory sentencing.

One example is the state of Florida's 10-20-life program that has helped reduce violent gun crime in that state by 30% and has produced the lowest violent crime rate in that region in a quarter of a century.

Another example before committee was project exile in the commonwealth of Virginia. Mandatory minimum sentencing there targeted at gun crimes has reduced gun violence in Richmond, Virginia by 40%.

Gang related homicides and the increasing use of restricted and prohibited firearms in the commission of major criminal offences has risen dramatically in recent years in Canada, as was well illustrated by the past summer of violence in many of our urban corridors, while such crimes in the U.S. have been in decline.

I would suggest to the House that the preoccupation with statistics does not do justice to this serious debate. As Mark Twain is known to have remarked, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics”.

We should not lose focus. These numbers are not just statistics. These numbers represent someone's son, daughter, father, mother or neighbour. Their deaths or injuries irrevocably change the lives of the loved ones they leave behind. The pain and suffering is not just for the victims. It extends beyond, into the families and into the communities. It has a disastrous effect on the psychology and the makeup of Canadian society.

As many of my colleagues know, I was a police officer many years ago. As a former police officer I saw firsthand the devastating impact violent crime can have on families. Whether someone's definition is that violent crime is on the decline or on the rise, I personally believe and sincerely hope that the majority of my colleagues in the House believe that no level of gun violence is acceptable.

I would maintain that the government has a responsibility and a duty to do more to ensure the safety and the security of its citizens. I have and I will continue to believe that there is no more important role that we can serve as members of Parliament than in the preservation of the health and safety of our citizens. We must go to whatever limit of the law or create the laws that are necessary for the ultimate protection of our people.

My own private member's bill on mandatory sentencing did receive support across party lines. It won the approval of the justice committee. I commend all my colleagues on that committee from all sides of the House for dealing with this issue in a non-partisan manner and putting justice before the parliamentary mechanisms and shenanigans that sometimes occur in the House. Unfortunately, the committee was dissolved with the calling of the election.

However I am pleased that our government has recognized the spirit and the intent of that attempt to modify our justice system. It clearly lives on in the government's agenda in Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 proposes to introduce new and enhanced mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences, along with legislation to eliminate conditional sentencing for violent offenders. It follows through on our election promise to introduce tougher minimum sentences for serious and repeat firearm offences.

The bill would make our streets safer by sending out a clear message. The message is that serious firearm crimes will be met with serious penitentiary time.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to stand with me and with the government, put the interests of the Canadian public, the interests of the citizens in their ridings and the interests of every man, woman and child in this country, and support the legislation.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been supportive of mandatory minimums as a way to penalize those individuals who have been proven to be a threat to society and who have continued to behave in a way that puts the lives of civilians at risk. When it comes to such situations where a small group of individuals are responsible for the bulk of serious crimes in our country, it is our job and the job of the justice department to ensure the penalties are there. We hope that the courts implement those penalties against those people.

In looking at the facts and the data, I found that when we were in government we introduced 42 mandatory minimum penalties. I will list a few of them. Ten listed offences, mandatory minimums: if a firearm is used in the commission of an offence, of criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, assault causing bodily harm with intent to harm, sexual assault with a weapon, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery and so on. We already have mandatory minimum sentences that we implemented over the last few years.

If we already have an array of mandatory minimums that apply to these offences, why is the government introducing the bill and putting more mandatory minimums when they are not necessary?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a solid, responsible, good question. The answer is very simple.

I commend the previous government for bringing in that effort to establish mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences. The sad reality is it was an attempt, but it did not achieve the desired results.

We have to recognize there are different times. I sat on committee with many members of our enforcement branch. I sat with Tony Warr who is the head of the statistics for metropolitan Toronto. I met with Chief Blair and literally every Canadian police chief across Canada. They have said there is a new reality. In the past we did not have the major proliferation of gangs, guns and drugs. We had them in separation; they were there but they were not a major factor.

In this period in our history, sadly they have become a very serious threat to our communities and members of our society in general. There is an extraordinary coming together, a perfect storm, if I might say that. Our police forces have recognized that this is a dynamic they have never faced before. They need the tools to deal with it. They have implored us to give them the assistance to put in a penalty that will act as a severe deterrent to those people. Many of those people quite frankly have a great deal of difficulty in having a moral or social conscience. Society has to be protected from a number of these people.

There are occasions when those people need to be in protective custody for the benefit and safety of our citizens. In our downtown urban cores the proliferation of guns, gangs and drugs is so strong and many citizens are afraid to testify. There are many occasions where violent criminals are running loose for the simple reason that people will not become involved in the process to try to apprehend them or bring them to justice. The criminals have taken over our streets.

We are in a time when more serious action is needed and desired. I am quite comfortable that the intent of the bill will deliver to our police forces and to our judicial system the tools they need to deal with this new reality.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want it to be very clear for my hon. friend across the way that people in my party are concerned about doing the right thing and working with the police and with the communities. There is no ownership of being concerned about our communities. The reality is that everyone here wants to do the right thing.

I am telling the member quite frankly that if this bill were rational in its layout, if it had not been hurried, if it had been strategic and had done things that we could have supported, I would have given the bill my personal support. I would have encouraged others to do so as well.

There is one thing that I think is very flawed. I understand what the government is trying to do. There are some centres around the country that have increased gang and gun violence, but when a government puts forward a piece of legislation, that legislation has to fit Nunavut, Saskatchewan, eastern Canada and rural British Columbia just as easily. Ramifications are just as important. Through the aiding and abetting sections in the Criminal Code, the reality in this legislation is that there are different sanctions, different mandatory minimums for the restricted firearm and for the long gun.

For instance, for anyone who does not understand this and is not delving into the Criminal Code, which is most Canadians quite understandably, a first time offender could commit a robbery with a handgun and get more of a mandatory minimum than a repeat gun offender who committed the same type of robbery with a rifle or a shotgun, a long gun. The first time offender would get one year more. That is what this bill does.

Could the member explain the justification behind that? People commit the same crime with different weapons and there are different results. The triggers are much more complex and important.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain my perspective on this issue in addressing the hon. member's concern.

Everyone wants to use statistics for whatever purpose they serve best, but the overriding information we received at committee, literally every expert witness stated that the proportion of use of firearms in the restricted weapon category was well in excess of 90%. I do not have the exact figure in my memory bank, but the police were having an overwhelming amount of difficulties with respect to the criminal use of firearms which were all restricted weapons, the weapons for which we have had laws for 70 years, but criminals have no respect for that law.

Is this bill or any bill that comes before the House a perfect piece of legislation? I would love to think it would be, but times and things change, and as I mentioned, there are different circumstances. Right now the phenomenon of gang, guns and drugs has to be dealt with. The majority of those episodes involve restricted weapons, the ones that can be concealed and carried at whim. This has extended beyond the variety store robbery to carrying a weapon as a status symbol and going to a dance club where innocent people are out for a good time and are exposed to this type of activity.

We cannot allow society to head in that direction. Whether it happens in Nunavik, Halifax, Montreal or one of our urban cores, if a person bleeds, the person bleeds. If they are a victim, they are a victim. If they are a criminal, they are a criminal. We have to deal with the overriding problem which is the criminal use of restricted weapons. The intent of the bill is to deliberately target an area that is of deep concern. Should we go further? Should we do a little less? That is for the House to debate. Members on all sides of the House are free to bring forward suggestions and comments. In a perfect world we would not have criminals and we would not even need laws to address this, but unfortunately, it is an overriding concern right now and we have to deal with it.

In my riding 10 years ago there were hardly any firearms seized. The police chief in Belleville over 10 years seized two firearms and in the past year alone 54 restricted weapons were seized. This is not just a large urban core phenomenon.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's comments. I want to bring up something on Bill C-10 as there may be some confusion in terms of the intent of the bill. I gather that the intent of the bill is to address criminal activity by hard core criminals, particularly individuals who are involved in organized crime.

If we look at the statistics on criminal activity and crimes in Canada, we will find that 75% of crimes in Canada have actually been in decline. Looking at the most serious, homicide, which is an exception, that which probably all Canadians are most concerned about, in 2000 the homicide rate was 1.8 per 100,000 citizens and today it is about two. If we look at all other criminal activity, 75% of it, the rate for many violent crimes has actually declined over the last six years, and indeed, if we looked back in time, we would find there was a decline before that.

What is increasing, as the hon. member was correction in mentioning, is organized crime. This is a very serious problem in our country, as most police officers have told us, and requires a great deal of effort.

Going in that direction, we passed the RICO amendments, racketeering influence corruption organization charges. Some people think that organized crime gangs, by and large, are people who have long hair, patches on the backs of their jackets and drive big Harley-Davidson motorcycles. That is the conventional thinking and certainly some are like that, but the bulk of organized criminals are individuals in $3,000 Armani suits who look like us and they use very sophisticated technology to commit crimes. They do this in many different ways.

One of the serious power generators of organized crime is drugs because they are prohibited. Whenever there is prohibition, a warped and twisted market is established where that which is prohibited has a value far beyond its actual worth. I would not for a moment advocate that anybody use drugs. I am opposed to it. I am a physician. In my professional career I have been involved in helping people get off drugs because of the damage that drugs inflict.

If we look at soft drugs, for example, marijuana, we have to ask ourselves whether the current prohibitions are beneficial to society. The answer that comes from groups as diverse as the Canadian Medical Association and churches is that the current prohibitions against simple possession of marijuana are actually more deleterious and damaging to the individual than if we were to decriminalize simple possession, which is what I personally hoped the government would pursue.

The Liberal government put forward a bill to decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana. In fact, if we decriminalized it and allowed individuals to possess three plants, which in effect are weeds, albeit weeds which, no question, if smoked cause damaging effects and it is habit forming, the ties between the individual small time user and organized criminal activity would be severed.

It is because of its prohibition that organized crime gangs derive moneys from marijuana in our country. Marijuana, and to a lesser extent cocaine and to a large extent crystal meth and other drugs drive the financial underpinnings of organized crime gangs. They buy and sell any kind of contraband, including guns. Thankfully, handguns are severely restricted in our country. They prey upon people and use contraband, from liquor to people to drugs, to make money. It affects our country and society in very negative ways.

How do we manage go after individuals who may possess guns illegally? How do we affect those people in a negative way? The Liberals put forth a number of mandatory minimums and RICO. The government may want to consider strengthening the RICO amendments. It may want to consider strengthening the racketeer influenced and corruption organizations charges that enable police and courts to go after the financial underpinnings of organized crime gangs.

One of the worst things a government could do to organized crime would be to legalize the simple possession of marijuana and allow individuals to possess two to three plants per individual, and no more. That would separate the commercial grow operations, which should and must continue to be illegal, many of which are connected to organized crime, and the small time recreational user who has a couple of plants. Leave that as a problem to be dealt with medically. Leave it to individuals to discuss this with their physicians in an effort to try to decrease that. Put money into the schools to encourage children not to use drugs at all. That would be beneficial. Severing the small time user from the organized crime gangs involved in organized grow operations is fundamentally important.

We have to increase the penalties against those individuals and give the police the technology required go after them. I would encourage the government to listen to the police who have effective solutions to this problem. I encourage it to listen to the courts and lawyers. They can advise the government how to go after individuals involved in organized crime so they cannot use and twist our criminal justice system in a way that allows them to not have the force of the law apply to their nefarious activities.

This would be sensible and effective. My hon. colleague, who spoke before me, addressed mandatory minimums with respect to Bill C-10. This would address that issue.

The Liberal government put in quite a few mandatory minimums, which may not be well-known to the public. They addressed those individuals who were involved or had been involved in serious criminal activity. It is a relatively small group who are repeatedly involved in activities that are profoundly frustrating to the police.

I will refer to the comments of my colleague from London West who gave a very good summary of that. She said that the Criminal Code contained 42 mandatory minimum penalties, that sentencing judges could use their discretion when sentencing to up for higher than the mandatory minimums and that a mandatory minimum was a floor and not a ceiling.

Generally speaking, these 42 infractions fall within the following criteria: impaired driving and blood alcohol over .08; betting and bookmaking; high treason; second degree murder; use of a firearm in an indictable offence; use of a firearm in 10 listed offences; possession and trafficking of various prohibited firearms; sexual interference; invitation to sexual touching; sexual exploitation; making, transmitting, possessing, accessing child pornography, and we have some of the toughest laws in the world that we enacted against child pornography; procuring and committing sexual activities on minors; prostitution of minors; and living off the avails of child prostitution. We also introduced a number of measures to toughen the laws against those individuals who sexually preyed on minors.

The 10 listed offences included mandatory minimums for: a firearm was used in commission with the offences; criminal negligence caused death; manslaughter; attempted murder; causing bodily harm with intent to harm; sexual assault with a weapon, a firearm; aggravated sexual assault; kidnapping; robbery; extortion and hostage taking.

Members can see the Liberal government introduced an array of mandatory minimums.

Why are these further mandatory minimums required if we already have applied an array of mandatory minimums to address serious indictable offences? I think most of us feel we should have sentencing guidelines for the courts so individuals cannot get off on serious offences?

I also want to address the issue of terrorism, which is connected. We had a serious event take place over the last few days in Toronto. Part of our ability to execute our duties and responsibilities to protect Canadians, which is one of our most serious duties of all, is our ability to deal with these issues.

Terrorism is a complex issue. I would implore the government to work with Muslim communities and ask them to be much more vigilant within their communities when they find individuals espousing fundamental violent sentiments against our society. This affects Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It offends the vast majority of Muslims, who are the backbone of Canadian society, when they hear that individuals of their faith have allegedly been engaged in these activities.

Around the world there are religious schools. Some of them teach a very anti-western sentiment, sometimes with significant, overt and explicit violent overtones. The Muslim communities in Canada must work with the authorities when they find that individuals are trying to get particularly young individuals involved in violent activities. That community, be it Muslim or non-Muslim, must address this and inform the authorities if it is taking place.

Those communities should be a monitoring mechanism. If they are vigilant within their communities and are willing to take the steps to monitor what is occurring, then we will have a level of intelligence and knowledge on the ground that is invaluable to the police. Muslims and non-Muslims alike will be killed in terrorist activities. We saw that with 9/11. We saw that in Bali. We saw that in Kenya, in Tanzania and in Spain. These are areas where al-Qaeda has engaged in terrorist activities.

I am sure all of us would implore Muslim communities to be more vigilant, to look within their communities and discourage individuals who espouse anti-western hatred or violent activities against our society. This is clearly not something any civic-minded individual would want to support. I know the Muslim communities do not support it.

There are bad eggs in any group. It is up to all of us to identify those bad eggs who are willing to engage in illegal and violent activities against our society. I cannot emphasize enough how important that is. This level of intelligence and knowledge on the ground would be invaluable to our police officers and CSIS in their ability to protect us.

The past weekend showed us that Canada is not immune from terrorist activities. We are a mark, that is very clear. We cannot be lulled into a sense of self-delusion by thinking we are not. It behooves us to be prepared, not paranoid, to engage in those necessary protective measures to ensure that life and limb are protected.

I want to deal with the issue of prevention. I have brought it up many times in the House. The government has an extraordinary opportunity, with the money it has right now, to work with the provinces to truly implement a preventive mechanism that works.

Current science has allowed us to look at the development of a child's brain in the first six years of life. If we use something called a positron emission tomography scanner, called a PET scanner. During that time, the brain is very sponge like. It is very malleable, like plastic, to use the technical term.

What happens at that early stage of life is the neurons making those connections take place during that period of time. Positive and negative things can affect those neuro connections. For children who are subjected to sexual abuse, improper nutrition, violence and neglect, we can prove that those neuro connections do not take place as effectively as they would in children who are in a loving, caring environments where they have engagement with good parents and have good nutrition. Doing that enables children to have the psychological and neurological bedrock that will enable them to be productive, integrated members of society.

The most egregious example of this is when a fetus is subjected to alcohol, which is devastating. We see the damage when the child is born. The reason I mention this is we know that up to 40% to 50% of individuals who are in jail have FAS or FAE. This is a staggering statistic, given that FAS and FAE are preventable causes of neurological damage at birth. We can do something about this.

Looking at statistics, some anti-poverty advocates say that poverty leads to criminal activity. If that were the case, then children of members of religious communities, or padres, or pastors or others who do not make much money would be running afoul of the law. However, the fact is they do very well.

Similarly in immigrant communities, where people come here with nothing, but provide their children with very solid parenting, those children do far better than their parents. They have a disciplined, structured environment with the care and the love they require.

If the government could work with the provinces for an awareness program on literacy and if children were read to or if they had playtime for 30 minutes a day, the impact upon those children would be extraordinary, and that has been proven to work.

These are simple things that work very well. We can extend that to physical activity. Silken Laumann, our Olympic heroine, is advocating playtime with children, not sitting in front of a television. These days there is far too much structure in children's lives. They do not have a chance to play, which is critically important in the development of that child's brain. It provides a level of malleability that stands them in good stead later on.

Simple things can go a long way. The impact upon this, through a wide range of socio-economic parameters, is quite significant, including kids who stay in school longer, less dependence on welfare and higher rates of post-secondary education. Also, there is a 50% to 60% reduction in youth crime. Imagine having a program that is very simple, inexpensive and is child-parent centred, which that results in a 50% to 60% reduction in youth crime. It is a staggering statistic and it works.

A 25 year retrospective analysis has been done in places as far afield as Yipsilanty, Michigan and Moncton, New Brunswick, where our former colleague, Claudette Bradshaw, and her husband started a wonderful head start program. Hawaii's has healthy start program. Also wonderful work is being done at the University of Montreal.

The statistics, the facts and the simple measures are there. While it does not fall under the realm of the federal government, it behooves the federal government to work with its provincial counterparts to accomplish this.

The government, with the money it has, has great opportunities. When we were in government, we introduced 42 mandatory minimum sentences for an array of very serious offences. It is our view that this bill is not necessary. If it were necessary, we would be ardent supporters of it. However, we have already implemented an array of mandatory minimums and sentencing guideline positions for the courts.

It would be better for the government to focus on implementing solutions that would help the police to go after organized criminal activity, which is a serious problem in our society. Those solutions have been given to the government by the police. I would implore and challenge the government to implement those solutions, carpe diem.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, like many Liberals, stood in his place and talked about the many things the Liberals did when they were in office with respect to mandatory minimums.

I find that rather strange. I remember that when we were over on that side of the House, we stood in our places and asked the Liberal justice minister to implement mandatory penalties. He said they would not work, that they would not work anywhere, and that he was not going to do it.

Since that time, of course, we know that members of Parliament on all sides have stood up and talked about tragedies that have happened all across the country. The one that sticks out in my mind is the young lady who was shopping with her parents on Boxing Day in downtown Toronto and was killed by a stray bullet fired by a street gang. She got killed. So my response for the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca is that whatever he and his party over there have done has not worked. Street gangs are proliferating in all of the cities across this country, whether it be Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. It is a tragedy.

They talk about crime prevention and the poor darlings who have had an unfortunate background, and that is true. We do need to spend some time with respect to these young people, generally young men, who have had bad backgrounds, but what about the victims? What about members of the public?

Does my colleague think that in the past we have spent too much time and placed too much emphasis on crime prevention when we should be thinking about members of the public, the people who are suffering from these street gangs and violent crimes?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not an either/or proposition. Both can be done. We have done both. It is not about prevention or getting tough on those individuals who have abused their position in society. We do both.

Let me address the member's question, because he is confusing a number of things. This issue is about mandatory minimum sentences with respect to gun violence. The gentleman brought up the tragic situation where the young girl was murdered in Toronto. Mandatory minimum sentences were in existence at that time. We already have mandatory minimums for indictable offences, including murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm.

If these sentences already existed, why did they not prevent the murder of that young girl? Because they would not have. It is more complex than that. The mandatory minimums that the member refers to with respect to the charges that would be laid against these individuals already exist. They are already there.

The question is, what do we do about gang violence? There are a lot of things that can be done, including, as I mentioned, addressing the underpinnings of the violence, addressing the drug issue around gangs, taking the financial legs out from underneath organized crime gangs, having better monitoring, and giving the police better tools to go after these individuals.

Also, what we did was to put tougher penalties in place for the illegal importation of guns. What we know about most of the people who use guns as part of organized criminal activity is that these are not individuals who take a course, get an FAC, wait six months, get a background check, buy a gun and then take part in organized criminal activity. These are not the individuals who do that. We already have laws that apply to these individuals.

The member needs to focus on the issue at hand. We are submitting that laws for mandatory minimums already exist, but we have suggested other things that the government should be doing to address the issue of organized criminal activity and gang violence.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Ahuntsic.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the debate resumed? I lost track.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

We are currently hearing questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments provided by the speaker. In addition to the 42 mandatory minimums that already exist in the Criminal Code, there is the principle of aiding and abetting, which means that those who have knowledge will also be subject to the same kinds of penalties because of their involvement before, during or after. This net goes quite a bit further.

I want to quote from yesterday's speech by the Liberal Party justice critic in which she stated:

A 2005 survey of judges compiled by the Department of Justice found that slightly over half felt that mandatory minimum sentences hindered their ability to impose a just sentence.

It appears that the question here is a matter of whether or not the judicial principle of proportionality of penalty is being impinged by the existence or by the spread of mandatory minimums. Is the member is aware of this concern within the judicial system? It is not unanimous by any means but is certainly a point of concern.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard that concern and have read about it, but I think that at the end of the day what we should be doing is certainly listening to the police officers, as my colleague has done in doing a tremendous amount of work with police forces throughout the country.

We should listen to what the police officers and the police associations are saying. We should utilize their technical skills and their solutions, which come from the ground, and employ those solutions. This is what we tried to do when we were in government. That is why the previous government put out 42 mandatory minimums for an array of serious offences in the country.

We have implemented those solutions for the benefit of Canadians, but I would also suggest that the government take a look at the other solutions we have been offering in terms of organized criminal gangs.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

In this past election I was elected for a third time, which was very humbling. We all come here to represent thousands of our neighbours. It really means a great deal when they ask us to do it not once, not twice, but for a third time. I would really like to thank my entire campaign team for their tireless work. I would especially like to thank my husband, Noel, and the rest of my family for their encouragement and their support.

I rise today because of my family: my police officer son-in-law, my daughters, my granddaughters, my sons, my husband and my mother. I also have the same concerns as my neighbours when it comes to safety and security. Unfortunately, the justice system under the Liberals only allowed problems to grow and ignored the solutions.

Today I am proud to be part of a government that is willing to take a tough stand against violent criminals, a government that places the priority on law-abiding citizens and their protection.

The Minister of Justice has worked extremely hard to bring this government priority forward as legislation in such a short time. The minister must be commended for his tireless efforts in this regard.

This legislation is one of our five priorities. As the Prime Minister has stated on many occasions, this Conservative government will have a clear focus and clear priorities.

Aside from reducing the GST, providing parents with a choice in child care, bringing accountability to government, and providing health care guarantees, we promised to strengthen criminal sentencing. We are delivering on this promise.

This bill that calls for mandatory minimum penalties is one of the three important pieces of crime legislation. The other two are just as important, especially the bill to raise the age of sexual consent to 16 years of age.

Bill C-10 would amend the Criminal Code to increase minimum penalties for serious offences involving firearms. Other members have already talked about how the bill specifically targets street gang members or drug traffickers who use illegal firearms, including prohibited and restricted firearms, to conduct their business. That kind of activity often involves organized crime offences.

The Criminal Code provides that any indictable offence committed for the benefit of, or at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization constitutes a criminal organization offence. It appears that many of the recent shootings in streets, buses, parking lots and other public areas in Toronto were committed as part of attempts to bring down rival gang members.

Often these actions have as their innocent victims bystanders who have no part of the dispute. All crime with guns is troubling, but the toll on our society among innocent bystanders and those who see these crimes occur is absolutely unacceptable. This kind of criminality has also manifested itself in Quebec due to the presence of certain well known motorcycle gangs.

In its 2003 “Annual Report on Organized Crime in Canada”, Criminal Intelligence Service Canada noted that targeted measures taken by law enforcement agencies have had a direct impact on some of the traditional organized crime groups in Quebec and other parts of Canada.

On the subject of firearms and organized crime, the report also stated that all organized crime groups are involved in illicit firearm activities in some manner and individual gang members often possess numerous firearms.

CSIS reports that in the country's urban centres, criminal gangs possess illicit firearms, particularly handguns, which they use for intimidation and acts of violence. These criminal organizations use handguns and restricted firearms as the tools of their trade. They are the tools by which these gangs profit from trade in narcotics and other illicit items, and there is a thriving business in buying and selling these illegal weapons themselves.

The bill aims to attack those who are members of these organizations and who engage in the traffic of guns and drugs.

We have to get tough on firearms offences committed by street gangs and criminal organizations. The phenomenon of armed street gangs is a growing concern in Canada. It is not just the large urban centres like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver that are suffering.

Organized crime is everywhere in Canada since it has direct control over the market for illegal drugs. I has reached an impact that is felt all across Canada. As their reach expands these organizations bring the tools of their trade with them and the blight of handgun crime continues to expand.

Furthermore, firearms smuggled from the United States or stolen within Canada remain the primary source for illicit firearms. A vast amount of Canadian territory borders the United States. The availability of firearms in the United States is a major problem. The firearms are often purchased by legitimate buyers or straw purchasers who then sell them over to others who smuggle them across the border. That black market is one of the businesses of criminal organizations. We must fight back with everything we have at our disposal through targeted law enforcement measures of course, but also through the kind of legislation measures proposed in Bill C-10.

I strongly support the measures proposed in this bill. Once the people involved in these types of crimes have been brought before our courts by our police and law enforcement agencies, they will face stiffer penalties. These penalties will deter people from crimes with firearms and ensure that people who commit serious crimes involving firearms will be sentenced to longer terms of imprisonment. This is the only way that we are going to win our ongoing fight against organized crime.

This legislation has the full support of my constituents. Recently, I sent our a survey and the results were clear: 95% of the respondents felt that mandatory minimum sentences would improve public safety and 86% indicated that they were concerned about safety in their neighbourhood and community. When 86% of my constituents in Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar are concerned about their safety and their own neighbourhood, that tells me we have a major problem.

I have listened to my constituents. I read the responses of every single survey that comes in and would like to share some of their comments with the House.

Hugh in Rosetown says, “I agree with mandatory sentences for drug dealing, growing or trafficking and mandatory sentences for any offence involving a gun or a knife”. Hugh lives in Rosetown, a rural Saskatchewan town, and yet he knows the dangers and lives with the same concerns as those in downtown areas of our major cities.

Clearly, Hugh has seen that we need to be tougher on violent criminals, especially those who use a weapon. In fact, this legislation calls for tougher mandatory minimum penalties for the following serious Criminal Code offences involving the use of a firearm: attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual and aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

If a restricted or prohibited firearm, such as a handgun, is used in the commission of these offences or if the offence is committed in connection with a gang, the mandatory minimum sentences would be 5 years on the first offence, 7 years if the accused has one prior use conviction or 10 years if the accused has more than one prior use conviction.

Based on his comments, I know Brent, from my own hometown of Harris which has a population of about 250 people, that is if everyone is at home, could not agree more with these proposed changes.

He says, “I feel sentencing should be strong and made as a deterrent to all ages. Many seem to feel that because they're young they'll go easy on them or that they have had a difficult upbringing. By the age of eight you know the difference between right and wrong. People need to know there are consequences to their actions”.

Consequences are important and many feel that in the absence of serious consequences many criminals and would-be criminals develop a cavalier attitude when it comes to obeying the law. The government will ensure that there is a new respect for the law and reward those law-abiding citizens by dealing more seriously with the criminals.

When I read the comments sent in by Bud in Saskatoon, I honestly feel he echoes many of the comments I heard going door to door in the election campaign asking people what they wanted from a new Conservative government.

Bud said, “Crime crackdown, more serious sentencing for all criminals, no bail for serious crimes, no exceptions”. He could not be more clear in what he wanted and I am proud to say we are delivering for Bud, his neighbours and all of Saskatoon.

I know there are a lot more things Canadians want to see done with the justice system. When Carol R. of Saskatoon wrote to me, she raised another set of criminal justice issues that I have spoken about in the past. Carol said, “Our justice system needs to be revamped. People who commit horrible crimes seem to get away with it. Something needs to be done on the young offenders Act. Stricter sentences for those involved in pornography and child abuse”.

While we cannot solve every problem in one day or one piece of legislation, Carol can be assured that we also want to continue with our improvements to the justice system in Canada. Along with these proposed reforms dealing with mandatory minimum penalties, the government is introducing legislation that will prohibit the use of conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes.

These reforms will help keep our streets and communities safer by ending the use of conditional sentences, including house arrest for serious offences. The reforms will help ensure a cautious and more appropriate use of conditional sentences, reserving them for less serious offences that pose a low risk for community safety.

This legislation will help improve public confidence in the use of conditional sentences by helping to ensure criminals face penalties that match the seriousness of their crimes. I honestly believe that any member of Parliament who has gone door to door in his or her riding will have heard the same message as I did. It was astounding to hear the same issues come up in both the rural and urban areas of my riding.

Community safety is clearly a shared concern right across Canada. I have heard the message. I hope my colleagues opposite have heard the same and I look forward to seeing them rise to give their support to these important and long overdue changes.

I would like to thank my constituents for granting me the privilege of representing them once again in the House of Commons. I will be home soon and look forward to seeing them all again.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the debate at second reading on Bill C-10 be now deemed adjourned and the House consider a motion in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, “That notwithstanding the adoption at third reading of C-13, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, this House take note of Bill C-13”, and that, during such debate, no member shall speak for more than 20 minutes and that following each speech a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto; and that members may indicate to the Speaker that he or she will be dividing his or her time with any other member; and that the motion be deemed withdrawn at the conclusion of government orders today.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour on a point of order.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Bloc Québécois was not involved in the discussions that took place earlier, does that mean, according to this motion, that there will be no vote at the end of private members' business and no adoption on division?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Yes. The Leader of the Government in the House.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, this has the effect of a take note debate on the subject of the budget implementation bill. That motion will be deemed to have been withdrawn at the end of government orders.

The hon. member will be aware that there are I believe three votes not related to this or to Bill C-10 or Bill C-13 scheduled for later on today.

This motion will be withdrawn at the end of the day. I believe if the hon. member checks with the House leader for the Bloc Québécois and the whip, this is their understanding and their agreement as well.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Does the Leader of the Government in the House have the consent of the House to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, a government bill that is allegedly designed to provide additional security to our population by introducing additional mandatory minimum sentences for a number of crimes, particularly those where guns are used in the commission of a crime.

In the last election my party was quite clear about the need for additional action on the part of all levels of government to try to eradicate the use of guns in our cities and towns from any illegal use whatsoever. My party will support the bill at second reading and then send it to committee. I have to make it very clear that we have severe reservations about the adequacy of the bill in combatting the specific problem of the use of illegal guns in crimes.

I want to credit the attorney general of Manitoba for giving what I thought was a very clear analysis of what is necessary to fight the use of weapons in the commission of crimes. Mr. Mackintosh drew a picture of a three-legged stool. I do not think I am putting words in Mr. Mackintosh's mouth, but he said there were three components to fighting this type of crime, the major one having programs in place to prevent the crime from ever happening.

I have practised law for a long time, including criminal and family law. I saw a lot of victims. I can say honestly that never ran across victims who, if given a choice between not having had the crime perpetrated on them, which oftentimes resulted in severe injuries, or sending the perpetrator to prison for a long time, would not choose prevention. They want these crimes to be prevented from ever happening. No matter what the penalty might be to the perpetrator, they will not get their health back. They do not recover psychologically from the trauma of the abuse.

Our number one priority for the governments, whether provincial or federal, should be to approach the issue of crime from a prevention standpoint.

The second leg on that three-legged stool is enforcement. Criminologists will tell us that one of the greatest ways to prevent crime is for individuals to know they will be caught. That means in high crime areas, in particular, we need to step up enforcement and put more police officers on the street. They should not be put in offices or in a lot of cases even in cars. They are needed on the street.

Provincial governments suffered significant cuts to their transfer payments by the Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney, the Liberal government of Mr. Chrétien and the member for LaSalle—Émard and the current government. They are still trying to recover from those cuts.

The provinces had to cut all sorts of services, including any that would have required the augmenting of police services at the provincial level. They passed a number of those cuts on down to the municipal level where most of the law enforcement in this country takes place.

We need to have more police officers on the street. It is interesting to see that in the government's budget this spring, although the government blew its horn about hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers, the budget does not address street crime at all for at least a number of years. We are probably short about 1,500 RCMP officers right now. We can only train, educate and prepare RCMP officers at the rate of about 1,200 a year. It is quite some distance before that will have any impact at all.

Where the real impact could be felt and be felt very quickly would be to move money to the provinces, which the government did not do in the budget, and allow the provinces to spend the money on enforcement by hiring more police officers and putting them on the street, particularly into areas where there are high crime rates.

The third and, I have to say, the least important leg on that stool is the legislative one. I call it the denunciatory factor. It is society saying that they condemn serious crimes and proposing harsher penalties to convey that message. When that is done we must be very careful because in order for it to be effective we can only do it when there is a serious crisis and it is tailored to that crisis. We have two reasonably good experiences of this in Canada. One is the experience we have had with impaired driving.

If we go back 20 years and look at the attitudes of the legislature, the courts and, yes, even the police and society generally, we were much more permissive about impaired driving as a result of alcohol or drug consumption and I think even more callous about the consequences.

However, about 20 years ago we began to change. Over that period of time what did we do? We introduced the mandatory minimum penalties for impaired driving but, more important , groups such as MADD, our police forces and a number of non-profit agencies came together and spent money to convince society of the negative consequences. It did have an impact, as did, to a small degree, the additional penalties that we brought to bear.

We had similar success with domestic violence. Most provinces over a period of about 20 years began to compel their prosecutors and police officers to treat domestic violence seriously, to lay charges and not withdraw charges, and to take control of the situation. By any standard that has had an effect.

Corresponding with that, although it was not in the form of mandatory minimum, there was a change in attitude by the judiciary to impose more severe sentences. Together, that combined campaign had the desired effect of reducing the rate of domestic violence. We certainly have not cured it but it has had an impact.

I believe we can learn from those experiences when we look at the crisis that faces us with regard to gun crimes. We know the abuse of weapons is particularly concentrated in our major cities. The first thing we need to do is to do an analysis of why we have the problem and it needs to be concentrated in our major cities. For instance, the murder rate in our major cities runs anywhere from 200% to 400% higher than in the country as a whole for our suburban and rural areas.

The second thing we need to look at is the nature of the crime. In the case of Canada, what has changed over the last five or six years? We have had an increase in the number of guns, handguns in particular, but rapid fire guns. These are all restricted or illegal guns. They would never be registered as legal guns. Those guns are being smuggled into Canada in much higher numbers. We are getting this information from both our federal and provincial police forces.

The increase in volume is particularly severe because organized crime, biker gangs in particular, have taken control of it. It is estimated to be running anywhere from a 100% to a 1,000% increase in guns coming into Canada illegally.

The RCMP tells us that the increase in guns has come about because organized crime gangs are smuggling drugs, marijuana in particular, from Canada into the United States. The organized crime gangs made a business decision, if I can put it that way, that it did not make sense to send the container to the U.S. full and then bring it back empty. About five or six years ago they began to fill those containers with illegal weapons, brought them back into our cities and sold them on the streets of our major cities. Smuggling at the organized crime level has had a very serious impact.

We need to look at the legislation and ask whether it responds to the crisis we are faced with. Does it target in a limited fashion where the real problem is? Does it draw too broad a scope? Is it driven, as I believe in terms of the specific provisions, more by ideology than by an evidenced-based approach?

Let me answer those questions. It does draw too broad a scope. Including the number of crimes where the government is imposing mandatory minimums, one has to suggest, would not be targeted well enough.

We had a proposal in our platform in the last election to specifically target the smuggling, importing and exporting of illegal weapons. We presently have a mandatory minimum of one year on most of those offences, if not all of them. We were proposing in our platform to increase that to four years. We are now targeting directly the biker gangs and that conduct of smuggling weapons into this country illegally.

The legislation is not targeted enough. It is so broad that the denunciatory factor gets lost. It is also limited, not only in that section but in others where the government has imposed mandatory minimums or is proposing to impose mandatory minimums where it will not have any impact whatsoever.

As parliamentarians and legislators, we must be careful in our approach to this issue. We can approach it ideologically by ignoring the facts and the evidence. We can make ourselves feel good and convince the country that we are doing something meaningful but that does not protect our society or individuals. We need to know that what we are doing will work but the bill does not take us there.

The bill has some real risks, which I will address fairly quickly, the first one being the effect of mandatory minimums, especially used in this scope.

We must appreciate that the Criminal Code already has mandatory minimums for about 60 to 70 crimes. The present bill would add about 20 to 30 more. We would be approaching close to 100 crimes involving mandatory minimums. All the studies I have seen tell us and should tell this legislature that if we do not target it or use it selectively it loses its impact. We are very close and, in fact, I think we have crossed over that line.

What the NDP would support in a very limited scope of mandatory minimums is really minuscule compared to what is proposed in the legislation.

Let us talk about the problems with mandatory minimums. It shifts the role that has traditionally been played by the judge in determining what is an appropriate sentence to the prosecutor. The prosecutor, by determining what charges will be laid and pushing for convictions, will determine the length of a sentence.

However, because of the cost, a great number of our prosecutors are caught. Even if they want to pursue more severe penalties, they know the defence lawyers and the accused will hold the process up by seeking a long trial and the crown attorneys have limited resources. They can afford to take only so many 20-day to 60-day trials.

Our system functions on the basis that somewhere between 90% and 95% of all criminal charges will be dealt with by way of guilty pleas. If that balance is upset, the costs are driven up dramatically. The crowns know that, the defence lawyers know that and most hardened accused know it. The process ends up with the lawyers plea bargaining so that the serious crime is not the one for which criminals plead guilty. The penalty imposed is less than what might have been imposed under a system where there were no mandatory minimums. Therefore, the extensive use of mandatory minimums is self-defeating. We end up with fewer convictions and lower penalties.

We need to look at how we use incarceration. I argue that the way we have to do that analysis is to look at societies that are similar to ours but which have lower crimes rates. We need to look at how they deal with their criminal law and the rate of incarceration.

We should do an evidence-based analysis and forget the ideology, the feel good thing of, “Yes, I am out here. I am real macho. I am going to get tough on crime and send all these people to jail”. We hear that from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. However, if they really understood the system they would get off the macho trail and just look at what actually works.

We would look at other countries, such as those in western Europe which, overall, have significantly lower crime rates than Canada, both for murder and serious violent crime, and they have lower incarceration rates. Canada's incarceration rate, according to the last figures in 2002, was at about 116 per 100,000 population. In western Europe, Australia and New Zealand the average runs from a low of about 60 up to the high 90s. All the countries we would like to compare ourselves to, and we do regularly on all sorts of other social programs, have an incarceration rate that is 20% lower than ours and, in some cases, as much as 50% lower.

The one country in our close allies that is the exception is the United States. Its ratio of incarceration is 702 per 100,000, almost seven times higher than ours, with a corresponding crime rate that is four, six and eight times higher than it is in Canada in spite of some of the figures we hear from the government party.

At committee, the NDP will be moving significant amendments to the bill to bring it into line with what we had promised to do during the election. We will be calling for support, although I am not really expecting any from the government, but from the opposition parties to get the bill into shape where in fact it would protect Canadians and obtains results for them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder about the member's closing remarks. When he says they are going to do this work in committee, does that mean he will be voting to get the bill to committee?

As for my question, I would like the member to comment on the root causes of crime and some of the things we can do. I work on the justice committee with him. He is a very good member and I know that he has some background in this.

On September 11, I was in Washington when the planes hit. An hour after that, I said to the press that we had to look at the root causes and work on them as well. At the time, the Conservatives said that was nonsense, that those people were just criminals and should be put in jail, but I notice that the justice minister did say they have to work on that.

I would like to know if the member thinks there is evidence of support for that. When the Conservatives take away $1.8 billion from aboriginal education and the Kelowna accord, does that help? If there is no money for youth workers and if there is no more money for policemen on the beat to work with the youth, does that help? If the Conservatives remove $10 billion from early childhood development and take away the choice of those parents who want that extra developmental assistance for their child, and if they increase the tax rate for low income people from 15% to 15.5%, does that help remove the root causes of crime? If they remove the low income young child tax credit, does that help develop a good, healthy background where there is religious tolerance and a good family to grow up in?

I would like the member to talk about the root causes of crime and what can be done so that we never get to the situation of having to incarcerate people for long periods of time, which has been proven not to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon obviously must have come in a bit late. I indicated at the beginning of my speech that our party would be supporting this bill to go to committee at second reading.

To answer his basic question about the root causes of crime, I have to say that the government in some respects is repeating--and again, because of its straight ideological approach on this issue--the mistakes that have been made at the provincial level in a number of provinces.

I think of the Mike Harris government in my home province. Immediately after he was elected for the first time, his government slashed social welfare spending. It slashed all sorts of programs, including a couple of programs that provided shelters for women and children who had been abused as a result of domestic violence. It was a wide sweep.

Quite frankly, to some degree what Ontario and Toronto in particular now are seeing are the consequences of that. The victims of those cuts were in their early adolescence. They were in their early teen years. In disproportionate numbers, they are committing those crimes on the streets of Toronto right now.

Let us go to the other major cities where the murder rate and the violent crime rate are so high, including your home city, Mr. Speaker, and Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. Let us compare them to Montreal and Quebec City. We find that the juvenile crime rate, the young offender crime rate, is significantly higher in every one of those major cities and significantly lower in Montreal and Quebec City.

What happened? At the same time that the cuts came out in Ontario and from the Klein government in Alberta, the Province of Quebec did not cut. It stood up and in effect defended the use of legislation. It did not impose penalties. It put in place programs to head off those young people from getting into crime and drugs, and it worked.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and ask a couple of questions of my friend. I noted his comment that our incarceration rate is 20% higher than that of some other countries. First of all, I wonder if he noticed the geographic differences. Australia and the United Kingdom are actually surrounded by water and do not have the United States right next door, which of course has the largest gun owner population in the world.

I had an opportunity to attend law school in Australia and volunteered some of my time in Australian jails. I can say with certainty, after being a criminal lawyer in northern Alberta and spending considerable time in Australia, that they are very different systems. They are very different places, and indeed, the people are different. I am wondering if he would comment on that.

Some years ago I had a client who had been caught with a loaded .357 Magnum under his car seat. When he was stopped by the RCMP, the weapon was found. He came before the court. He received a 30 day conditional sentence for carrying that loaded weapon under his seat. Would the member comment on whether or not he thinks that is sufficient time to deter that gentleman from doing it again?

I am a gun owner, but when the law came into effect, I turned in my .38 special, which had a short barrel, to the RCMP for destruction. I felt it was not appropriate to have it at that time. I was not a target practice shooter. I wonder if he would comment on that.

We are different countries and we require different things. We need to make sure that those people who are going to commit crimes and carry weapons such as these, which have only one purpose, do serious time in order to deter them from doing anything again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will limit my comments to deterrence as a general answer, but I will say this. Regarding the .357 Magnum, I cannot answer that question, nor could anyone else, without knowing all the facts. Is two and a half years enough? Is four years enough? Is six months enough? I do not know. That is one of the problems with mandatory minimums. If we do not have a full assessment of the case in front of us, if we do not have all the facts, we should not be making a judgment call.

On deterrence as a whole, we know it does not work. If someone is high on meth, do we really think that person is going to think about getting a month, six months, two years or 10 years? People do not think of it. For most crimes involving guns, very little thought goes into it. Oftentimes it is a quick reaction, or passion, or is driven by peer influence, especially with the gangs in the major cities.

The one exception, and it is why we think we should concentrate on this, is the organized crime bosses, mid-level or up. They are the ones who understand that if they are involved and convicted of an organized crime they are going to jail for a longer period of time because of these changes in the law.

If we do the same thing with regard to the importing and the smuggling of weapons, they are the ones we are going to go after. As for the mule who is carrying them across, it does not give us very much to catch that person. We have to get the people further up. They do understand. They do the analysis. It is a very small group of criminals. They are the ones we should be targeting because they are the only ones that this kind of legislation works against.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also work with the hon. member on the justice committee and respect him and his work. I look forward to working with him in the future. I understand from his speech that it was because of his leader's position that he is now talking about four year mandatory minimums in regard to this very restrictive and ideologically driven piece of legislation. Four years is what the previous Liberal government chose as its time limit as the mandatory minimum, this being a floor.

However, this bill has seven year mandatory minimums and even 10 year mandatory minimums. I would like the member to comment briefly on what happens in the sentencing principles of our Criminal Code with the proportionality situation that is the major sentencing principle.

I also would like him to briefly discuss something he did not cover in his speech, which is the different use in this legislation between long guns and restricted or prohibited firearms, which generally are short guns although there are some automatic weapons that are long guns. In these terms, I am referring to shotguns and rifles that are not sawed off. Has he noticed any discrepancies in this piece of legislation that he would be concerned about?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for London West, especially the last part of it, as I had run out of time and wanted to point out what I see as a real failure in this legislation.

During the election, I was at the funeral of a young woman police officer outside of Montreal. She was killed by a long gun. This legislation does not impose mandatory minimums for the use of long guns in such crimes. It does so for restricted weapons only. The minister has tried to explain this to members of my party and to me, but it makes no sense.

Let us take just this one statistic. Of all the police officers who have been killed in this country in the last 20 years, more than half of them were killed by long guns, not handguns. There is no question about the fact that in the last few years the use of handguns has gone up, but there is absolutely no explanation for or logic as to why we would not have that kind of provision in the bill extending to both, to the long guns as well, as opposed to just restricted weapons.

In terms of the proportionality argument, again I did not have time to get to this in my main address, but I have serious doubts about whether the 10 year mandatory minimum would survive a test in our courts under the charter. The courts have made it quite clear in a number of decisions up to this point, including all the way up to the Supreme Court, that they would tolerate seven year mandatory minimums in very limited cases. That seems to be the top end. Ten years is over the top.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

Just about 40 years ago Canada espoused for itself the goal of building a just society, characterized by truth, fairness, equality of opportunity, and a high degree of social cohesion.

Despite 40 years of mostly progressive social policy at the federal level and a decrease in the general crime rates, we are today debating a piece of legislation meant to crack down on crime and to get tougher on criminals.

The Conservative government does not expect this legislation to deter people from committing crimes. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance admitted as much when he allocated more money to the correctional system to accommodate “the expected increase in inmates” that would result from his law and order agenda.

No, Bill C-10 is not going to prevent crime. It is not going to deter criminal activity. The government does hope it will take some criminals off the streets and keep them in jail longer. It hopes that removing the bad apples citizens will feel safer and less fearful.

The general public is naturally fearful of violent crime, particularly when innocent bystanders are its victims, but that natural fear is exacerbated and extended by the culture of fear in which we live. On television most serious drama revolves around violent crime, whether it is Law & Order or Da Vinci's Inquest, murder is usually at the centre of the plot. Even newscasts are filled with crime, terrorism, war and all the accompanying death. Journalists and editors admit making decisions about publication by the code “if it bleeds, it leads”.

In addition to this encompassing fear, citizens are also caught in a clash of values as they teach their children not to shove or hit to solve a dispute. Adults are solving disputes by bombing and destroying whole cities full of people. As teachers lecture that each person is unique, special and deserving of respect, our own Chief of the Defence Staff states publicly that his soldiers are trained to kill and will go after the “scumbags”. It is hard to find respect in that statement.

The contradictions are endless between the values taught by parents, teachers and clergy, and the behaviours observed by adolescents and young adults. Is it any surprise that they are confused about right and wrong?

They see many people whose lives are characterized by vice rather than virtue, and they see those people achieve great wealth and fame. Steroid using professional athletes, drug using entertainers, and money stealing business leaders seem to have lives of ease and pleasure and celebrity. And our media does seem to celebrate these lives of the rich and famous, no matter their route to fame.

We both celebrate wealth and we accommodate the wealthy with friendly tax policies. Between 1986 and 2000 the incomes of the wealthiest 1% of Canadians rose by a whopping 65%, an average increase of $157,000 a year. During the same period, welfare recipients in Alberta saw their incomes drop by 38%, from $14,000 a year to a shameful $8,800.

While young Canadians may be mainly unaware of these statistics, they do have eyes that see increasing numbers of homeless people begging on the streets and they see more monster homes at outrageous prices advertised in the newspapers. They question what they see. They ask, is this fair? Is this just?

I ask, will Bill C-10 help us create a more just society for all? Will the bill bring Canadians together to build supportive communities? I think not.

Bill C-10 is built on a faulty premise, that is the good versus evil vision of the world. In this world people whose behaviour causes harm are identified as evil. The role of justice is to keep our good society safe from this evil.

Even in our good society there have to be some bad people who need to be corrected through punishment. This good versus evil theory encourages quick fixes, such as removing the bad apples to keep the rest of us safe. It leads us to think crime is only the result of a few evil persons and implies that we collectively bear no responsibility for what goes on in the hidden corners of our communities, and that individually we have no connection whatsoever to it. According to this theory we could eliminate crime by isolating all the bad people in jail.

Over the last 30 years North America experienced a doubling and a tripling of incarceration rates, but this had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the amount of crime processed by the state. It appears that as we put away more and more bad apples, a constant stream of fresh apples spontaneously began to rot. Increased incarceration rates did not reduce crime, but did create a tremendous amount of suffering for a rapidly increasing number of prisoners, most of them young males.

The government is obviously committed to the good versus evil vision of the world and the removal of the bad apples methodology, even though it has not been proven to bring about the desired result of safer streets and a more cohesive society.

Instead, the result will be more Canadians in jail for longer periods. Longer sentences will increase the rate at which released prisoners who have served their sentences are inclined to reoffend. The longer they have lived inside the unique and brutal culture of a prison, which some call criminal school, the more difficult it will be for them to adjust to the norms and expectations of mainstream society when they come out.

Who will these new inmates be? Aboriginal people make up only 3.3% of the Canadian population but make up 21% of admissions to provincial custody and 18% of admissions to federal custody. I predict that with the 1,000 more RCMP officers announced in the budget that this overrepresentation of aboriginals in prison will at least continue but will probably increase.

Another group I worry about is visible minority youths in cities. Why? Because one can predict the potential for criminal activity by examining the social determinants of criminal behaviour.

The first determinant is family poverty. Family poverty results in a poorer health status, less optimism about life, less self-confidence and less resiliency to setbacks. The second determinant is a lack of parental involvement and supervision. Parents working very long hours to make ends meet and therefore are not around for the kids. Nobody is at home to help them with homework et cetera. This leads to the third determinant, a lack of success in school and little engagement with extracurricular arts or sports activities. Without classroom or sporting field success, these kids have little chance of feeling included in the school community.

In Ontario the strict rules around behaviour in school expanded the social exclusion already felt by some who were struggling there as they were struggling in life. Once expelled, these children found there was still no one at home and no space for them at school. Everybody needs to feel included somewhere, and in Ontario, during the Harris government years, these abandoned young people found their somewhere on the streets.

Now we have Bill C-10 brought to us by the same sponsors who brought us the Harris education policies. When they would not put money into educational supports for struggling young people, they sewed the seeds for the crop of desperate young people we have today. Now Canadian taxpayers are being asked to pay for the harvest in more correctional spaces for the expected increase in inmates. The price tag for this? It will cost over $80,000 per year for one federal inmate.

In Australia and in the southern United States mandatory minimum sentences overcrowded the prisons and required the building of new ones. After some years of experience taxpayers are lobbying their governments to end mandatory minimums as they have proven to be too expensive and they have not reduced crime rates.

When other jurisdictions have tried a justice strategy and it has failed, why would we try now? When it would result in more Canadian graduates of crime school re-entering our society later, why would we implement it? Have we learned nothing from the studies that show that punishment and retribution are less successful and more expensive than upfront social investment?

Bill C-10 adds to the climate of fear. Its terms dictate that Canada will never achieve the just society envisioned by Trudeau. As one Canadian, I will never stop trying to build that just society and therefore I will be voting against Bill C-10.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on a particular story that I would like to tell.

I have a nephew who is an aboriginal Canadian, actually a treaty member of a band in northern Alberta and a good friend of mine. While I was practising criminal law in northern Alberta, he had occasion to put together about two pages of rap sheets, something in the neighbourhood of between 8 and 12 or 14 criminal convictions. Finally, thank God it happened, he went to jail for two and a half years for a simple assault. As anybody would know who has been involved in the criminal system, that is very serious time.

He went in as a 120 pound crack addict and came out as a 200 pound strapping young man who today has a job, and a family of four beautiful kids living with him. Thanks to the day the judge who sent him away to jail for some serious time for a serious crime. so he has a life today.

I talk to that nephew of mine once every week or two and he is a totally contributing member of our society. I am so proud of that person. I am also proud of that judge for sending him to jail.

I would like the member to comment on that aboriginal nephew of mine from northern Alberta.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca has such low standards.

Everyone who deals with human beings knows that addiction to illegal substances or mind altering substances is an illness, that once the addiction kicks in, these are people who need help.

It is very sad to think that the only place this particular individual could get help was in a jail cell. In my view, it is an indictment of our society that we do not provide the help and health restoring situations for people like that, so that they can come back and fulfill their promise without living in the misery of a jail, excluded from society and given little hope.

Having said that, it seems that it did work for this person, but I, for one, aspire to a much better social support system, rather than throwing these poor, miserable souls in jail.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the last exchange. In the exact case that the Conservative member just gave, this particular bill, Bill C-9, would have exacerbated that situation and may have prevented that success story.

We will incarcerate more people under this legislation. As the justice minister suggested, it would cost about $250 million out of the system, money that could be used for healing, for working on drug addiction and on anger management.

I have visited our prisons. I hope all members will. There were inmates, young aboriginal people most of them, who wanted more services, more education, more anger treatments, and more treatment for drug addiction.

If there is already not enough treatment, how will taking another $250 million out of the system help, especially when prisons will be overcrowded even more by incarcerating more people? I just wanted to make that point.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising this point because all taxpayers should be concerned about the allocation of their money.

Our current Minister of Finance was part of the team that decided to remove from schools all the support, the psychologists, the social workers, the nurses, et cetera, so instead of having one of those professionals per school or per couple of schools, there was one for 30 schools. If a person seemed to have trouble in school and the teachers could not find out why, they could not get a psychologist to come for a full year. That meant the child slipped behind and could not be treated. That was in Ontario.

I say this for the benefit of my colleagues from other provinces. I want to warn them about the placement of tax dollars into things like corrections because the investments have not been made upfront.

I cannot help but mention, not to connect it to corrections, but the whole idea of social investments is to build the strongest and healthiest people who can reach their potential. That is one of the reasons why the people on this side of the House, actually the majority of the House, feel so badly that after 30 years of working to build a child care system, where every child could have early learning opportunities, the government chose to throw out those spaces. Not for every child, but for those children whose parents choose it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

One in twenty.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

No, there are many more waiting for those spaces.

The government never gets in at the bottom level and puts the money in where it is needed for investments. Instead, it comes in at the rear end and puts money into correctional spaces when it could be too late.

I am happy to hear that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca has one success story from our jails, but I think there are probably many more sad stories and many of those could be avoided by investments at the front end of a child's life as opposed to the back end.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-10 on the subject matter of mandatory minimum sentences.

I doubt that there is a member in this place who would not generally agree with the premise that the punishment should fit the crime as a general principle. Add to that the aspect of whether there are circumstances in an individual case which may distinguish it from another case which is the same crime but we have some different facts on the table. I think that members will be aware of a number of cases where there are some circumstances that may be exacerbating and some may even be mitigating. It is for this reason that I am not going to support this bill. I want to amplify some of the reasons.

The former minister of justice will be addressing the House. We are going to hear that there are a couple of analyses of case studies which have been used to justify moving toward these mandatory minimum penalties to a greater extent and members are going to find it quite interesting that these were not interpreted correctly. In fact they would argue strongly against the implementation of stronger mandatory minimums. I hope that members will be present for that speech from the hon. former justice minister.

There has been some question, and I hope it is not the case, about whether or not the judiciary of the courts, the crown attorneys and our justice system generally have been doing the job for us. I hope that members do not believe for a moment there is a reason to be concerned or a suggestion that we have lost confidence in the judiciary and the Supreme Court, which has opined on most of these issues, including mandatory minimum penalties.

One of the things I found interesting in this debate is there seems to be this illusion that there are no mandatory minimum penalties under the current Criminal Code, and that somehow Bill C-10 is going to bring in these tough new mandatory minimums. I cannot count the number of speeches that have already been given that have listed the 42 mandatory minimum penalties that are already under the Criminal Code.

I am not sure if Canadians really understand that there already are penalties. They deal with the full range of the areas about which probably most Canadians would be most concerned. They relate not only to things like impaired driving, betting and bookmaking, but also to high treason, first and second degree murder, the use of a firearm in an indictable offence, and the list goes on.

There are also 10 listed offences that include mandatory minimums related to firearms. Firearms is one of the areas which is emphasized in this bill, particularly as it relates to gang use. They include use of a firearm in the commission of an offence causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, causing bodily harm with intent, sexual assault with a firearm, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, extortion and hostage taking. Certainly there is no debate with regard to these serious crimes.

As I looked at some of the transcripts of the debate, the justice critic for the Liberal Party wrote a legislative summary which I would commend to all members of the House to look at carefully. It is a very difficult bill to read. We have to put it in some context and the context she has put this in would help all hon. members to understand where we might be going here.

One of the key points to know is that this bill is actually going to create new levels of mandatory minimum penalties. It is going to increase them, and with the first set of offences concerning serious offences which are committed with a restricted firearm, one of the things we learn is that under the bill, firearms will not include long guns. I do not know why that is the case.

Back in 1993 when I came here and registration of long arms became an issue, criminal offences committed with long guns were in fact almost as great as criminal offences with handguns and restricted weapons as they now exist. Since that time, the crime rate with long arms actually has gone down very substantially. That should be encouraging to all members with regard to the progress that has been made in terms of ensuring that firearms are used by people who are properly trained, know how to store them properly and transport them properly and use them in a responsible fashion.

I also believe that kind of education process that has been going on for over a decade has led to a greater confidence level in terms of the general population knowing very well that owning a gun is a serious responsibility. This bill has a flavour of inflexibility and I must admit it was concerning to me to find out that in fact the Supreme Court itself has opined on mandatory minimums, particularly increases.

The Supreme Court struck down a seven year mandatory minimum penalty for importing narcotics. The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum penalty of four years for the use of a firearm and criminal negligence causing death. The case was the Queen v Morrissey. The Supreme Court commented in that decision on the negative effects of mandatory minimum sentences for introducing rigidity into the sentencing process. What it really gets down to is the issue of proportionality of sentencing. That is the issue we are really talking about.

We cannot suggest there are no mandatory minimum penalties. I have not heard too many people talk about the deterrence side, but I am not sure whether that is totally relevant because we are talking about crimes for which there is a comprehensive approach to deterrence and certainly the potential penalties are not going to be something that we would rely on totally.

In the remaining time that I have to speak, I want to cite one further example of a situation which I feel would cause me some concern with regard to the rigidity of introducing greater levels of mandatory minimum penalties. It has to do with the population in Canada's jails today.

A research study was done collectively by the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They found that approximately 50% of inmates in provincial jails suffered from alcohol related birth defects. In fact, the former minister of justice of the past government actually confirmed that in federal institutions across the country, approximately 40% to 50% was reflective of the prison population.

When I started off my speech, I talked about whether we should have the punishment fitting the crime. As a general principle, that is a starting point, but are there circumstances in which there would be some difficulty? In a situation where people have mental illnesses or alcohol related birth defects and are put into prison, especially for an extended period of time notwithstanding the crimes that have been committed, their affliction does not allow them to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation of people with mental illness is not applicable. They should not be in the jails in the first place. They should be dealt with in proper institutions which are going to help them and their families to cope and to deal with their problems.

I know the courts are becoming more and more educated about the incidence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is a very serious situation. It is a very significant portion of our population. Indeed, many of these people have committed some of the crimes for which this bill purports to have greater levels of mandatory minimum penalties. I am not sure that it is appropriate. I believe there are circumstances. I believe this bill should probably also cover long arms. I believe that the constitutionality of this bill is going to be challenged by the Supreme Court, if not by the Attorney General.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting Bill C-10. Notwithstanding my belief that the punishment should fit the crime, the circumstances certainly must be taken into account.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question regarding a comment which it seems I have heard 100 times from the opposite side of the House.

If long guns are used in the commission of a crime, people will be charged and it will come under the auspices of Bill C-10. I would like to know why the member and others of his party continually say that if a long gun is used, it will not come under Bill C-10. Why do they say that? It is not true.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the basic reason is it is not the same penalty for a long arm. It is handled differently than a restricted firearm. That is the answer.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member for Mississauga South, he reminded me of the recent election campaign when I went door to door, as did everyone in the House. I listened to many Canadians who did want change to mandatory sentencing with regard to firearms related crimes.

Considering the member's view on long arms and his discussion of fetal alcohol syndrome, I am a little surprised and perhaps he could explain to the House why he would not be prepared to send Bill C-10 to committee to review it and consider amendments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my simple answer to the member would be that the bill in essence creates a rigidity within the sentencing regime which is not reparable. It is the fundamental principle of the bill. That means, for the hon. member's interest, that if the bill is passed at second reading, those principles then become enshrined and cannot be changed at committee.

The member should understand that once we give second reading approval, the approval in principle for the bill is locked in and what a committee can do is very much restricted.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South mentioned statistical data saying that long gun crime had gone down. I was wondering if the member could table that in the House because that is not my understanding of the statistics.

Also, the NDP member who spoke earlier suggested that long arm guns had killed half of the police officers, or something like that. Automatic weapons are long arm guns. They are included in those statistics.

I worked in the trenches. I was a criminal lawyer. I worked for the other side of justice. I believe that this legislation is necessary and it is long overdue. It will solve some problems. It is not going to solve all of them and certainly we have more of an obligation to society than what we are putting forward as a culture, but this will be a good first step to solve it.

It was mentioned earlier by a member opposite that said TV has changed our culture. I remember when I was in Australia, and I mentioned it earlier, every day for the first week I was on the beach because I love the beach. Then all of a sudden within a month I did not go to the beach at all. Within three years I probably showed up there once every two or three months.

The reality is people get desensitized. That is what happens with judges. We can see statistics that show when they become judges they are hard; they are fast. They make sure that the person does time for crime. Unfortunately when they hear that every day, just like when people see murders on TV, just like when people go to Australia and see the beach every day, they become desensitized.

That is why we as a group, as a body of Canadians, must represent those people back in the constituency who want some answers and want some changes. This bill will do that. This will set a template for judges to follow and make sure the judges follow the guidelines of Canadians.

I would like the member opposite to comment on the desensitization of judges.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the member's own mouth, the idea that I referred to of whether or not there was a respect for our judiciary, obviously the member has decided that the judiciary is not doing a good job for us. He is implying somehow that the bill is going to do something new. It does not do anything new. All it does is introduce additional levels of mandatory minimum penalties. They already are there.

The Supreme Court of Canada has opined on this issue. It takes away from the fundamental principle of proportionality of sentencing. It takes it out of the courts' hands.

If the member has lost confidence in the judicial system, he should support the bill and take the sentencing out of the hands of the judges. If he supports proportionality, if he supports a system which takes into account the circumstances on a case by case basis, whether it be someone suffering from an alcohol related birth defect or other mental illness, and the member is shaking his head. When 40% to 50% of the people in the jails of Canada suffer from mental illness or other alcohol related birth defects, he cannot shake his head and say it is not applicable. There is nothing more applicable in this case than fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East, EnerGuide program; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, passports.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, as the member of Parliament for Parry Sound—Muskoka, to address the House and to speak to Bill C-10 introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, on May 4.

As we on this side of the House know, the bill proposes to tackle gun violence in a manner that is specific. The specific focus is on gang and gang activity.

Canadians in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, from Parry Sound to Dorset, from Port Loring to Honey Harbour are all too familiar with the reported stories of gangs engaged in turf wars, often in public areas where innocent bystanders are shot in the crossfire.

The police also relate incidents of illegal gun trafficking, for example, handguns being rented out for the night from the trunk of a car and illegal guns traced back to the United States origins being smuggled into Canada.

We recently discovered, on a farm outside of London, Ontario, eight murdered men who were reportedly members of a notorious biker gang, which brought to the forefront the whole spectre of organized crime in Ontario. However, that particular rural spot could have been any other place in Canada. It could have been just outside of Bala in my riding or just further south in the riding of my colleague from Simcoe North, somewhere out of Orillia.

While this particular crime has stunned all Canadians, communities and provinces have faced organized crime and the fear and terror it brings, unfortunately, for some period of time. For instance, the province of Quebec has long faced reported violence stemming from Outlaw motorcycle gangs, including biker wars over control of organized crime and the illicit drug trade.

Gang and gun related crimes have an impact on the Canadian way of life, on the safety and well-being of our communities and on the livelihood of our businesses. This type of violence has absolutely no place in our children's schoolyards, in our communities, in our cities and throughout our great nation.

Bill C-10 seeks to crack down on gangs and guns. It seeks to make gang members who use guns accountable, once and for all, for their crimes. The use of a gun in a crime that relates to a criminal organization would result in mandatory minimum penalties. I speak in favour of that. Police report that the firearm of choice for street gangs and drug traffickers are handguns or other restricted or prohibited firearms. This is supported by available data from Statistics Canada.

In the homicide statistics for 2003, the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics focused on the characteristics of homicide incidents in Canada and found that gang related homicides increased. While the centre explained that some of the sharp increases are due to changes in reporting practices, there has been a notable increase over the past decade since the collection of this kind of data commenced.

In 1993, for instance, there were 13 victims of gang related homicides, 13 too many. However, in 2003 there were not 13 gang related homicides, there were 84. Victims of gang related homicides accounted for approximately 15% of all homicides. We know the targets are not just gang members. Innocent bystanders killed as a result of gang and gun related crimes are victims as well. How can we forget the Toronto Boxing Day shooting spree that resulted in the tragic death of 15-year-old Jane Creba?

All of us were on the campaign trail at the time but I am sure every member of the House heard people in our constituencies, at the door, at the coffee parties and at all candidates meetings expressing sorrow for Jane Creba's needless death and demanding that the next elected member of Parliament in each of our constituencies took this issue of gang related gun violence seriously.

I heard the message at every campaign meeting I had in Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound and Gravenhurst, as I am sure every member heard it in their respective constituencies. This innocent girl was caught in the crossfire of a gun battle on the busiest street in Canada and on the busiest shopping day of the year in broad daylight. The most common motive underlying gang and gun related homicides was reported to be the settling of accounts. Drug debts, turf wars, revenge and arguments were other common motives.

The homicide survey also found that the proportion of handguns used in firearm related homicides continues to escalate and that the types of firearms used during the commission of a homicide have changed over the past three decades. This is what the hon. member was talking about earlier. These are the statistics. Prior to 1990, rifles and shotguns were more commonly used to commit homicide. However, beginning in the early 1990s, the proportions began to dramatically reverse. By 2003, 68% of firearm homicides were committed with handguns. The survey further reported that most handguns used to commit homicides were not registered. This should come as no surprise.

Although these statistics relate specifically to homicides, Canadian crime statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics show similar proportions of handguns being present in other violent crimes as well.

I do not need to remind the House that handguns are restricted firearms. Few Canadians are authorized to possess handguns and yet they continue to be more prevalent in violent gun crimes. Handguns, illegal restricted firearms, are the first choice weapon for criminals who want to advance the interests of their criminal organization.

While the overall firearm crime rates have decreased in Canada over the last three decades, it is not true when it comes to the proportion of violent crime committed with handguns or other restricted or prohibited firearms.

Gang and gun related crimes are an issue for all Canadians. It happens too often. One life lost to gang and gun violence is one life too many.

I come down on the side of my constituents in Parry Sound—Muskoka to say that it is time the House tackled this problem directly and Bill C-10 would do precisely that. The bill encompasses the firearms most commonly used in violent crimes and the offenders involved in gangs. The bill also targets other serious firearm related crimes of increased concern to law enforcement officials, such as the theft, trafficking and smuggling of guns, the illegal possession of a gun or if a person is already prohibited from possessing firearms.

Bill C-10 sends a clear message to those who use handguns and illegal weapons to commit crimes that their actions will result in real penalties. These penalties would escalate in the event that a prior offender chooses to use a handgun or a restricted weapon for further crimes. The bill also assures Canadians and my constituents of Parry Sound—Muskoka that the government is committed to creating safer streets and stronger communities.

I urge all members of the House to support the bill.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Health is here I would like to take the opportunity to ask him a few questions about health, the number one issue affecting Canadians, no doubt, as it relates to the bill.

As the minister mentioned, people are shot in our country and are then met with the health care system. As the minister knows, the waiting lines in our emergency departments are extremely long.

I have two questions for the minister. First, is he prepared to meet with his provincial counterparts on how the private sector and public sector can work together to support the public sector?

Second, will he work with various other health care professionals to establish a national medical manpower strategy for Canada? As he knows, we have a major deficit in terms of our physicians, nurses and other health care professionals who are growing older, as we too grow older.

The first question concerns working with his provincial counterparts to develop a national medical manpower strategy and the second one concerns developing a strategy to ensure the private sector supports the public sector and does not erode it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca started out by announcing that his questions were not relevant to the debate and proceeded to prove it. The Minister of Health is free to answer the questions if he so chooses but the questions were not about the legislation at hand.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to look at Hansard you would find that the questions in my preamble related to the relevance of my questions to the bill at hand, not the irrelevance.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The Minister of Health.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this place this afternoon as the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka. I would say to the hon. member that of course we are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts on wait time reductions and wait time guarantees.

However, if the hon. member wants to reduce wait times in trauma units, pass Bill C-10. If he wants to reduce the amount of crime and violence that is hurting, maiming and killing our men, women and children, pass Bill C-10.

I stand here today, not as the Minister of Health, but as a father, as a husband, as a son of a mother and a father and as someone who represents my community of Parry Sound—Muskoka, to say, pass Bill C-10.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Health not somewhat naive in believing a law will solve the problem of gangs?

It is true that we had problems with gangs in Quebec. He mentioned it earlier. However, we solved them without enacting a law. Since we succeeded without the proposed legislation, what is the usefulness of this law?

He gives us examples of carnage in Toronto. Can he promise us today that there will be no more carnage in the streets because of his very effective law?

He speaks of weapons smuggled into Canada. It would be better to talk about establishing a police force to patrol the entire border rather than banning weapons and imposing longer sentences.

My question for the minister is as follows: does he believe that he can really reduce the crime rate simply by increasing sentences? Is this not 17th-century thinking?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are in the 21st century. At this time, in our country, it is important to first protect our citizens. It is imperative that we have laws to deal with the challenges of gangs and crime. We must have effective laws with minimum sentences.

That is what this bill is all about and our government supports this strategy. It is my belief, and my hope, that this bill will bring about improvements to counter crime, protect our citizens from gangs and crime, and provide better protection for our society.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I gave a speech in which I talked about the relevance of mental illness and alcohol related birth defects in the context that some 40% to 50% of the inmates in the prisons of Canada suffer from those symptoms, which require something different than rehabilitation as prescribed in our jails.

Is the Minister of Health aware of some initiatives within the judicial system that takes cognizance of the realities of alcohol related birth defects? Are persons, who are put into that environment, taken care of in an appropriate fashion given their condition and is this appropriately reflective in the kind of sentencing the judicial system is handing out?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the latest trends in rehabilitation dealing with FASD. In fact, it has been the federal government's position for some time that additional research should be funded through CIHR on the impacts and potential amelioration of FASD issues.

We, on this side of the House, believe the first obligation of any government is to protect society from criminal behaviour, from gang and gun related crimes. This bill is about getting that protection in place because it is not there now. After that protection is in place, there are many tools available to us, as a society, to deal with individuals who are taken away from society and incarcerated to protect society. Then we can deal with the other questions of how this individual came to be in a life of crime. There are probably as many reasons as there are criminals.

I heard the hon. member's speech and I listened to it very closely. I would encourage the hon. member to do the right thing and protect society first by supporting Bill C-10. That will enable us to do our job as parliamentarians. Then we can deal with some of the issues that he cares about when it comes to the perpetrators of crimes in our society.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the Minister of Health. I share his goal of having a peaceful society where our families, the public, our fellow Canadians live in safety. We agree on that point. However, I do not share his opinion on how to achieve that. As you know, if this bill were implemented, about 300 more people would be incarcerated in federal penitentiaries and about 4,000 more in provincial institutions.

Of course, with more people incarcerated, we would come closer to the American standard. Far more people are incarcerated in the United States than in Canada.

Does the minister believe that the United States is safer than Canada? Are cities like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago safer than our cities because more people are in prison?

As well, he is not taking into account the proven fact that prisons are crime schools. Very often, young offenders learn how to commit other crimes when they go to prison for the first time. They are better criminals when they are released from prison, so they naturally return to a life of crime. I would like the minister's opinion on that.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I repeat that it is important to have laws in place to protect Canadians. In my opinion, that is the main challenge facing this House. Of course, this bill may lead to more incarcerations, because we have to protect Canadians. If we need more resources for incarcerations, I am prepared to find funding to protect Canadians. I think this meets a social need.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-10.

First of all, I would never have dared to rise in this House and express my party’s position without having discussed it in advance with my colleagues, including the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who chairs our caucus and is a very learned man. He is so learned in fact that he has been given the important responsibility of sitting on the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, a kind of crossroads for information. I want to take this opportunity to thank him, and I am sure that my colleagues will want to join me in doing so.

Let us get down to the matter at hand. I have consulted, of course, with my colleagues and read the jurisprudence. I even went and found information beyond what was available in caucus. The conclusion that we must draw, unfortunately, is that this is a very bad bill in every way.

I am sure that, Insofar as crime is concerned, there is not a single member of this House who is not concerned about the safety of our communities. Not one member of this House wants to live in communities that fail to value safety, peace and civic-mindedness.

There are various levels in criminality. Earlier, I was sorry to see the health minister, himself a former member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, confusing certain levels. This causes misunderstandings, which I would like to clear up right away.

In 1995, the Bloc Québécois, this formidable instrument, was concerned about a new phenomenon: the fight against extremely well organized crime. The hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who is a very learned man, as I said, will remember well. Back then, there were 33 outlaw motorcycle gangs in Canada’s big cities. Some of them were in Montreal, including the Bandidos, the Rock Machine and Hells Angels.

There was an entirely new phenomenon: these biker gangs worked through delegation. It was not the gang leader, Maurice “Mom” Boucher, who would give the orders and do things for which he could be put on trial. There was a whole chain of delegation, with the result that it was impossible to dismantle these gangs.

At the time, Michel Bellehumeur of the Bloc Québécois worked with me and other members of our caucus. Since then, Mr. Bellehumeur has been elevated to the bench. The debate was non-partisan, since everyone shared the same concerns. At the time, the first bill was Bill C-95. It introduced a new offence, which was added to the Criminal Code, namely, membership in a criminal organization. This included all sorts of terms and conditions that need not be listed here. That is not what we are talking about today. We must not confuse the levels.

In 1995, Allan Rock was justice minister. I am not sure whether this conjures good or bad memories for my colleagues in this House.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I believe my colleague has good memories, but it depends on one's outlook. At the time, Allan Rock tabled Bill C-68, which, all of a sudden, added minimum sentences for offences committed with a firearm. For example, a four-year minimum sentence was imposed for each of the following: manslaughter, using firearm in commission of offence; attempted murder, using firearm in commission of offence; causing bodily harm with intent, using firearm in commission of offence; aggravated sexual assault, using firearm in commission of offence.

At present, there are approximately 15 offences in the Criminal Code which have existed for the past decade and for which mandatory minimum sentences already exist.

We do not dispute the fact that crimes committed with guns are something to worry about. The Bloc Québécois does not dispute the fact that we must curb, even eradicate, gun trafficking. What we have difficulty with is this.

When the Minister of Justice appeared before the committee that I am a member of to defend his interim supply, I asked him quite directly a very simple question. For a decade now, we have had mandatory minimum sentences for the use of firearms. I asked him whether he had any empirical or scientific studies that would show us the impact of implementing these mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. Amazingly, the minister, and I do not doubt his good faith, was unable to cite a single study. The same was true when I met with senior officials, who were all very nice. We are not trying to show bad faith or impugn motive. But why were they unable to cite any studies? Because the Department of Justice did not conduct any.

I do not mind being asked, as a legislator, to take what are considered the most effective means to address this phenomenon of committing any number of offences with guns. However, I would expect to be asked to do so on the basis of convincing and conclusive evidence.

That is the problem with this government. It is deeply ideological, but in an unhealthy way. We are all driven by ideologies. We all have convictions. There are some things in public life that are more important to us than others. However, we must show some scientific rationality or, at least, some rationality with a few scientific aspects.

I cannot support the addition of mandatory minimum sentences simply for the principle of it. I want Bill C-10 to be fully understood. It affects the following eight offences in the Criminal Code: attempted murder, discharging firearm with intent, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion. Minimum sentences already exist for these offences, whether for three years, five years or whatever. It is already in the Criminal Code. Anyone who reads the Criminal Code will see that minimum sentences exist for each of these offences.

Bill C-10 proposes that three year sentences be increased to five, five year sentences to seven, and seven year ones to ten. Thus, mandatory minimum sentences are being made stiffer for no reason other than wanting to crack down on criminals. That is what is unhealthy. Naturally, we want offenders to be prosecuted and we do not want them to use firearms to commit crimes.

I would like to begin with three comments. Such an ideology suggests that we are living in a more violent society. When the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie appointed me as justice critic, after thanking him and vowing to do my best to be equal to the task, the first thing I did was to look up the crime statistics. I was listening to the speeches of ministers and other members of the Conservative Party, and I had even read their electoral platform. To listen to the Conservatives, one would think that society is more violent than ever, that crime has never been so widespread and that crime rates are on the rise.

When we make the effort to look up the statistics, however, we can see that overall, from 1991 to 2000, the crime rate dropped by 26%. And these are not statistics compiled by researchers for the Bloc, the PQ or some lobby group. These are statistics from Statistics Canada or Juristat.

Moving to what is termed violent crime, for the sake of clarity, for Statistics Canada, violent crimes include murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault, kidnapping and robbery, all of which are intrinsically worrisome. Hon. members will agree that these are no small crimes. The fact of the matter is that, from 1992 to 2004, the number of violent crimes diminished from year to year. It was simple enough; I made a table. So, from 1992 to 2004, violent crime diminished, 2003 being the exception, since nationally, three provinces which shall remain unnamed saw their crime rates increase. Nevertheless, from 1992 to 2004, violent crime overall diminished.

When the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I asked him to table his statistics. I told him that we are all intellectuals, well-educated, open and pretty nice, so surely we could compare our statistics. I told him that perhaps I was mistaken and had interpreted them incorrectly. The minister did not table them. Yesterday I rose on a point of order and asked the minister to table them. When he appeared, he had the statistics with him and could have tabled them there and then. Three weeks after he appeared, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are still waiting for those statistics. The Minister of Justice had the clerk tell us that it was a big job and would take a lot of time. But the minister had them in hand.

I am going to use the conditional. I have some doubts. I would suspect that the minister does not wish to table his statistics because they do not support his point of view, which is purely ideological. I can assure you that the Bloc Québécois will not allow the Minister of Justice to masquerade as George Bush just to please his constituents. We will be a little more demanding than that.

That said, we do not support Bill C-10. I would remind the House that in 1995, a certain number of minimum sentences were already added in the case of offences for which the minister would like to see increased sentences. More fundamentally, this leads us to consider carefully and decide whether, in our justice system, the use of mandatory minimum sentences has a deterrent effect. We must ask ourselves what a minimum sentence is.

A minimum sentence means that, during a trial by jury, nothing is left to the judge's discretion. In fact, the jury decides whether the defendant is guilty, but who decides on the sentence? Unlike the French system, it is not the jury but the trial judge. The judge has heard and seen the evidence and heard the witnesses. A criminal trial can last up to four weeks. It is very meticulous. The rules regarding evidence are very strict. This bill sends a message to trial judges that, although they are responsible for administering the sentence, we, as legislators, want to force them, with their hands tied, in one direction or another.

In the past, with some notable exceptions, we have not supported minimum sentences. My predecessor, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, was well-liked in this House.

He was our justice critic. I hope one day to be his equal in terms of his knowledge and dedication. Everyone liked the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. He was the one to suggest to our caucus that minimum sentences be imposed for cases of child pornography, for example. However, the Bloc Québécois is generally not in favour of the idea of establishing minimum sentences. We are not convinced that they are effective.

In the mid-1980s, the government established a commission of inquiry, the Archambault commission, mandated to review the principles of sentencing. It is quite significant that this commission did not recommend minimum sentences, except in the case of murder which carries a sentence of life imprisonment. The Archambault sentencing commission did not recommend mandatory minimum sentences for any other crime.

I repeat: it is somewhat pathetic and somewhat sad. I have friends on the government side. In fact, I have only friends and no enemies in this House, and I am proud of that. However, I must remark that the Conservatives find themselves on the slippery slope of ideology. Once again, this bill is the direct result of the government's desire to please its electoral base—western Canada—which finds security in the idea that the longer the sentence, the safer our society. Unfortunately, it is an intellectual trap.

I use the example of the United States which resorts to incarceration quite a bit. In Canada, according to the latest statistics I consulted, 116 individuals per 100,000 inhabitants are jailed. Do you know what the rate of incarceration is for the United States? Over 700 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 116 per 100,000 in Canada. Yet, when we look at the rates of homicide and violent offences we realize that the number of prison sentences is higher.

I would like the cabinet to think about that. I am asking the President of the Treasury Board to reflect on this issue. I know that the latter, in his own way, is a humanist. He is conservative, very conservative, overly conservative, excessively conservative. However, he is my friend. I am asking him to think about it. Is there a relation between incarceration and the safety that our communities wish to achieve? All criminologists and academics have reflected on this question.

As recently as last week, I had an initial meeting with representatives of the defence attorneys association. This is not a group that could be accused of being partisan. It is made up of lawyers who study the law and sentence administration as objectively as possible. Did you know that the association strongly opposes bills C-9 and C-10? I must say that if we listed all the people who oppose these bills, we would see, as I have seen, that it is much longer than the list of people who support the bills.

Everyone in this House knows what I am like and that I am a cooperative sort of person. But I will not be able to push this bill through quickly in committee. The Bloc Québécois will have to do its work. Unfortunately, we will ask to travel, to hear witnesses and to investigate. Amending the Criminal Code is no small matter. It must always be balanced. We cannot take it lightly.

I was told that in the government back rooms, they wanted the bill passed before St. Jean Baptiste Day. That is certainly foolhardy. It presents a problem, because I do not think that the committee can work under pressure, as that would be totally incompatible with the seriousness expected of parliamentarians.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore be unable to work so that the bill is at the report stage by St. Jean Baptiste Day. We know that this year, June 24 will reflect Quebeckers' hopes and aspirations. It is not only an opportunity to hold a cabinet meeting, but it is also an opportunity to remember how Quebec is a nation and how Quebec will one day be a sovereign country, on an equal footing with English Canada. That is the meaning of our national holiday. And that is what all Bloc Québécois members will have in mind as they celebrate on June 23 and 24. Of course, we will remain very open to any wishes anyone might want to extend to us on that occasion. But let us not digress from the meaning of the bill. Let us stick to the basics.

In addition to the eight offences that the government proposes to create with Bill C-10—and for which there are already minimum sentences that the government wants to increase from three to five years, from five to seven years and from seven to ten years—it is creating two new offences.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if it is not something—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will make this short, as I see that other questions need to come from our group. I found one comment in the member's speech really interesting. He talked about “those guys from the west” who are really weird thinkers in terms of dealing so harshly with criminals. I thought that was a really interesting comment.

The other thing I keep hearing all the time is that we are seeking a balance. I would like his definition of a balance. I will give him mine. It would about 5% for the criminal who attacks our innocent people, which would include all the basic rights that he is entitled to under the Constitution, and about 95% to protect our society from people like that, who continually make dangerous situations.

That is my definition of balance. Would the member agree with my definition or is that just another western version of being off balance?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only certainty I have in this House is that the hon. member is not unbalanced. Everyone who has rubbed shoulders with him knows that he is not unbalanced. He is an engaging fellow with a biting sense of humour. He has obviously found some people to applaud the fact that he was not the justice minister, but unbalanced he is not.

This being said, it is not westerners who are being called into question but the electoral base that the Conservative Party wants to win over by creating the impression, with no scientific evidence, that there is a connection between sentencing and recidivism rates. There is no such connection. I look forward to seeing the studies that will show this when the minister appears to defend bills C-9 and C-10.

Our hon. colleague asks us to be balanced. In my view, the best balance is when people who deserve to be put on trial are put on trial; when people who deserve a chance to be rehabilitated have that chance; and when people who cannot be rehabilitated are sanctioned appropriately. This has always been the position of the Bloc Québécois, and we think that it is balanced.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member said he was going to vote to send the bill to committee. Could I just make sure that the Bloc Québécois will be voting for this at second reading? Is that what he said? I just am not clear. Could he clarify whether the Bloc will be voting for or against this?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will not vote to refer this bill to a committee at second reading.

Without the amendments we want, we will not vote in favour at report stage.

We will also not work in this hasty way, which reminds us of the German proverb to the effect that speed is the enemy of wit.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments by the member. I heard him speak about statistics and say that the statistics actually indicate that crime is going down in the country. Would the member elaborate on that and perhaps let us know why he thinks this is in fact the case? Maybe we should be doing more of that as opposed to what is being proposed here.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. In general, crime is going down, violent crime too, and there are two reasons for that.

The first is demography. There are more and more older people in our society, and they are not much inclined to violent crime.

The second is the reason that should most give us pause to think things over, and it is that the economy is doing rather well. In general, there is a correlation between economic downturns and crime: when the economy is doing well, there is less crime.

I think that these factors should be taken into account.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. He made me think of something which I would like him to comment on.

Systematically increasing sentences will result in additional costs to the penitentiary system. In turn, this will mean less money available for rehabilitation. So, this will strengthen the vicious circle of crime school.

Would it not be better to stick to the existing rules, which have brought about the reduction in crime clearly described by the hon. member?

Is it not important to stress that imprisoning offenders year after year is a very expensive proposition? In addition, rehabilitation will be less effective inside than if a judge had found them eligible for conditional sentences, which have been discussed as part of another bill. Today, we are at it again.

Does this proposal not have a very negative effect on the funding allocated to prevention?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, as we have become used to from the hon. member. He is totally right. Keeping someone in detention costs a minimum of $100,000, as compared to between $12,000 and $13,000 for those allowed to serve their time in the community. This is something we have to think about. My colleague from the Quebec City area will probably want to give it some thought.

It is very important to point out that many people view prison as a great school for crime. I am not saying that it is necessarily so, but that is certainly a very wise statement. The greatest contradiction in the Conservatives' position is that they want to combat crime, but they want to do so by ensuring that there is a maximum of weapons in circulation.

One of the best ways to combat organized crime is probably with a functional, controlled gun registry. That is what my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and the leader of the Bloc Québécois have called for repeatedly.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious. I have practised as a criminal lawyer in the past and several times today I have asked questions in the House when I just could not help it. I practised as a criminal lawyer for 10 years and I must tell members that many times I saw criminals, and I say criminals, laughing as they walked out of the courtroom. They were laughing at the inability of the court to give them a sentence. It was shameful. I was embarrassed with the results that I saw many times.

I have two questions for the member. I think the member's attitude and the attitude of all the members of the House who are opposed to Bill C-10 would change if it were their daughter, mother, father or son who was killed as a result of walking down a street and being the subject of gunfire that they had nothing to do with.

First, what better suggestions does the member have on how to curb the increase in gun violence? Second, how many more innocent victims must die until there is enough evidence to convince him?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I have a great deal of respect for the member, surely you will agree that his question smacks of demagoguery. Unfortunately, that kind of talk will get us nowhere.

If somebody tried to kill one of my loved ones, or hurt them in any way—obviously I would never want that to happen, but it has nothing to do with the bill before us. What we are saying is that the Criminal Code already contains provisions for incarcerating people who commit crimes with firearms. Mandatory minimum sentencing does not stop people from committing these crimes. When a person commits a crime, they are not deterred by minimum sentences, but by the real possibility of ending up in court. This is not about innocent victims.

Is my colleague holding American society up as an example? Does he think we should resort to incarceration as much as they do? In the past two years, Americans have jailed 717 people and 723 people per 100,000, yet there are three times more murders in the United States than in Quebec. Does the member agree that his logic breaks down completely here? Mandatory minimum sentences and more people in jail do not make for a less violent society.

If he were to ask me what we can do, I would tell him that I would be most interested to hear about the Conservative government's strategy for fighting poverty.

Next week, I will table an anti-poverty bill, which I hope will receive the support of all of my colleagues in this House. Canada is the only jurisdiction that does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of social condition. Eight provincial governments have it, but the federal government does not—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brant.

Safe streets and safe communities are the shared aspiration of all Canadians and the common objective of all parliamentarians and parties. No political party can claim that it alone speaks or cares for the safety of all Canadians or that it alone is legislating for that purpose.

Indeed, in the matter of combating gun and gang related crime, the Liberal government tabled legislation in November 2005, then known as Bill C-82, that proposed 12 amendments to the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code and which was part of a five point strategy to combat gang and gun related crime, including: first, tougher laws and proportionate penalties; second, more effective law enforcement; third, heightened recognition of the needs and concerns of victims; fourth, the prevention of crime through a hope and opportunity package; and fifth, civic engagement.

The government's crime control policy contains some of these features, but it mentions nothing about civic engagement and it understates the case with respect to a hope and opportunity package and crime prevention. I intend to focus my remarks on the legislative remedy the government proposes, Bill C-10, and the exaggerated and excessive mandatory minimums around which it is organized.

It is important to note that there are already 20 gun related mandatory minimums in the Criminal Code. Those who argue that mandatory minimums were an electoral deathbed conversion of the Liberal government ignore the fact that it was a Liberal government which in 1995 initiated these very 20 gun related mandatory minimums, and that in November 2005, on behalf of the government and pursuant to the recommendations of the provincial and territorial attorneys general--what I might say was an exercise in open federalism--we then recommended modest increases to mandatory minimums in matters relating to trafficking and smuggling of firearms and the like.

The question, then, is this. What legislative remedy constitutes an evidentiary based, principled and effective approach to combating gun related crime and helping to secure safe streets and safe communities and, in that context, is distinct from what might otherwise be regarded as an ideologically based, politically motivated and ultimately ineffective approach to crime control?

Let us begin by looking at the evidence, indeed, looking at the particulars of the alleged evidence that was invoked by the justice minister himself with respect to justifying this legislation. I am now citing from the justice minister's remarks on May 7:

Gun crimes have been reduced dramatically in those jurisdictions that targeted those gun crimes through mandatory minimum prison sentences. The experience of a number of states, a number of studies, demonstrate that--Boston, [Massachusetts] Virginia, Florida, New York and other jurisdictions consistently demonstrate that.

Let us now look at the facts, because the facts have evidence to the contrary. With respect to Massachusetts, in his 2003 testimony concerning sentencing reform proposals, William J. Leahy, Chief Counsel for the Committee for Public Counsel Services for Massachusetts, said that mandatory minimum sentencing “has proven to be a public policy nightmare: ineffective at preserving the public safety, and recklessly wasteful as fiscal policy”. A 2004 report from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Corrections Reform, in a section on minimum mandatory sentences, states, “Quite simply, based on what we now know about reducing re-offense, this is a recipe for recidivism rather than a recipe for effective risk reduction”.

With regard to Florida, the minister appears to have based his conclusion on a 2005 press release from the Florida Department of Corrections claiming that the state's 10-20-life program has had impressive results. The facts, however, are otherwise. A 2005 study by the University of Florida attributes any decrease in crime to the national decrease in crime that began before the law took effect, noting also that there was a greater drop in crime before the law went into effect.

We find the same thing with respect to Virginia and with respect to New York state. Time does not permit me to go ahead and cite in both those matters, but the principle remains the same. There is no evidentiary based justification for the kind of excessive and exaggerated mandatory minimums as are set forth in this bill.

This brings me to look at the situation in terms of other evidentiary approaches. It is not only that the evidence from the very American jurisdictions that the justice minister relies upon demonstrate the exact opposite, but even the academic studies that he relies upon, such as the highly regarded work by Thomas Marvelle and Carlisle Moody, also conclude otherwise than that of the justice minister, who sought to rely on this study for his evidentiary based approach.

Indeed, the vast preponderance of studies in every jurisdiction have concluded that mandatory minimums are neither a deterrent nor are they effective. That includes the American Sentencing Commission and the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the American Bar Association and the Canadian Bar Association, the early comprehensive study by the Royal Commission for the Revision of the Criminal Code in 1952 and the more recent studies by the Law Commission of Canada; and includes comprehensive studies by the international expert, Professor Julian Roberts of Oxford University, the exhaustive comparative study by Professor Thomas Gabor, University of Ottawa and Nicole Crutcher, Carleton University, as well as the 1999 research report to the then Solicitor General of Canada, which after surveying 50 studies involving 300,000 offenders, concluded that longer incarcerations were not associated with reduced recidivism. In fact, the opposite was found. Longer sentences were associated with a 3% increase in recidivism.

Bill C-10 is not only not evidenced based legislation, but it also marginalizes the principled approach to sentencing policy introduced by the enactment of section 718 of the Criminal Code, the most comprehensive sentencing reform ever enacted, which includes a composite set of sentencing objectives, and is organized around the proportionality principle, namely, that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the responsibility of the offender; and which incorporates, by reference, the individualization principle, the appreciation that every crime has a different set of circumstances and every criminal is different. The judiciary must be allowed the necessary discretion, which Parliament intended, to invoke and apply this principled and just approach to sentencing, including also the principle of restorative justice in that regard.

This leads me to the third consideration, and that is whether mandatory minimums are in fact effective. When we look at it, what we now know, as a result of all the evidence based inquiry, is that mandatory minimums also have adverse and prejudicial fall-out for the criminal justice system. One might call it the law of unintended consequences, which includes that they increase the prison population, resulting in increased prison costs to the taxpayer, and opportunity costs, as less funds are available for law enforcement, community programs and crime prevention while not bringing about the desired objective of safe streets and safe communities.

The prosecutors may stay or withdraw a charge or negotiate for a lesser charge because the MMs are too harsh. The decisions may move from the judiciary to the prosecution and result in fact in lower conviction rates. Where a mandatory minimum charge is maintained and the accused has less incentive to plead guilty could lead to increased trials and more costly trials. Arrest rates, charges, plea bargains and convictions have actually declined with mandatory minimums while the trial costs have increased.

Mandatory minimums have an adverse impact on minority defendants, in particular on aboriginal defendants who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and on aboriginal women who have been increasingly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Mandatory minimums become the sentencing ceiling for the offence rather than the minimum, achieving the exact opposite of what sound public policy would wish.

As the Canadian Bar Association summarized in 2005 in that regard after a survey of all the evidence:

Mandatory minimum penalties do not advance the goal of deterrence...do not target the most egregious or dangerous offenders...have a disproportionate impact on minority groups...and subvert important aspects of Canada's sentencing regime.

It is not surprising that Professor Anthony Doob asked plaintively in 2001, “Why are we still discussing whether Canada should have mandatory minimums?” He repeated that again recently. Professor Marie-Andrée Bertrand, referring to Bill C-10, after examining it, said:

This is a catastrophe. She said, and I quote, “No fewer than 24 new offences will be subject to four years of imprisonment. This is a catastrophe”.

In conclusion, this legislation is an ideologically inspired, politically motivated and ineffective approach to combating crime. What is needed is an evidence based, principles based and effective approach that would realize our shared objective of safe streets and safe communities.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit to the House that I am a bit confused. I do not know whether it is flip or flop with that member.

I sat in opposition for the longest time and heard the member say that he was against mandatory minimum sentences. However, just before the election and before his then government was toppled, all of a sudden he turned on a dime and his party was for minimum sentences, as were members of the NDP.

First, once and for all, could the member tell us, now that we are not about to go to the polls, if he is for or against mandatory minimum penalties today.

Second, if we read the offences that are contemplated to be covered by the bill, they include attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent. Could the member tell us why he is siding on the side of the people perpetrating these offences and not on the side of protecting victims, victims like Jane--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to three approaches to the whole question of mandatory minimums. The first is an evidence-based inquiry. Studies show that they are neither a deterrent nor are they effective. The second is a principled approach, and I have shown that it marginalizes, if not undermines, the proportionality principle which is at the core of the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code. The third is are they effective? I have shown that the evidence discloses the fact they may have adverse impacts.

As I have constantly stated, in the matter of gun related crimes, we enacted 20 mandatory minimums in 1995. In that particular instance we felt the evidence on the specificity of gun related crimes allowed for modest approaches to mandatory minimums, not exaggerated and excessive approaches to mandatory minimums.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to some of the speeches from members opposite and have heard various references to specific cases and the suggestion from members opposite that a general or sweeping conclusion can and frankly should be drawn from an analysis of simply a few cases or a few situations. Drawing sweeping conclusions as a result of only a few situations is always risky and is, with respect, intellectually rather shallow.

Having practised law for 25 years prior to my election to this distinguished House of Commons in June 2004, I represented many individuals who were charged with various criminal offences. I obviously cannot breach solicitor-client privilege by referring to specific names, but I can certainly indicate that I have observed non-custodial sentences work for the benefit of society, for the benefit of the victim, for the benefit of the offender's family and for the offender himself or herself.

I am referring to individuals who were charged with a criminal offence, in some cases a serious criminal offence. They appeared before the presiding judge and, following a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt, the presiding judge then obviously turned his or her mind to the issue of sentence or penalty.

It is important to recall the edict of a most distinguished counsel and later jurist, the late G. Arthur Martin. Mr. Justice Martin served with distinction for many years on the Ontario Court of Appeal and was widely regarded in his time as the pre-eminent authority with respect to criminal law throughout Canada. Mr. Justice Martin and many others have commented that the overriding principle of sentencing is to determine what this particular offender deserves by way of punishment for this particular offence. The reality is that human behaviour does not lend itself to a simple or computer driven analysis and it is too simplistic to conclude that there will automatically be a deterrent effect if the sentencing bar is only set high enough or harsh enough.

I can think of many cases in which an offender, a family man, received a non-custodial sentence as a result of a finding of guilt against him. The non-custodial sentence allowed him to, for instance, maintain his job and thereby continue to support his family. It allowed him to continue to parent his children. It allowed him to, as a result of maintaining employment, make restitution or compensation to the victim or victims. It allowed him to attend for counselling and other treatment ordered by the sentencing judge.

Simply put, the non-custodial sentence worked to the benefit of everyone, as these individuals have not returned to the criminal justice system, have truly learned from their mistakes and have rounded the proverbial corner.

I appreciate that it is tempting to view the criminal justice system as a system which should be driven by formulae and by the principle that harsher penalties will automatically reduce the rate of crime. However tempting that may be, it is short-sighted and is not consistent with the experience that we have had in Canada with our current system.

The point has been made by many others, but it must be borne in mind that the crime rate in Canada is on the decline and that there is no compelling evidence to indicate that incarcerating more people truly works as a deterrent. If there were a clear link between increasing incarceration rates and decreasing crime rates, then an argument could logically be made for more persons to be incarcerated. However, the conclusion is otherwise. The rate of crime in Canada is on the decline.

Certainly the former Liberal government recognized that some serious crimes should be dealt with in a certain fashion and, hence, the policy of mandatory minimum penalties. The Criminal Code already contains some 42 mandatory minimum penalties and the majority of these are, quite properly, for offences involving firearms. Ten serious offences committed with a firearm carry mandatory minimum penalties of four years to a maximum of 14 years or life. Weapons trafficking and related offences carry minimum penalties of one year to a maximum of 10 years.

When an accused person appears before a judge, he brings with him, figuratively, to the door of the courtroom, his background, his life experiences, his challenges, his intellectual deficits, if any, his own at times scarred or abusive upbringing, his economic disadvantages, racial prejudice or stereotyping that he may have been exposed to, and various other factors. For instance, any reasonable observer knows that a disproportionately large number of aboriginal Canadians are incarcerated. To simply incarcerate individuals without providing them with counselling and treatment which will alter their behaviours on a long term basis is myopic.

This is not to sound as if I or others are soft on crime, but is simply to reflect a considered view that Mr. Justice Martin and others are correct in concluding that the overriding principle in sentencing is what a particular offender deserves by way of punishment for the particular offence he or she has committed. It is naive to think that building more prisons will reduce the crime rate. It is irresponsible to build more prisons instead of devoting more money to seniors, to aboriginals and to the disabled.

A crime prevention strategy involves more than imprisonment. The former Liberal government took many steps which were aimed at decreasing criminal activity across Canada. We increased funding for the national crime prevention strategy. Since its launch in 1998, the national crime prevention strategy has helped provide communities with the tools, the knowledge and the support communities need to deal with the root causes of crime at a local level. This strategy has supported more than 5,000 projects nationwide, dealing with serious issues like family violence, sexual abuse, sexual assault or drug abuse.

In my riding of Brant, there have been several successful projects under the NCPS. These projects are aimed at engaging youth in the community. One project, administered by the Sexual Assault Centre of Brant, developed a youth theatre project. This project engaged students in identifying, discussing and raising the awareness of important social issues.

It is obviously important that our streets and our communities be safe. It is vital that our criminal justice system ensure the safety of each member of society. It is critical that our criminal justice system provide long term solutions to the continued reduction or decrease in the rate of crime.

As others have noted, the ultimate rehabilitation of the individual offers the best long term protection for society, since that rehabilitation ends the risk of the continuing criminal career. There is simply no compelling or persuasive evidence that increasing the number of mandatory minimum penalties will reduce the rate of crime in Canada. As was noted by Cheryl Webster and Anthony Doob of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Toronto:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher penalties reduce crime rates in Western populations. Indeed, a reasonable assessment of the research to date--with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade--is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society.

Would that the issue of crime lend itself to a simple answer, a simple answer such as “let us only make the penalties harsh enough and the crime rate will automatically be reduced”. Whether we like to admit it or not, the complexity of human behaviour and identifying causes for human behaviour do not lend themselves to simple answers.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada in regard to the use of handguns, handgun homicides have increased by 25% since the late 1990s. The increasing use of handguns is also reported by police in robberies, extortions and miscellaneous violent crimes, so there is an increase, as reported by Statistics Canada.

It is also well known that gang related homicides have gone sky high compared to 10 years ago. This is known through the homicide survey part of Canadian crime statistics. Also, the proportion of handguns used as firearms has increased in the last 25 years from 27% to 65% in 2004. This is all Statistics Canada information.

Is the member prepared to acknowledge, regardless of what statistics show, that handguns and guns that would never be registered by criminals are now in surplus in huge amounts of numbers in the cities across this country and that there are more guns available that these people can get their hands on through black market and underground methods?

Is he aware of the increased numbers of gang members and of gangs themselves? If he is, let me note that we live in a country where severity of punishment in the last few years has never been a problem, where we have not seen severity in our punishment. We have seen a lot of house arrests, community service, et cetera. How can the member be sure that the severity of punishment would not have an effect when we have never really experienced it? He may comment on anything or all of what I said.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to a point that gang and gun related violence seems to be on the increase, but I will repeat what I said in the body of my speech. Our Criminal Code already contains some 42 mandatory minimum penalties. The majority of these mandatory minimum penalties are, as I said, quite properly for offences involving firearms, so the teeth of the law, so to speak, are already there. That is already present within the Criminal Code. Frankly, that was why the minister of justice, as he then was in the autumn of 2005, introduced a bill tightening the Criminal Code even more.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand the member's rationale in supporting Bill C-9 but now not supporting Bill C-10 when both of them deal with issues surrounding incarceration terms. Perhaps he could elaborate on how these bills are different and should be considered philosophically different.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt this morning only with the issue of mandatory minimum penalties. The issue of conditional sentences and house arrest is quite another topic. For my part I do not see, frankly, any contrary positions advanced by myself or other members of our party. Simply put, with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, the teeth are already there in the current system.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate.

During the election campaign in January the issue of crime was prevalent in my riding, as I suspect it was in many ridings across the country. I look forward to supporting measures that might have some impact on reducing crime. I waited with some interest for the bill to come forward but I was a little disappointed, and I will explain why.

While we are debating this legislation today, the debate is more profound than that. We are debating how the country deals with fellow citizens, what happens to fellow citizens and how people should be convicted of an offence.

We are all concerned about crime in our communities and it is certainly the case in Dartmouth--Cole Harbour. I have met with individuals who have been affected by crime, some serious, perhaps some less serious, but each criminal act has an impact on our communities, causing people to feel vulnerable and unsafe. I want to do something to help people feel safer in their communities.

As an MP who has been called upon to vote on Bill C-10, I have had the responsibility to ensure I support any legislation that is reasonable, effective, rooted in fact and evidence, and consistent with Canadian values. The bill, unfortunately, does not pass that standard. The legislation is not rooted in good law and not substantiated by evidence.

The Minister of Public Safety was quoted recently on the subject of minimum sentences as saying:

We also believe there will be a deterring effect from getting serious about serious crime.

I read an article by Dan Gardner who has written extensively on crime. He wrote:

Naturally, [the Minister of Public Safety] didn't cite any research in support of his conclusion. He didn't need to. The government “believes.” And as every man of faith knows, belief can conquer even the mightiest army of facts.

But for those of us in the reality-based community--the famously dismissive phrase of a Bush official--belief isn't good enough. We expect policy to be supported by facts and research. Perhaps that makes us lesser men and women, but we can't accept something as true simply because it's been given [the Prime Minister's] benediction. So where's the evidence that the government's radical, U.S.-style approach to criminal justice will make us safer? You won't find it on its website. There are lots of bold claims, of course. But in the press release and background information, there isn't a word about evidence.

It is clear that the Conservatives continue to serve up good politics under the guise of good public policy. This is not good public policy. The legislation would not address the real issues of crime, much of which is rooted in systemic poverty. Rather, the result would be a boon for those in the business of constructing prisons.

The American experience, which the government tends to look to for guidance, tells us a different story.

As an example, New York was the first state to limit the discretion of judges in sentencing. Lengthy sentences were required, 15 years to life, even for some non-violent, first-time offenders, many of whom would have received brief sentences, along with drug treatments and community service prior to those sentences.

Then, of course, there is the California “three strikes and you're out” law.

Not surprisingly, these mandatory sentences resulted in the increased number of Americans who went to prison and the cost of building and maintaining prisons.

By 1999, 6.3 million adults were under correctional supervision. By some estimates, the American government spent close to $40 billion on incarceration and, by the mid-1990s, California and New York were spending more on prisons than on higher education.

Some would suggest that anybody who disagrees with them on this is soft on crime. This is not the case. It simplifies an issue that is complex. I think the vast majority of crime is rooted in our inability to help those who most need to find dignity, those most in need, the poor.

We have not done enough to eradicate poverty in Canada. We all bear that responsibility. We have not done enough to ensure that all Canadians have the basic chance to succeed in life, especially for young kids from low income families. We need to do a better job of providing the means to have a decent and healthy breakfast and the opportunity to learn and not sit in a classroom hungry.

We need to ensure that those who cannot afford higher education obtain the means to do so they have the hope of an education which might lead to employment.

It is easy to introduce tough legislation, as the government would suggest. It is easy to throw people in prisons and when they run out of space to build new ones. However, if we are serious about building our communities and we care about our individual citizens, then we should stop creating policies that benefit the rich and hurt the poor. If we are concerned about communities, we should not provide tax breaks to those who need it the least, while penalizing the poor.

Let us not forget Mike Harris who, while cutting welfare and taxes, allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

If the government really cared about our communities it would not cut programs and child care, which we need, that attempt to build and help families while ensuring that children receive quality and accessible child care.

I believe the legislation speaks to the sort of John Wayne approach to the world: macho and seemingly tough but does not address the real issues of crime.

We can never excuse crime but we can explain why people find themselves in trouble. We need to address crime prevention with real policies and continue to address the outcome of behaviour and not the substance of issues that create crime.

I believe it is the responsibility of the government to put bills before us that are evidence based and will enhance the effectiveness of our criminal justice regime.

I know some members opposite do have a grudging respect for the charter, some may not, but many do. However, our charter is meant to protect individuals from the state and we need to ensure that any law we pass meets that constitutional test and that what we do here as legislators passes the proportionality test, meaning that we address and redress problems in a measured way.

Amendments to the code should not be ideologically driven. I believe, unfortunately, in this case that is the case. The bill before us today goes much further than the existing mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. Historically, mandatory minimums have been used with restraint. I note from a recent survey of judges, I think in 2005, indicated that over half of them felt that mandatory minimum sentences would hinder their ability to impose a just sentence.

Mandatory minimums on a widened scale undermine the fundamental principle of proportionality. The chief sentencing principles enshrined in the Criminal Code allow judges to set a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In some cases mandatory minimums may actually lead to fewer convictions and fewer penalties. The all or nothing approach could lead to charges being stayed or even withdrawn when they should go forward.

The people in my riding are concerned about crime and want to ensure that people who offend are punished. They understand that violence and crime affects us all and they understand that the solutions are complex. They understand that justice must be firm and fair, that we address issues like poverty and underemployment where people have little, but also take meaningful ways to make their communities safer.

I know and understand the devastating effect crime has on victims. I have seen it often in my community. I would vote for crime legislation that was tougher on crime. I would welcome legislation that was tougher on crime if it were evidence based and had a hope of being effective.

As a legislature, we act in ways that seek ways to enhance opportunity for people, especially those most in need. I will act in the way that ensures our communities are safe and our justice system is fair but tough on those who offend. However, what I cannot do is vote for a law that I consider to be a bad law, that is not rooted in evidence and that has no chance of succeeding.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have not often been getting up lately because I wanted to give our new young members the opportunity, like my colleague over there, but I cannot continue to sit when the Liberal member over there says that the bill would not get tough on crime and that he will vote against it because it is too tough.

The member needs to read the bill. The bill refers to the use of a firearm, not in duck hunting or deer hunting. It refers to the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence and the offences are listed. We have criminal negligence causing death, attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion. Those are things people are doing with firearms.

What are the minimum sentences to which he objects? For a second offence, provided it takes place within 10 years, the minimum sentence would now be three years. The member says that it is too tough. I am almost tempted to vote against the bill because it is too soft. I cannot imagine a guy assaulting my wife with a gun when I am not home and he only receives three years. I am almost tempted to vote against it but I will support it because at least it goes in the right direction.

I would like the member to explain how he can possibly justify to his family and to other people's families across the country voting against the bill because it is too tough. I cannot believe it.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that it is too tough. It is that it is too stupid. I agree with that comment.

We do not introduce new laws based on anecdotes. We introduce them based on evidence. The article I referred to earlier was not Liberal talking notes or Conservative talking notes, as my colleague said. This is an article by a journalist who called the Minister of Justice and asked him what the law was based on and where the evidence was.

He was given five studies. When he checked them out, each of those studies turned out to be not quite what they were presented to be. They supposedly showed that mandatory minimums on gun crime and homicide had a huge impact. One researcher said, when contacted, “Conclusions are difficult to draw”. Another researcher concluded that “the laws did not reduce homicides”. Another suggested that “gun-related mandatory minimum sentences do little to reduce crime or gun use”. Another one said, “The consensus is that these sentences are not particularly effective”.

I will support legislation that is tough on crime and makes communities safer but it must be based on evidence, it must have a chance of succeeding and it must have a chance of making the communities safer for the people in Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and across Canada.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the member and to the previous member, it seemed that he was speaking in favour of the offender to some extent. What about law-abiding Canadians and what about victims?

I want to follow up on my colleague's comments. We must remember that we are talking about minimum mandatory sentences for serious crimes committed with a firearm. The question we must ask is why the perpetrator has a firearm and what he intends to do with it.

These are not minor misdemeanours here. These are crimes committed with a weapon. It is not ideological, as he suggests. Serious crime and weapon related crime has gone up, and Canadians know this. They do not feel safe anymore. One need only ask the people in Toronto if they feel safe. I would remind the House of the drive-by shootings and the gun crimes we saw last December.

When an offender has been charged and found guilty, Canadians feel that sentences are too light. The soft Liberal approach to crime--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We need to leave the hon. member some time to answer the question.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the member. I would ask the member to picture himself being the victim of a crime, to picture the perpetrator having a weapon pointed at him, at his wife or at his children and then to consider what is being proposed in terms of minimum mandatory sentencing. If he can picture that, how can he not vote for the bill?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that I wanted to vote for the bill when I heard it would be introduced, I could find no evidence that it works or that it would reduce crime in Canada.

The Liberal government introduced mandatory minimums in the past on a reasonable basis but if we are going to bring forward legislation let us do it in a way that will actually make the streets of Canada safer. That should be the ultimate goal of any legislation dealing with crime.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to let the House in on a little secret. I will be voting against Bill C-10. The bill is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation ever to hit the floor of the House. It is absolutely dumb.

We must not tell anyone because the Conservatives actually think that they are being quite clever with this piece of legislation. The Conservatives think that they can somehow or another be tough on crime by introducing stupid legislation. This bill is stupid. It starts out at the beginning as a stupid bill and it will be a stupid bill after it is debated by the House.

I can hear the Conservatives all chirping here. The big game here is actually a political game. They want to show everyone who opposes the bill as being soft on crime and that the Conservatives are tough on crime, and somehow or another that will solve the problem.

I have noticed a pattern in the Conservative government. That party has a three step approach. The first step is to create a problem that does not exist. The second step is to propose a solution to a problem that does not exist. The third step is to pat themselves on the back and let everyone else pick up the pieces.

Let us look at step one. The first step is to create a non-existent problem. To listen to the Conservative propaganda machine, which would do credit to the communist party of Russia, crime is out of control in this country. The streets are unsafe. There is mayhem everywhere. We should avoid the downtown areas of our major cities. In fact, I sat in this chamber a few days ago where the Minister of Justice proposed that we should avoid downtown Toronto, downtown Vancouver and downtown Winnipeg.

Last Sunday my family and I ignored his advice. We went out and we wandered around downtown Toronto on a Sunday evening. It was a lovely evening and we had a lovely meal. We celebrated my daughter's 18th birthday and we talked to a whole bunch of people who were also in downtown Toronto ignoring the minister's advice.

In fact, there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of people in downtown Toronto apparently ignoring the minister's advice to avoid downtown Toronto. I realize that bashing Toronto is a favourite sport over on the other side. Frankly, the people of Toronto ignore the Conservative Party.

Perhaps the thousands of people who were with me and my family had actually read the Juristat statistics that are put out by Statistics Canada under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice. If the minister cares to read that material, he might find the following:

Following an increase in 2003, the national police-reported crime rate fell slightly (-1%) in 2004. Although most crimes declined in 2004, noticeable increases were seen in homicides and drug incidents.

The overall decrease in crime was largely driven by a 5% decline in Ontario.

Ontario of all places.

Most of this decline was due to large decreases in crime in Hamilton, Ottawa, St. Catharines-Niagara and Toronto census metropolitan areas. Ontario's crime was the lowest in the country for the second year in a row.

The total violent crime dropped by 2%.

In 2003 we reached a 36-year low in homicide rates. There was a 4% drop in robberies. Most property crimes declined. Break-ins were 4% lower than the year previous. Youth crime was down 4%.

I appreciate that members opposite do not actually like to deal with evidence. It interferes with their propaganda. Frankly, their game is to peddle fear. We had an example of this by the justice minister on the floor of the House who said to not go to the downtowns of our major cities because crime was rampant. Unfortunately, the facts do not support them. There is no evidence to support step one.

If that does not really matter, then we go to step two. Step two is to propose a solution to a non-existent problem. The big idea in the bill is minimum mandatories. Canada will be so much safer now that we have minimum mandatories.

I am sure that the entire criminal underclass is studying up on minimum mandatories as we speak so they can avoid the effects of this bill. I am sure some members feel, as I do, that this new standard of minimum mandatories has put deep fear into the hearts of our criminal underclass.

I do not pretend to be a criminal law lawyer, but I did a bit when I first started practice. One of the things that I noticed about criminals, as a general statement, is that they are not the brightest lot in the world. In fact, they are kind of dumb. The other thing I have noticed about criminals, generally in the time that I represented them and in the time I have watched colleagues represent them, is that not one of them ever thought he or she would ever get caught. They were not really appreciating the nature and consequences of their actions.

I am sure that this bill is just going to have a huge impact on that criminal underclass. They are going to say to themselves that they are not going to commit a robbery and not pack any heat because they will get a minimum mandatory sentence. Criminals do not think that way.

Equally interesting about the minister's speech was that he said there is no Canadian evidence to support his bill. It is an extraordinary thing for a Minister of Justice to deposit a bill on the floor of this House and then say he has no evidence to support it. To be fair to him, he did cite two American studies, both of which were ambiguous and are in a different legal environment and a different sentencing environment.

At the same time he also said that some of the states were actually going in the opposite direction and repealing their minimum mandatory sentences. Why? Because the evidence does not support the existence of minimum mandatories.

Step one would create a problem that does not exist. Step two proposes a solution to a non-existent problem. And step three, pat oneself on the back and let the others pick up the pieces.

Minimum mandatories by definition erode judicial consideration and discretion. Everybody on the opposite side of the House thinks that is a great idea. After the judges have listened to the evidence, listened to the arguments, heard the witnesses, made a finding of guilt, read and listened to the pre-admission sentencing reports, and heard from the victims and the victim impact statements, they will now be in a worse position to make a decision than those who never heard any of that.

This is going to lead to disproportionality of evidence. It will also lead to distortions in the way judges choose to sentence. If a minimum mandatory sentence were to shock the conscience, judges would accept pleas to lesser charges in order to achieve proportionality of sentence.

This bill tries to create a cookie-cutter approach to justice. The people who have had no access to what the judge has seen and heard will get to set the sentence. I do not know whether that makes any sense to other members in the House, but it certainly does not make any sense to me.

There are other consequences of this legislation that are equally perverse. My Liberal colleagues have outlined what is the most offensive issue of all of this and that is the creation of fear in the citizens of Canada. I go back again to the three steps I have mentioned already. Step one, create a problem that does not exist. Step two, propose a solution that does not address the problem. Step three, let others pick up the pieces.

I agree that the problem is fear. I have talked to a lot of constituents, particularly during the election, and there is fear out there. The Conservative Party fans that fear. Why? Because it is politically expedient and that party will not choose to confront fear with fact. Fear will always trump fact. This is really nasty politics and it is a disservice to Canadians.

In conclusion, the government is all about hysteria. Fear trumps facts. This is bad politics and it is a disservice to our Canadian electorate.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the member could have taken a little bit of time to write a new speech from his Bill C-9 speech, but apparently not.

In both speeches he used the phrase over and over again, “create a problem that does not exist”. I hope he is willing to defend that comment, if somebody decides to maybe send a ten percenter into his riding or put it in the newspaper or something, for all those people in his riding who have been the victims of crime and who do not feel very safe in their homes.

If he wants to make the case that somehow this is, as he said, just propaganda; there is no real problem; it is all being imagined; it is only those scary Conservatives that are somehow creating a problem that does not exist; then frankly, I think this is nonsense.

He referred to these studies and that somehow they do not make the case. Let me just quote from one of them. This is right from the study. It says:

A study of the effects of New Jersey's 1981 Graves Act, which mandated a minimum prison sentence for anyone convicted of one of several serious crimes while using or carrying a firearm, found that the proportion of New Jersey homicides involving firearms decreased significantly between 1980 and 1986.

The hon. member says that somehow this is somewhat ambiguous. I do not know what is ambiguous about that. It goes on to say:

Gun homicides, the study found, decreased significantly in all six cities after mandatory sentencing laws were enacted. Assaults and armed robberies decreased somewhat in certain cities.

Stephen Levitt, who some say is the most brilliant young economist in the U.S. and has studied with Daniel Kessler, did study that proposition 8 law in California. Maybe the hon. member could tell me how this could be misinterpreted. He wrote:

Our results suggest that criminals respond to the severity and not just the certainty of sentences, a result that is predicted by the economic model of crime but has proven elusive empirically. This suggests that the increasing reliance on sentence enhancements in both state law and the federal sentencing guidelines may represent an effective means of reducing crime.

Let me conclude with this comment. Let us say, for example, that I am a potential gun criminal and I am thinking of committing a crime with a gun. The member is saying I am not very smart and maybe that might be true, and that I do not take into account the fact that if I go out and commit this offence, maybe it is a third offence, with this new law I will get five years instead of three years. So, if I do not take that into account and I commit the crime anyway, this new law will give me five years instead of three years under the old law. The member implies that somehow this is not working. I may commit this offence or maybe I may re-offend. Frankly, I do not care if--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The member has now taken up three minutes of the five minute question and comment period. There are other people rising. I need to give the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood some time to respond.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was not by design on the part of the hon. member to get in a mini speech while asking a question.

He cites a 1981 American study. That would put it at about a 25 year old study, in a different country, a different legal environment, and a different sentencing environment. I question the usefulness and value of any kind of study such as that.

My preference in terms of real evidence is to cite page 5 from the Library of Parliament's legislative summary on Bill C-10 which says at paragraph 3:

Mandatory minimum sentences are a subset of criminal penalties generally. Accordingly, studies on the overall effect of prison sentences on crime rates and recidivism may be useful. One Canadian meta-analysis found little difference in general recidivism rates, regardless of length of incarceration or whether the offender was given a prison or community sanction. In fact, prison produced slight increases in recidivism.

Surprise, we will end up with more people in jail for longer. That is the result of dumb legislation.

In a follow-up meta-analysis focusing on juvenile, female and minority offenders, it was tentatively concluded that increasingly lengths of incarceration were associated with slightly greater increases in recidivism. Not only are we putting the general public into prison longer, we are actually exaggerating some of the social fissures in our own society among juveniles, females and minorities.

That is just brilliant public policy. I appreciate that the hon. member does not like to deal with facts. The government opposite just hates facts when they interfere with its propaganda. There is no crime wave in this country. In fact, the crime statistics show that crime is actually declining in this country, including my own community.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud on behalf of the NDP to enter the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with minimum penalties. Mr. Speaker, as you well know coming from Manitoba, I represent the inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre. It is a very low income riding, and I am not proud to say, a riding that is very prone to some of the predictable consequences of chronic long term poverty, which has a greater likelihood to be associated with or a victim of crimes, particularly crimes of a violent nature.

I am pleased to have this opportunity. I asked for the opportunity to join the debate today. On behalf of the people of my riding of Winnipeg Centre, I feel duty bound to represent them on an issue dealing with criminal justice and the criminal justice system.

When I survey the residents of my riding, the inner city, the core area of Winnipeg Centre, and ask them what the most important issue facing them is, overwhelmingly the number one top of mind issue they cite is crime, safety, safe streets and criminal justice issues, by a factor of four to one. I was shocked the last time I polled people in my riding in a survey of this nature. My colleague from Yellowknife may find the same when he surveys the people in his riding. Those issues are what come to mind first because they are the issues closest to people's day to day lives.

In surveys in Canada generally, the number one issue that comes to mind is almost always health care. I can say that by a factor of four to one the issues of crime and safety are greater in my riding than the issue of health care. Tax cuts is a factor of five or six to one. Of all the other issues that seem to be prioritized in any election campaign or the federal government's top priorities, almost to a person in my riding, crime and safety are the number one priority.

Having said that, I wanted to enter this debate because I think the people in my riding would want to know that Parliament is seized of the issue, that Parliament is listening to Canadians and their very reasonable plea. Canadians just want to be able to feel safe on their streets. They want to be able to walk down the streets free of interference and mischief, like in the good old days.

When I talk to people in my riding some say, “It was not like this not long ago. When I was growing up, kids were sent to the corner store with 25¢ to buy a quart of milk and did not think twice about it. Now nobody does that”. Right after supper every kid in the neighbourhood would go out to play and they would go as far as they could get in a certain period of time. They had a turnaround time; they had to get back in time for last call, but they were free to roam the streets, play, develop and socialize.

Now there is not a kid in my neighbourhood who goes anywhere without a play date. Kids are driven everywhere. They pre-arrange appointments to play with other eight year olds. Their moms drive them in minivans to play dates and drive them home again. Parents do not feel safe letting their kids go out to play even street hockey. This is a real tragedy of our time. Whether it is real or perceived, it is real enough in the minds of the people whom I represent. They tell me as their member of Parliament that is what they want action on more than anything else.

I am glad that in the final days of this spring session of the 39th Parliament we are talking about criminal justice, that we are talking about safety, and talking about crime in the streets. The incidence of poverty in Winnipeg Centre is high, unfortunately. I am not proud of this, but I have the poorest riding in Canada by whatever measurement one uses. Whether it is family income or incidence of poverty, Winnipeg Centre is the poorest riding in Canada. As such, perhaps disproportionately it is faced with the predictable consequences of chronic long term poverty.

During the election campaign, I believe it was in early January of 2006, there was a tragic incident that brought the whole subject of mandatory minimum sentences to the forefront. There was a shooting death in the city of Toronto. I hate to share this over top of the heckling from my colleague from Ontario who does not like this bill apparently, but I had a similar incident in my riding not three blocks from my office where a 17-year-old, perfectly innocent nice young man was caught in the crossfire between two gangs. Gangsters were popping off rounds playing with their guns essentially, picking each other off and they picked off an innocent bystander.

I hope members will join me in mourning the loss of that young innocent person and the grieving the family goes through and the feeling of senselessness about it.

How did we ever descend to this point? This was an ordinary Winnipeg neighbourhood and now people will not sleep in the rooms that share the outer walls of their houses. They do not want to be next to the outside wall for fear a stray bullet will hit one of their kids. They sleep in the inner rooms of their houses. How did it come to that in 2006, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in Canada? They want to know. We do not profess to have all the answers but they deserve to know at least that we are paying attention to it and that we are doing our best to address their concerns.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is something we frequently hear is a knee-jerk reaction, that it is not tested and not proven. I will say quite openly that I will only support things that I believe will have the results I am after and that we are seeking to achieve.

There are many reasons that we structure our sentencing within the criminal justice system, only one of which is actually punitive. Punishing people may be one of the lesser motivations in terms of our sentencing. One is that we want to be safe.

I see I am running short of time. Let me say simply that the NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has advised us that we are interested in this bill to the point where we would like to see it go to committee for assessment. At committee we can propose what we think are improvements to the bill to make sure it actually achieves what it seeks to achieve. That is a reasonable position that we are taking.

Members who stand up and condemn this bill in a blanket fashion are showing a wilful blindness to the wishes of Canadians who want this subject addressed. They are not listening to their constituents. If they asked them, their constituents would tell them, “We want you to make our streets safe. Whatever it takes is what we want you seized with”.

The NDP wants this bill to go to committee. I am happy to have had this opportunity to speak to it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The time for questions and comments on the debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will have to take place the next time the bill is before the House.

We will now proceed to statements by members.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When the House last discussed Bill C-10, there were five minutes remaining in the period of questions and comments for the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for his remarks on Bill C-10 last Friday. I know he had some very interesting things to say.

I have some concerns about Bill C-10 and the approach of the government. To deal with crime, it sometimes appears to me that the government wants more people in jail and an expansion of the prison system.

I know the member for Winnipeg Centre talked about a more holistic approach, a more multi-faceted approach to crime prevention, which was evident in his community of Winnipeg. In my community of Burnaby, the Burnaby Restorative Action Group is trying to take that kind of an approach to solving some of the crime issues in our society.

Could the member expand further on the work being done in Winnipeg on this more holistic approach to crime prevention?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. At the end of the hours allocated for debate on Bill C-10 on Friday, I was trying to share with the House some of the innovative ideas that the NDP government of Manitoba had been introducing in seeking to address these criminal justice issues.

I went through the importance of opportunities for youth. Much of the activity or the irritant bothering people in the inner city of Winnipeg is seen to be youth gang related. The attorney general of Manitoba, the Hon. Gord Mackintosh, has talked about a three-legged stool in criminal justice issues. He has said that one of the key legs is economic opportunities for youth, a sense of involvement, a sense of inclusion. This is key and instrumental in satisfying the concerns of people and safety issues.

Another key leg on this three-legged stool is a newly developed idea that has recently been introduced into law in Manitoba. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and my colleague, the justice critic for the NDP, from Windsor—Tecumseh may be interested in knowing more about this. We are trying to make it so that crime does not pay.

In that vein, we have introduced legislation where the government can seize the proceeds of crime, which it deems or considers to be proceeds. If the provincial government can demonstrate to a judge what it believes to be proceeds of crime, then there is a reverse onus situation. People holding that property would have to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not purchase the products with the proceeds of crime. This has been a powerful tool. It reverses the burden of proof and the onus.

Let me give an example of a recent case. A known patch member of a motorcycle gang was living in a $600,000 to $700,000 house, which in Winnipeg is an expensive house. That would be a couple of million dollars by Toronto standards. The driveway was full of power boats, motorcycles and all the toys and luxury items that one could possibly be imagine. Yet there were no visible means of income for the past many years.

The question was put to the individual whether he had won a lottery or had inherited money from a rich uncle who passed away. He was unable to demonstrate, in any way, where the money had come from to allow him to live in such a luxurious setting.

The government had pretty good evidence that the items were purchased from proceeds of crime, but not quite enough to charge him criminally. Roughly $600,000 worth of material things, luxury items, were seized. That money is dedicated to further enforcement. It does not only go into general revenue. The money goes into policing and catching more people.

If crime is not profitable, there will be less crime. This is another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement officials that puts the burden of proof where it belongs, on criminals to prove that they purchased the products, the bling bling, through legitimately earned money and not the proceeds of crime.

I would like to add that to the mix for the consideration of all members as we address this pressing issue.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss Bill C-10, mandatory minimum sentences and their effectiveness.

Every MP in the House wants to make Canada a safer place to live. I am sure no one would debate this point.

It is good that we are having this debate on mandatory minimums now because they could have a major effect on making our society more or less dangerous. This debate gives all MPs a chance to review what the experts have had to say, what experience has shown and what the facts are. I had no opinion coming into this debate so this review is important to me.

From some of the research, it has quickly become evident that mandatory minimums do not work. Our prison system is over-burdened. Individuals are being let off when they should not be. Long incarceration is not helping our prison system. Those who vote for the bill will be making Canada a more dangerous place to live and will be putting our law-abiding citizens at risk. I will go into more details on how this will happen later on in my speech.

Criminologists, judges and prison wardens have told us that mandatory minimums do not work. Let us look at some of that evidence, some of which we have heard from previous speakers, particularly the former minister of justice.

Let me quote from the Conservative justice minister a few weeks ago on CTVs Canada AM. He said ,“The evidence in Canada is not particularly persuasive one way or another”. Doob and Cesaroni said in 2001, in the Osgoode law journal that “All Canadian commissions since 1952 have suggested abolishing mandatory minimums”.

What about around the world? “The story of the failure of mandatory penalties is at least three centuries old” said Michael Tonry in “Crime & Justice: A Review of Research”, University of Chicago Press 1992.

Let us look at the United States, which is often referenced with respect to mandatory minimums. When it brought in the three strike law for mandatory minimums, in some states it was applied stringently, in others it was hardly used at all. The sentence did not affect deterrence. It was no more a deterrent when it was applied as compared to when it was not. Doob and Cesaroni said that the three strike legislation was a spectacular failure.

The American Sentencing Commission, the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the Canadian Bar Association and the American Bar Association have all concluded that mandatory minimums do not work.

Perhaps the Prime Minister and justice minister should have paid more attention to the Australian delegation. Let me quote some Australian facts. The Australian governments responsible for those mandatory minimums “have effectively conceded that mandatory sentences have no deterrent effect, and that there is a need for judicial discretion and the more vigorous use of diversionary schemes and alternative strategies”. Those are the tools that Canada has used to reduce crime so much in recent years. This quote came from Doob and Cesaroni, “Mandatory Minimums, U of T, March 16, 2001.

Even the five studies referred to by the justice minister himself have indicated that the minister is flat wrong.

I would like to quote a summary on mandatory minimums. “Reams of studies show that the Tory approach is expensive and futile”. That was Dan Gardner in the Ottawa Citizen on May 11. I could include the leader of the NDP in that.

It is not just judges, experts, the facts, the research, the criminologist and the wardens who believe mandatory minimums do not work. Canadians believe this also. “When given the ability to make a more thoughtful response, the public is clear. If a person has to choose between building more prisons or investing in alternatives to imprisonment or in crime prevention, prisons lose the vote”. This was by David Garland in “The Culture of High Crime in Society”, British Journal of Criminology 2000.

Now that the facts are clear, Parliament should do the right thing. I will assume it was an honest mistake when the justice minister said on CTV's Canada AM that that is not the experience in many other jurisdictions where targeted mandatory minimums have had a huge deterrent effect. Study after study, some of which I quoted, say no, that is not the case. In trying to find a few that supported his case in spite of the overwhelming majority against it, the minister and the department dug up only five studies. When those studies were analyzed by Dan Gardner, it was found that none demonstrated the huge deterrent that the minister claimed. In fact, one of them, the most recent high quality review, proved outright that the minister was wrong.

It would be a very serious offence to mislead Canadians and Parliament. It is a great honour and responsibility to be a minister. I therefore call on the minister to do the right thing and apologize for the error.

The facts are quite clear. Mandatory minimums do not work. To vote for this bill would ultimately put more dangerous criminals on the streets and would make the streets less safe for Canadians. I will outline 10 reasons.

One, the millions of dollars that would be spent on incarceration which does not work could be spent on hiring more police officers.

Two, the millions of dollars could be spent on stopping illegal guns at the border.

Three, judges would lose the flexibility to sign the optimum rehabilitation sentence which would most likely protect citizens in the long run. This has a particularly prejudicial effect on aboriginal people, as a much higher proportion of the population in prisons is aboriginal.

People have to remember that virtually all inmates are released from prison. We have to look at what their status will be and what ability they will have not to reoffend when they come out of prison.

Four, mandatory minimum sentences would add to the overburdening of the prisons and would stress already insufficient rehabilitation budgets.

Five, it would dilute the addiction treatment which is available in prisons.

Six, it would reduce the anger management therapy which is so badly needed in prisons.

Seven, overburdend prisons would reduce the academic and technology training and apprenticeship training to help people fit back into society.

The millions of dollars that would be saved by not incarcerating people because it would not be effective could be invested in the treatments I mentioned in reasons four to seven. The money could be invested in many crime prevention programs which have proven to be effective in reducing crime in Canada.

Eight, it has been proven that people who stay in prison are less likely to reintegrate into society and are more likely to reoffend. In fact, the studies done in Canada by the solicitor general showed a 3% increase in recidivism. Often we are hardening criminals by leaving them in prison longer. This is particularly true for northerners. In the remote communities because people are sent such a far distance to jail, they lose the support from their families. They are therefore more likely to have a worse outcome as opposed to fitting into society and being healed and cured.

Nine, judges and prosecutors would recommend probation or lesser sentences when the person should receive a harsher sentence than that, but the mandatory minimum sentence might be too harsh for the crime.

Ten, judges and juries would accept more plea bargaining or not convict at all instead of forcing an unreasonable sentence on a person, thus making the streets less safe, according to a Department of Justice firearms task force report.

A Conservative member made a very cogent comment on the bill last week. To paraphrase what he said, he asked what if it was the wife or daughter of a Conservative member, or an NDP member, I would add, who was injured or attacked by a criminal on a street that had been made more dangerous for one of the 10 reasons that I mentioned if we vote in favour of this bill? For parliamentarians who carefully and professionally study the facts, the answer will be easy and they will vote against the bill, but there will be some soul searching--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I was trying to give the member notice when there were two minutes, one minute, and 30 seconds remaining in his time, which has expired.

The hon. member for Ahuntsic.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to think about what we are going after.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

As I was saying, for parliamentarians who carefully and professionally study the facts, the answer will be easy, and they will vote against the bill, but there will be soul-searching for some, for Conservative members and for the leader of the NDP who may have jumped to apparently reasonable conclusions before having all the facts.

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mandatory minimum penalties do not advance the goal of deterrence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, but I would reply to him that there is what happens before the crime and what happens after.

With regard to what comes before the crime, in Canada the solutions are education and fighting poverty. Personally, I find it disconcerting to see children who are 10, 11 or 12 years old out and about in our cities at 2:30 a.m. on a Friday or Saturday. Someone, somewhere, is not doing their job. That comes before the crime. They get mixed up with a certain group and they pick up their ways. Where are the parents? It may not be appropriate to speak of this during a debate on the bill, but I am slipping in this question to my colleague. I have already asked this in court about one of my clients.

After the crime, the individual has to be punished, because there must be a punishment. I believe—and have always believed and will continue to do so—that the punishment must be appropriate for the crime and for the individual. It must allow them to return to society. They cannot be hit over the head at the beginning with a sentence of four years. I agree that there are heinous crimes, but it is very important for sentences to be individualized by a judge. Yes, there are street gangs. But we must not confuse the issue. We must attack the problem of street gangs with appropriate programs.

I am speaking on behalf of all citizens. We know that 35% of crimes are committed with hunting weapons. What will we do with a bill such as this one? Therein lies the problem. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. And repression is definitely not the answer.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to minimum penalties for offences involving firearms. All Canadians should take an interest in this proposed legislation because a safe and secure quality of life is something we all desire.

As a member of Parliament from the greater Toronto area, acts of violence in our cities and communities must be addressed in a firm and direct manner. Two questions, therefore, immediately come to mind. What are the best ways of dealing with violent acts once they have been committed? What is the best way to prevent violent crimes from occurring in the first place?

Generally speaking, the primary objectives of Bill C-10 are to increase mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who commit serious or repeat firearm offences and to create a new offence for breaking and entering to steal firearms. In the past election, my opponent from the Conservative Party attempted to score cheap political points by exploiting the unfortunate victims of crime in our community.

With callous disregard for the feelings of the family and friends of victims, in many instances victims themselves, this person also made vague references that the Liberal Party was somehow soft on crime. I must admit that I was a bit shocked in the first instance by what was essentially a desperate attempt to score political points, but more so by the fact that this particular candidate serves as a Crown counsel and should have at least some grasp of legal history in this country.

The fact remains that it was the Liberal government in 1995 that initiated mandatory minimum sentences for gun related crimes in the first place. In fact, the very first mandatory minimum sentence legislation for firearm offences dates back to 1977, again by a Liberal government. It is also a fact that it was the Conservatives who essentially killed Bill C-82 last November when they triggered an election.

Bill C-82 proposed 12 amendments to the gun control provision and was part of a five point strategy to combat gang and gun related crimes that included: first, tougher laws and proportion penalties; second, more effective law enforcement; third, heightened recognition of the needs and concerns of victims; fourth, crime prevention; and fifth, engagement of local communities. Unfortunately, the piece of legislation that we now have before us has been assembled in a haste to satisfy the Prime Minister's narrow political agenda.

As an accountant by trade, I prefer to look at the facts rather than listen to empty slogans from the Conservatives. It is a fact that the justice system in Canada has always dealt with violent crimes based on the fundamental principle that a prison sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender.

In this country, we employ judges for the express purpose of passing sentences based on the particular circumstance of each individual case. Judges take mandatory minimum sentences into account, but they are given the discretion to vet longer prison terms depending on the severity of the case. If we were to continue to exaggerate minimum sentences as Bill C-10 intends to do, we would in fact be removing more powers from judges to use their own discretion.

Let us look at the facts. Over the past decade there was an average of 1,300 deaths involving firearms per year in Canada. Homicides accounted for only about 15% of all firearm deaths, suicide a remarkable 80%, and accidents about 5%. In 1996, 49% of all solved firearm homicides involved acquaintances, 18% involved a spouse, 22% involved other relatives, and 11% were killed by strangers.

Clearly, people are more likely to be killed by a firearm by someone they know rather than by random acts of violence. In fact, a Statistics Canada report found that from 1974 to 1992 a married woman was nine times more likely to be killed by her husband than by a stranger.

I find it even more disturbing that long guns are the most common type of firearm used in spousal homicide. Over the past decade 71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns, 24% involved handguns, 4% involved the use sawed off rifles and shotguns, and 1% involved other firearms.

I find it shocking that one of the first acts of the Minister of Justice is to remove long guns from the gun registry. Clearly, the government is attempting to approach justice reform in a very hasty way and hence I am pleased to speak against Bill C-10.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member says that it is this side of the House that is making politics out of the issue. Quite frankly, it is the other way around.

I have some knowledge and history of law enforcement, about 30 years of it. By suggesting that a mandatory minimum sentence somehow encourages a judge to give someone a lesser sentence than having no sentence guidelines seems quite incredible and does not make a lot of sense to me.

My riding is mainly rural which is an hour and a half down the road from Toronto. The people do not view these things as something foreign to them. They view it as their neighbours, friends and relatives who are in a city that has experienced, in the past few years, a marked increase in violence and particularly gun violence. It is not violence with long guns. It is violence with handguns.

The whole intent of this legislation is to dissuade people from anti-social behaviour by increasing the penalty and therefore keeping them ever mindful that if they commit a serious crime with a handgun they are going to go to jail for a long time.

I ask the hon. member, who is living in the greater Toronto area, how can she say that she best represents her constituency by saying that a minimum mandatory sentence is not what the average person in her riding would feel is appropriate?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, mandatory minimum sentences are already in existence and Bill C-10 is a haphazard attempt to bring in politics rather than good policy. My constituents and the area of Toronto are very concerned about how we address the issue of crime, youth being involved in violent acts and hence, how we make our streets safe. The root cause of violence most times has focused on youth being unemployed, underemployed, and not having the ability to participate in extracurricular activities.

In Ontario under Mike Harris, the after school programs were cut and there has been a real correlation between the amount of gang violence and after school programs being cut. Therefore, we must look at the root cause, and get youth employed and involved in other recreational areas. In my riding that is what the youth are demanding.

It was unfortunate that the NDP also worked with the Conservatives in bringing down the government which had the strategy for youth unemployment, and youth and gang violence.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments this afternoon. I share her concern that the Conservatives have somehow forgotten the use of long guns and the important part that long guns play in crime statistics in Canada. I share her disbelief that long guns would be left out of this important legislation.

It seems to me that is a fatal flaw in the legislation. Why would we leave out a weapon that is responsible for so many of the crimes when we are apparently trying to address the whole issue of the seriousness of gun crime that is committed in Canada? I wonder if the member would comment further about the failure of the Conservatives to include long guns in this legislation and why they decided to do that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. Statistics from the justice department indicate that 71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and long guns.

As I stated, Bill C-10 is a hastily crafted bill. It has not been well thought through. It has the sniff of politics rather than good policy. It is important that we understand that good politics do not make good policies. Hence, it is very important to revisit this bill to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken, that we do not take away from the judiciary its right to make decisions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-10, a bill that is somewhat controversial here in the House and certainly within the New Democratic Party.

We support sending the bill to committee for potential amendments. In the election campaign we supported the idea of stronger mandatory minimum sentences for some offences. Part of our three pillar approach to crime is firm punishment and deterrence through legislation and regulation and much stronger sentencing provisions for crimes involving guns. There is some merit in Bill C-10 so we will assist in moving it forward to committee where we can look at it as a whole. One of my colleagues spoke to the hasty nature of this legislation and I do not doubt there are elements of that.

The NDP would like to see enhanced resources for enforcement combined with a political commitment to foster collaboration between various law enforcement agencies. This is another very important part of our approach to crime. We do not see this represented in Bill C-10.

The third pillar of our approach speaks to the overdue and essential investments in crime prevention, communities and youth. This is not represented in any way in the legislation. In committee we will be looking at whether the bill is worthwhile in its present form, whether it can be amended, and whether it should be made into law. In many ways there are restrictive elements in the bill. We have to be careful how we set up our laws.

In northern parts of the country someone may break into a cabin and take a firearm and use it for subsistence hunting not knowing that an offence has been committed and could be subject to three years in jail. Hunting is part of northern culture. In an urban area someone might break into a house to take something that is required to stay alive. This has to be taken into consideration when we are dealing with the north, the aboriginal and traditional communities across Canada.

Judges have to look at the facts of a case. We have to ensure that the laws will not send to jail people who do not need to be there. We have to ask whether putting people in jail will serve society. The precautionary principle works both ways. We do not want to put people into the criminal justice system who do not need to be there. Putting them in jail could lead them to reoffend after they are released. These are fine institutions of criminal learning that we have for jails across the country.

These are important considerations. Precautionary principles work both ways in justice. In a lot of cases we have to give judges the room to judge the case on its merits. In some cases the law is quite straightforward. The possession of automatic weapons, handguns and assault rifles are not traditionally used for hunting or for any kind of peaceful purpose. They are not part of a peaceful society, the way long guns and shotguns are. The NDP has no trouble supporting stronger mandatory minimums for those types of offences. They should not be around in peaceful society. They should not be used for illegal purposes in a peaceful society.

The NDP has already said it would support that part of the bill. We approached the Canadian people in that regard. I would want us to follow through on the policies that we presented in the election process. I encourage all parties to do the same.

There are many other things that Bill C-10 does not do. The bill does not address the 101 issues raised by the NDP in our crime platform. We consider them to be essential elements of any true programs for crime and punishment.

In this House, as in the last election campaign, there is not a lot of talk about how we could reduce and prevent crime. That is a tragedy. We have avoided the discussion of our drug laws. In many cases drugs are the prime drivers of violence and criminality in communities across the country. The new government has taken an even harder line than the last Parliament. This is a problem. This approach will not work for Canadians. It will not make our streets safer. It will not solve a problem we have been choosing to ignore for many years.

The NDP is supporting Bill C-10 at second reading so it will be sent to committee. What happens with the bill is very much up to the committee and the good work of the members involved there.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member mentioned that there were several flaws in this bill but, despite these flaws, he is willing to support it and refer it to committee.

Does he think one can draw a parallel between the exclusion of hunting weapons from this bill and the desire of the government to abolish the gun registry, particularly for hunters?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, our policy calls for mandatory minimum sentences on the use of handguns, assault rifles and automatic weapons, those firearms that have no place in a peaceful society. I come from a rural northern riding where firearms have a place in a peaceful society. They are a part of the everyday lifestyle of many people.

When I go into a small community like Fort McPherson and an elderly person hands me a letter he has received from the justice department stating that he has committed an offence because he has not registered his rifles, this elderly person is concerned. He does not see it as appropriate and I do not see it as appropriate that we have restricted the use of firearms through the registry, where we were trying to establish something that really was already there.

Interestingly enough, when the police talk about their statistics of how many times they use the gun registry every day, that same sort of behaviour would have been there when we used to have the firearms acquisition certificates. They also would have identified whether there were firearms in a particular home, as the police wanted to know. The question of whether one person has a certain number of firearms that are designed for peaceful purposes is sort of a moot point in most northern and rural communities. It is important to know who has firearms and that is a distinction.

Within this bill, the thought that we would be upping the penalty for people in possession of firearms that are used for the purposes of subsistence, such as hunting and those sorts of things, in my riding just would not wash.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement concerning the fact that many people who possess firearms possess them, not only to make a living, but to hunt as a peaceful endeavour.

I also want to advise the member that according to the Criminal Code, if someone breaks into a place for the purposes of staying alive, in other words the person's motorized snow vehicle freezes up on a lake and the person is about to die because of the cold, and the person breaks into a cottage in order to get warm or to eat, that is not a crime. The same defence would be there for someone who needed a firearm in order to stay alive and had to commit that offence.

This bill would not change that defence at all. However it does say that if a firearm is used in the commission of an offence, a person is in possession of a firearm in order to commit on offence or a person steals a firearm to commit an offence we have upped the ante because we have found that having a firearm for a negative purpose has very serious repercussions in society.

I would just ask the member to comment on that end of the defence with regard to subsistence and know that the bill would not interfere with that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good example of how the law does not apply but I am sure that when it comes to the enacting of a law such as this, there will be other examples where the life and death situation might not be so grave, and if a person breaks into a cabin it might be for some lesser purpose but still not a purpose for which we would want to put them in jail for three years.

It goes back to my main point, which is that in all of this we should let the judges judge the cases. We must be very careful when we are dealing with mandatory minimums and taking away conditional sentences, which is why the New Democratic position is pretty firm on the very selective use of mandatory minimums.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10. I will begin by saying that I believe all members and all political parties are concerned about crime. In fact, the Liberal Party takes the safety and security of Canadians very seriously.

We introduced legislation in the last Parliament to address some of the current concerns. We increased spending on policing and especially on the broader issues related to terrorism over the last number of years. We set up procedures for various police jurisdictions in Canada and across our borders internationally to work better together.

Through the development of the Department of Public Security, we ensured that all the security, the police and the border related agencies, came together for better protection of public security and improved coordination between those various agencies.

I gave that little bit of background to reinforce the fact that as a party we believe strenuously in fighting crime and utilizing all the best tools and approaches available to do so. I will be opposing the bill. With this bill I expect some government members, probably many, will say that those who oppose the bill are soft on crime. However, that is not the case at all.

Those of us who are opposed to Bill C-10 want to have an evidence based approach to changing the justice system and to ensure at the end of the day that we have better results. I just do not believe that Bill C-10, the way it is currently drafted, really cuts it.

The question really is whether Bill C-10 is the step forward that the Minister of Justice claims it can be. I sincerely think not.

As with so much that the new government has brought forward, the intent of Bill C-10 may be fine but the design of the legislation is such that it would not achieve the intended results. I think it could make things more difficult by ending up at the end of the day spending more money on building more prisons, more infrastructure and not dealing effectively with policing, rehabilitation and crime prevention.

I believe the government has taken a very simplistic approach to a very complex problem. There is an old saying, “don't let the facts get in the way of a good story”. I think that is what is happening with the approach that the Minister of Justice is taking with Bill C-10, and that does worry me.

Legislation should be evidence based. The Minister of Justice has failed to bring forward evidence on this bill in a comprehensive way that would lead at least myself and, I think, many others to support the bill. The Minister of Justice seems more intent on having the language sound right than on designing the legislation in a way that would lead to those intended results.

The legislation caters to the view that there is a massive increase in crime when actually the evidence, the statistics, would show otherwise. That is not to say that there is not serious crime in the country, there is. We could all pick an instance, blow it out proportion and almost make it into a movie. Those people affected by crimes feel very aggrieved, and rightly so. We have a responsibility as a country to see that justice is done, but would Bill C-10 deal comprehensively with the concern of those crimes? I most definitely think not.

In Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 we see a certain amount of Americanization of the Canadian justice system. I have had the opportunity to see both systems and our justice system is vastly improved over the one south of the border. We have less crime in Canada. We have greater rehabilitation and far fewer jails per capita. We have fewer repeat crimes and there is greater safety on our streets. We can ask any citizen which cities they could walk into and feel relatively secure and they would say Canadian cities. Our system of justice is far less costly than the system south of the border.

Does Canada's approach to crime need to be improved? I would say that it certainly does, but Bill C-10 is not the answer, at least not in whole. I could support some parts of the bill but I believe overall the bill is seriously flawed.

Do mandatory minimums have a place? Many critiques over the last 50 years would say no and many would say they do not. Personally, I believe they do in some instances but not with the kind of simplistic blanket treatment that the bill proposes.

The issue can be dealt with in other ways. I can give an example of where I think judges were lax and where the justice system is currently soft, and that relates to the marijuana grow operations in British Columbia. Police officers and the RCMP will tell us about going into marijuana grow operations, taking them down, putting their lives on the line to deal with the problem and that before they go to the office the next morning the people they charged are out on the street. That is wrong and it should not happen.

I know we are not supposed to criticize judges but I did this while I was in the position of solicitor general and I maintain to this day that in too many instances in the province of B.C. the judges are soft on marijuana grow operations. However, there other ways of dealing with the issue than mandatory minimum sentences. In those instances in British Columbia where it relates to marijuana grow operations, the intent of the law is not quite being followed. There is too much softness. The judge would have to explain his or her reasons for not imposing the maximum sentence that is in the law.

The bill is terribly flawed. I had hoped to quote the member for Mount Royal when he said that Bill C-10 was not evidence based legislation but I see I am out of time. I would refer members to the remarks by the member for Mount Royal in which he gave a very good legalistic argument in terms of why Bill C-10 cannot be supported as it is currently drafted.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a few valid points. I would agree with him that there are instances where the justice system has been soft on grow operations and I would like to see that halted as well.

What we are really talking about in Bill C-10 is justice. Somehow that has been lost in the whole conversation. We have families, victims and citizens crying in the streets and asking why this is being allowed to happen, why criminals are getting off so soft and why are we not dealing with this. Bill C-10 seeks to deal with it. We are standing up for our citizens and trying to make their streets safe.

Why is the hon. member not delivering what our constituents are demanding, which is justice?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my remarks, when we, as members of Parliament, try to debate a bill to get the best legislation possible and put in place a bill that would achieve the intended results, then there a legitimate basis for doing that. We have supported mandatory minimums in place. In some instances, we have brought them in.

Under Bill C-10, the government is extending those mandatory minimums to unreasonable levels. The result at the end of the day will not be what it intended to achieve. I think it will cost the system more money. As a result, we will not have the money to put the human resources in the streets to deal with crime. The government will not have the money to do the kind of crime prevention that needs to be done.

Because we are opposing the bill for a better approach, the member is saying that we are soft on crime. We are not. We believe there is a better way of doing things than the approach taken by the government, which is Americanizing the Canadian justice system, a system that has proven not to work as effectively as the Canadian justice system.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Malpeque, is a former attorney general. I do not have to tell him that sentencing has more than one purpose and one goal.

The first element of sentencing has a punishment and a consequence element to it. However, there is also a rehabilitation element, hopefully. If these people will be on the streets again some day, we want them to get the services that rehabilitate them. The third point I want to dwell on is that there has to be a deterrent factor.

I come from the riding of Winnipeg Centre. On a hot summer night, there is gun play every night. Kids, with a cavalier attitude toward guns, use them more and more frequently. Families will not sleep in the outside rooms of their houses; they sleep in the inner rooms. They are worried about a stray bullet coming through their houses.

From a deterrent point of view, what is wrong with mandatory minimum sentences in a crimes committed with guns, a violent crime perpetrated on the streets of Winnipeg where a gun is used?

We want the message out there that there is a deterrent so kids will take it more seriously. Instead of fooling around with guns in the back lanes, we want them to know that there is a serious consequence to that in my riding.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, if there is any member in the House with whom I am absolutely surprised, it is the member for Winnipeg Centre. He continually compromises his principles to get in bed with the Conservative Party of Canada. There are mandatory minimum sentences right now in terms of gun crimes. He knows it, but he wants to stay in bed with those folks over there.

If you would go out there and tell your constituents about those mandatory minimums and the deterrents, then he would be doing something. He abolished the principles of the NDP Party long ago to get in bed with the Conservatives.

Tell the public the facts on Bill C-10. Do not misrepresent them like the member for Winnipeg Centre is doing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I would just remind the member for Malpeque to not let anger get in the way of using the third person.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely there is some obligation for hon. members to stay away from complete fabrications and untruths. Is there nowhere in the rules or Standing Orders that one has to tell the truth from to time? Is there nothing barring somebody like him from standing and making an insultingly, completely--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

It sounds to me more like a point of debate.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to resist getting into that pushing and shoving match which we just witnessed. I want to get to the issue of sentencing, as we debate Bill C-10.

As we all know, Bill C-10 bulks up the number of mandatory minimum sentences that would be in the Criminal Code. While there is room in every Criminal Code for some mandatory minimums, the easiest one is the sentence for first degree murder, which has a mandatory minimum sentence of life, at least in our country. Other countries have other penalties.

We are not really debating whether there should be a mandatory minimum sentence in place for any particular crime. We are debating the extent of those mandatory minimum sentences.

I used the term that the current bill bulks up. It really does bulk up or materially increases the number of mandatory minimum sentences that would be in the Criminal Code, if the bill passes, with particular reference to firearms offences. At the end of the last Parliament, an attempt was made to increase, by a small margin, the number of mandatory minimum sentences associated with the criminal use of firearms. In fact, the House passed a bill only within the last few years which did precisely that.

When I looked at the data, I came across what I thought was an interesting perspective on crime statistics. It has to do with how we look at crime statistics across the country. Although I have had many occasions to look at statistics over the years, I had not noticed any of this before. Members may or may not relate to this.

I represent a Toronto area riding. When I looked at the crime statistics for the Toronto area, the census metropolitan area called the CMA, the Toronto CMA was number 26 on a list of 27 Canadian metropolitan areas for crime. That means there are 25 other municipalities in Canada that have crime rates in excess of that in Toronto for the timeframe that ended with the year 2004. I thought that was peculiar. I would have thought the big cities would have had the highest crime rates. It turns out I am wrong.

Toronto was 26 on a list of 30 for criminal statistics kept by police forces across the country. Those are reliable statistics, too, but vary slightly from Statistics Canada. I will mention some of the places that were near the top of the list. This is not for the purpose of maligning these communities. A problem with crime in Canada is a problem for all Canadians as well as the communities involved. All five of the communities with the higher overall crime rates, Regina, Saskatoon, Abbotsford, Winnipeg and Vancouver, were all cities removed from the eastern part of Canada.

If I were an MP coming one of those communities, I would be telling the House that there is a relatively high crime rate in my community and that we have to do something about it. If I come from a community with a lower crime rate, I will say that there is a crime problem but we have to look at it in perspective. I had always been curious as to why there was a difference in perspectives among members of the House when it came to the current data.

Perhaps that is part of the explanation for communities that have higher crime rates. I am not talking marginally higher, I am talking double and triple the rates in some of the other eastern Canadian cities. If I were to be representing a high crime community, I would be pulling the chain a lot more firmly in terms of getting an appropriate response to dealing with those crime levels.

I want to point out that the sentencing regime, the sentencing used for both the cities with the lower crime rates and the cities with the higher crime rates is the same. Therefore, I do not think we can say it is the sentencing that is responsible for the higher crime rate.

We might also want to say that it is not the sentencing which is responsible for the lower crime rate. However, we are talking about material differences in crime rates, but the same sentencing regime.

We ought to look at the real crime data. I will ask members to look back 15 years or more to a report of a committee of the House, the justice committee. It was chaired by Dr. Bob Horner. At that time we looked at the crime rates in the United States of America. It had the highest imprisonment rate of all the countries where there was data on incarceration.

Looking back at our report, we said that if locking up all those who violated the law contributed to safer societies, then the United States should be the safest country in the world, which it was not. The U.S. Senate judiciary committee agreed. Using 1990 data, it said that the United States was a world leader in reported murder, rape and robbery rates. Yet it had the highest incarceration rate. The higher incarceration rates did not noticeably improve, in any way, the risk and crime rate levels in the United States.

At about the same time, it is true that the crime rates in Canada were relatively high. They had gone up, the prior 10 years leading up to 1991. Starting in 1991, the crime rates began to drop, and they have been dropping ever since in Canada, not because of the Horner report and not because of what Parliament did or did not do. Looking back, it probably had a lot to do with the sociological factors that caused crime.

I would love an opportunity to go into those today. I will not have a chance. I will simply make two or three points.

First, I believe enforcement is a major component of reducing crime. I think that has been proved in the community I come from. It is being proved now as police and prosecutors are learning how to do better enforce.

Second, crime prevention initiatives have payoffs, but it involves the long run. Factors that give rise to crime are poverty, physical and sexual abuse, illiteracy, low self esteem, inadequate housing, school failure, unemployment, inequality and dysfunctional families. These have all been identified as the root causes of crime. Increasing mandatory sentencing does not address any one of those at all.

That is with regret. That is why I am having difficulty with a wholesale entry in mandatory minimum penalties. I could accept that there would be a few serious crimes where society had an interest in increasing, the denunciation factor, the desire of Canadians to say that this offence is so serious that we have to attach a mandatory sentence, a one-off. However, the bill does not do that. It takes a whole file, a whole truckload of offences and creates mandatory minimums. I suggest that is not the way to go.

I encourage us to continue the debate here or at committee. Let us look at the sentencing principles contained in the Criminal Code. They are well enunciated. They were established by the House approximately 12 years ago. They are very good and they speak conceptually against the concept of mandatory minimums.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question to ask the member opposite based on what I have heard.

Everyone who commits a crime in Canada is a product of some exclusion of society. Therefore, it is justified that they are able to commit these crimes and we should all feel sorry for them.

If someone were to commit a sexual offence, aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, be convicted under the change in law and not able to commit another offence for five years, would the member feel good about telling the parents of a young daughter from his constituency that the individual was locked up for five years and not on the street able to do it again? That would be five years for an offence like that where victims would have some feeling of retribution and a sense of justice for the crime committed against them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member takes the slam the cell door closed and throw away the key approach. I think every sentencing decision is based on its own merits and we rely on judges to do that with the general direction of appeal courts.

However, as a parent I would be concerned about any crime, but let me put this back to the member as a scenario. With the proposed mandatory minimum sentencing, what if a very well intentioned Crown prosecutor decides he or she wants to take a guilty plea to a lesser included offence? Instead of getting the mandatory minimum which the member would like to see, we end up taking a summary conviction plea or another lesser included offence and we end up without the mandatory minimum at all.

By imposing mandatory minimums across the board, defence counsel and Crown attorneys across the country will attempt to both use the higher penalty to induce plea bargaining and an attempt to avoid incarceration rates that will come with that.

As sure as night follows day and day follows night that will be a consequence of ratcheting up the mandatory minimums. I do not mind if the person culpable of the offence outlined by the hon. member is put in jail for five years or ten years provided that is a fair sentence determined by a court after a fair trial determined by a judge. I am happy to see the person put away for a long time, but not just on this chart of lock'em up and throw away the key approach that seems to be contained in the bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

The bill is, I suppose, in furtherance of one of the government's priorities: to get tough on crime. I believe I am speaking for all parliamentarians when I say that we do want safe streets and communities. Certainly I agree with that statement. However, I cannot agree with the provisions of this bill.

At our disposal as parliamentarians we have a number of tools dealing with crime. This bill is analogous to taking a sledgehammer out of the toolbox when a hammer should be and leaving four other relevant and applicable tools in the toolbox when they should be used in this whole issue of crime prevention and elimination.

As parliamentarians, we make laws, which are the standards that we ask citizens to apply in their day to day lives. In a lot of instances, laws are not followed, which of course leads to the second issue of what happens when the law is not followed, and that of course depends on the severity of the particular law, regulation or rule.

When a serious offence occurs the person is charged, he goes to trial or pleads guilty, and he is sentenced. This sentencing process that we are talking about is an important issue.

Before I became a parliamentarian, I practised law for 25 years. I have been involved in many sentencing issues, both as a prosecutor and as a defence lawyer. I can say right now that sentencing is a extremely complex issue. It involves the accused, the accused's family, and the victim of the crime, as well as society in the larger issue. I can tell members right now that no two cases are alike. A lot of people would like to make a very simple statement that they can make one rule which would involve every sentence that a particular judge has to deal with, but that is simply wrong.

There are certain principles that have to be followed in a sentencing process. The first one, of course, is proportionality. The sentence has to be proportional to the gravity of the offence. The protection of the public, of course, is a very important principle. Everyone is concerned about retribution: that the accused serve a sentence based upon the gravity of the crime, of course, and the possible rehabilitation of the offender.

These principles are all codified in section 178 of the Criminal Code. We as a society leave the actual sentencing up to the judge. The sentence has to be done according to the principles, but again, as I said, no two cases are alike. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, we have to leave some discretion to the judge.

Can the system be improved? Of course it can and that was the reason why the previous government introduced Bill C-2, which did increase certain sentences but dealt with a lot of other issues and the whole issue of crime and crime prevention.

When Bill C-10 came before the House, I listened to the debates, read a lot of the background materials and, at the end of the day, I have concluded that it is the wrong approach.

First of all, I look at what the experts are saying. Our society is not inventing the wheel here. A lot of people study these issues. Here, in Europe and in the United States, they study what works and is effective and what does not work. Almost exclusively, the experts who have studied these issues have come to the conclusion that mandatory minimum sentences in offences like these are not the way to go. That is the position of the Canadian Bar Association, the American Bar Association and most criminologists. Again, I read what they have to say.

The second question I asked myself was if it was effective. What disturbed me the most in the debate was the comments from the justice minister when he introduced the bill. He referred to studies in Massachusetts, Florida, Virginia, New York and other states. I did not, but others probed into these studies and determined the results of the studies indicated that they were the exact opposite to what he said in the House.

When we do something like this, we are talking about the law of unintended consequences. We are dealing not with a minimum; we are dealing with a ceiling. We are dealing with more trials, more prisons and more costs to society. Then we have to ask ourselves the basic question. Could the money be spent more efficiently and more economically?

One additional item that concerns me and disturbs me is the whole issue of minority groups. Perhaps one statistic could put the whole debate in perspective with respect to this issue.

At some point today, an aboriginal child will born in Canada, probably in your own city of Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker. According to the statistics, that aboriginal child has a more likely chance of going to prison than going to college. I do not even have to say any more about how the sentencing system and our justice system have treated minorities in our country.

Then it is easy to say if that does not work, what does work? I believe effective sentencing works. We all have to strive toward that. I will not stand in the House and say that the system is perfect. It needs improvement. Perhaps the most important thing we should be looking at is more effective and increased law enforcement.

We have to look, as parliamentarians and as a society, at the causes of crime. What causes people to breach the law? Is it education? Is it poverty? Is it health? These are all factors that have to be taken into consideration as society tries to deal with this problem. I should add too that there are some alarming statements made by certain people in the media, but I believe most people know that crime is in the decrease in Canada.

The issue of civil engagement and crime prevention have to be taken into consideration when we move forward on this issue.

I read the legislation. As I stated, the issue of trying to tie the hands of the judges, which in effect creates a ceiling, not a minimum sentence, is the wrong approach. I do not support it. Most people in the field of sentencing and in the field of criminology do not support it.

I believe we should go back to the drawing board. We should come forward, using all tools at our disposal, tools regarding a more effective and increased law enforcement, the causes of crime, issues we can deal with in society to prevent crime, issues that should be dealt with as a package.

I do not support the bill in its present form. I support the concept of lessening criminal behaviour and I support the principle of safer communities and safer streets, but this is not the way to go.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague. I would like to have his opinion on the following. Minimum sentences tie the judges' hands. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that they do so unnecessarily because, in our opinion—and I am sure that my hon. colleague is thinking along the same lines—judges remain in the best position to determine what sentence is the most appropriate in light of all the facts of the case. They hear evidence and submissions. They, better than anyone else, should know what sentence would be the best. With this bill, the government would be taking this discretion away from judges.

The second point on which I would like to hear my hon. colleague is the opinion of all crime experts that the use of minimum sentences does not lower the crime rate or the recidivism rate. That is a major reason to oppose Bill C-10.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague on these two points.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the premise of each of the questions. We are tying the hands of the judge if we adopt this legislation.

The whole issue of sentencing has been developed over hundreds of years. Again, I am not going to say it is perfect, but it is based upon certain principles. There are about five or six principles that the judge has to consider, and they are codified in section 108 of the Criminal Code.

The judge is a lawyer and is trained. More important, the judge has heard all the evidence dealing with the particular offence, heard the record of the accused, probably received a psychological assessment on the accused and has received a victim impact statement. For us, as parliamentarians, to later tie the hands of judges and say what they can or cannot do is wrong.

I will conclude with two quick comments.

Again, no two cases are alike. No one in this House, or in any House, should say that they are wrong or that they do not know what they are talking about.

My learned friend spoke about the specialists. I have read a lot of the reports. I have heard the debates here. My learned friend is quite correct. All the people who study these issues state clearly and unequivocally that the mandatory minimum is not effective. That is the reason why we should not pass this legislation.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Bill C-10. My constituents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore made their concerns about public safety very clear during the last election campaign.

I will not forget knocking on the door of a family in my riding who had just lost its nephew in a gun crime shooting in Montreal. I went to a memorial service held in the young man's honour and we all felt shock and anger at the senseless waste of a young life. The young man's uncle asked me what I would do to reduce the incidence of these terrible crimes and I pledged to support any reasonable measure that would make such tragedies less likely in the future.

Everyone in the House, especially this member of Parliament, wants to keep faith with families who have lost loved ones to gun violence. Everyone in the House wants to reduce this scourge of gun crime.

The question before us today is not who is tougher on crime. The question is, what is the most effective way to do so? That family in my riding does not want us to play politics with its grief and anger. It wants balanced measures that work. Balance means measures that address all features of the crime problem in our society rather than using sentencing tariffs as the unique yardstick of whether criminal justice policy is sufficiently tough.

Balance means giving all our crime fighters, the police, the crown attorneys, the judges, the neighbourhood watch organizations, the youth workers, the school teachers, the parents, the parole and probation officers, the correction officers and, yes, the good people who run the gun registry, the support and resources they need to work together to reduce crime in our society. Recent arrests of drug gangs in Toronto prove the effectiveness of a targeted and tough police action, and the Toronto police deserve all possible praise for these raids.

A balanced approach includes tough sentences for heinous crimes, but the Criminal Code already contains 42 mandatory minimum penalties. Many of these were placed on the statute books by previous Liberal administrations. The political charge that this side of the House is soft on crime just will not wash.

The question before the House is not whether there should be some mandatory minimums for serious crimes, but whether it is good public policy to increase their number and severity and to make this the sole focus of criminal justice policy in the government.

Instead of a balanced approach—increased funding for police forces and the RCMP, the courts, legal aid, youth employment programs and crime prevention in schools—this government proposed a single new tool: a new series of minimum sentences for a variety of crimes committed with a firearm.

Instead of listening to the valiant army of people who fight crime, this government decided that petty politics took precedence over efficiency in fighting crime.

The people of my riding do not want to play petty politics with crime. They want a balanced approach that is based on actual facts and delivers tangible results.

Bill C-10 fails the test of balance. Instead of investing new resources in the police, in the courts, in the probation and parole systems, the federal government, and provincial ones as well, will be forced to invest millions of dollars of scarce criminal justice resources in new prisons. This is not balanced. This is just ideologically driven public policy.

The second test that criminal justice measures must pass is evidence. In his testimony before the justice committee, I heard nothing from the Minister of Justice that approached an evidence based approach that would justify the new tariffs. There is good reason for his silence. There are no studies that prove, with any degree of conclusiveness, that increases in mandatory minima do actually reduce the incidence of gun crime.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said in the House on June 6 that he “wanted to send a message to criminal gangs”, but he went on to say:

Whether or not they are paying attention and will think twice before committing a serious crime with a firearm remains to be seen....

This suggests that the government does not know whether mandatory minima deter. It wants to send a message but it has no idea whether the message will get through.

The United States has just come through a 40 year experiment with mandatory minima. No reputable criminologist believes that this explains the fall in serious crime rates in the United States. The causes, the experts agree, can be traced to jobs, to prosperity, to better prospects for the poor and a demographic decrease in the proportion of young adult males who are responsible for most serious crime. Already many American states are abandoning mandatory minima. Why should Canada rush to adopt a policy that many thoughtful Americans reject as a failure?

The use of mandatory minima, however, has had one obvious effect. The U.S. now has the dubious distinction of having one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

When I was a young graduate student, I used to spend every Tuesday night for about four years in a medium security prison working with the prison chaplain with a bunch of young lifers who were doing mandatory minimums for serious crimes. After that experience of four years, I came away with one very clear conclusion: Prisons are essential to remove dangerous offenders from society but prisons also render most offenders worse.

The unfailing consequence of Bill C-10 would be to increase the Canadian prison population and, as a consequence, increase the number of criminalized individuals who, when released, are likely to reoffend. Instead of reducing crime, Bill C-10 might just have the opposite effect.

Because Bill C-10 would increase the prison population, this would have serious public expenditure consequences. The House and the country is entitled to know what these measures will cost. Nowhere has the government presented real estimates of what it will cost to increase our prison population, but we can have some idea.

We already know that it costs $80,000 to keep a Canadian in prison. The House and the country will want to know why the government believes it should spend more scarce criminal justice dollars on keeping people in prison and possibly making them worse, when the same money could be spent on a balanced investment, in more police officers, probation and parole personnel, improvements in legal aid and the court system.

Bill C-10 fails the test of balance. It fails the test of evidence. It also fails the test of justice. By justice, I mean the requirement that sentences fit the crime. As my colleague, the member for London West, so ably pointed out, a person who commits a crime with a long gun under this legislation is likely to face a lower penalty than someone who commits an equivalent crime with a handgun. Where is the proportionality? Where is the fairness in this?

In our system we leave the adjudication and proportionality to judges. They are trained to determine the circumstances, mitigating or aggravating, that ought to determine what penalty fits the crime. The escalating tariff proposed by the government makes it more difficult for our criminal justice system to achieve proportionality and fairness.

My party has always believed in a different balance between the legitimate prerogatives of the legislature and the courts and between the imperatives of public safety and the need for proportionality.

In conclusion, Bill C-10 is not a balanced approach to public safety. It is not evidence based and it fails the test of proportionality. On these three grounds, I will vote against it.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore had to say and I disagree with him wholeheartedly.

It was not that long ago that a heinous crime occurred in Toronto and the former chief of police, Julian Fantino, indicated that he had had it with the revolving door justice system and that the age of hug a thug, as he put it, was over. Our government never presided over the age of hug a thug but members opposite did. Obviously the whole notion that they are soft on crime is coming from society and not from us.

I would like to suggest that the member opposite look into what occurs in our federal prisons which actually have a very good record of rehabilitating prisoners. He may want to refer to them.

I would like to suggest to him that the bill is about justice, justice for victims and justice for society. Where does that enter into his paradigm of considering whether it is a balanced approach or not? I would like to hear the answer.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take some exception to the idea that previous Liberal governments were associated with hug a thug. As I made perfectly clear in my statement, the previous government took added mandatory minima where it felt there was a public order justification. I would point out to the hon. member that over the last 13 years Juristat statistics make it perfectly clear that crime rates fell on the Liberal watch because we took a tough and balanced approach.

As the hon. member rightly said, this is a question of justice, but justice does not consist of locking people up and throwing away the key. If the hon. member is as concerned as he says about rehabilitation in prisons, then I would see measures in the government's estimates that would amount to an investment in rehabilitation programs in prison. I see no such evidence of any investment in those programs.

Once again the hon. member is trying to play this as being that side of the House is tough on crime and we are weak on crime. The Canadian public is entirely sick of this falsely polarized debate. The entire House takes the most serious view of serious crime, as I made pretty clear in my statement. Let us move beyond this and assess this measure on its merits. I have assessed it according to three criteria and it has failed to pass the most elementary test of justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the hon. member who asked the first question, I thought this speech was remarkable. It was quite thorough, well balanced and in-depth.

Nonetheless, there is an aspect my colleague did not touch on—perhaps he was short on time—and that was the legal aspect. Many arguments to justify minimum sentences are horror stories. The sentences seem totally unreasonable in relation to the seriousness of the crime.

Of all these objections raised, has my colleague heard of a single case that went before the Court of Appeal in the country? If these sentences are so awful, they can be corrected in appeal. Before changing the legislation, we should look just at the sentences, considered unjustifiable by some, that were approved by the appeal courts.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for his comments about me.

He agrees with me on the political line I addressed in my speech. I fully agree with him that if these crimes are not properly punished, it is always possible to turn to the Court of Appeal.

I would add that in the Canadian system, Parliament creates laws and judges apply them. We accept and respect the possibility of a division of labour between the judiciary and Parliament. I accept this division and the respect that exists between the two—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code, minimum penalties for offences involving firearms.

As we all know, this is an issue of prime importance to most Canadians. We all want to see effective action against crime. I want to echo what the previous speaker said. I think Canadians are tired of the breast-beating and the “We're tougher on crime than you are” that often goes on around here and that often goes on in political discourse in Canada. I think everyone in this House wants to see effective action against crime.

That is a crucial issue for me, as well, but I want to ensure that the action we take is effective action, which is why I have some difficulties with the proposed legislation that we are discussing today. The primary question that I approach every piece of legislation with is: Will it do the job that it is advertised and promoted to do? One of the reasons that I am sitting in this chamber is to make those kinds of decisions about the proposals that come before us.

I do not think we should be about enshrining so-called solutions that do not work and that give people perhaps a false sense of security. I do not think we should be wasting time and money when the need to address crime is so urgent.

Those are some of the questions that I bring to considering this legislation today. I also bring the commitment the New Democrats have made around crime and crime prevention.

We have said that there should be a three pronged approach to dealing with crime and our approach has three pillars. The first approach is firm punishment and legislative deterrence. The second approach is enhanced resources for enforcement that foster collaboration between law enforcement agencies. The third approach is essential investments in crime prevention, communities and youth. All three of those are essential in dealing with the issue of crime and crime in our society. We cannot take away one and have an effective program.

Unfortunately, the bill addresses only one of those pillars and I do not think crime can be effectively addressed in our society by pursuing only one aspect of the problem.

I also see some key problems with the legislation. The questions I asked earlier in the House were: Why are unrestricted firearms not included? Why are long guns not included? Why are shotguns not included? Why do the Conservatives think that crime committed with a long gun is somehow less important? We know that over 50% of police officers killed in Canada in the last 20 years were killed by someone using a long gun and that a huge percentage of spousal murders in Canada are committed by men using long guns as well.

If the government were really serious about indicating the seriousness of gun crime, it would have included unrestricted firearms in the legislation. It just does not make sense to leave it out. It brings into the question the whole motivation behind this legislation.

The bill also contains a 10 year provision for a third offence. As a significant body of opinion says that this may be seen as excessive by the courts and ultimately ruled unconstitutional, I am concerned about its inclusion in the legislation.

On the whole, there is evidence that mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce crime, that they have no effect on the crime rate. We know, and we have seen and heard this repeated over and over again, that people who commit serious crimes almost always never consider the punishment. Therefore, having a significant punishment for a crime is not necessarily a deterrent and it certainly is not an effective deterrent.

We have seen in other societies, such as in the United States where certain jurisdictions have drawn heavily on mandatory minimum sentences, that it has not had a significant effect on the crime rate in those jurisdictions.

The Conservatives are also making up plans for a huge increase in the rate of incarceration in Canada. We saw that a significant piece in the budget dealt with increases in infrastructure for our federal prison system. We know that the kind of measures they are proposing in Bill C-10 and in the conditional sentencing legislation would increase the number of people who are in both federal and provincial prisons.

It is not just the capital cost of the infrastructure, of building new jails and new prisons, it is also the cost of keeping someone in jail. We know that it costs about $51,500 per inmate at the provincial level and about $81,000 per inmate in the federal system.

When we combine all the plans that the government has noted on this, we see a significant increase in the cost of the prison system in Canada. Some of that cost is being downloaded to the provinces. We know that there will be an increase in sentences under two years, certainly under the conditional sentencing legislation.

This shift to incarceration will move funds from enforcement and prevention programs and it will also put more people in jail, which has been proven not to be the most effective way of dealing with crime in our society. It offers some level of protection to society, but the rehabilitation side, the rebuilding of relationship side is also more difficult when incarceration is used, not to mention the fact that prisons have often been called schools for crime and a great networking opportunity for criminals. All of those concerns draw into question the emphasis that the government is putting on increasing rates of incarceration in Canada.

There is also a problem that some Crown attorneys, in discussing this kind of remedy, have said that they do not feel that there is a need for more mandatory minimums and if they are implemented there is an increased likelihood that as Crown attorneys that they will plea bargain around them.

If that is the case, this legislation may have exactly the opposite effect than what the government intends. It may in fact see more cases plea bargained and the serious penalties that are being proposed will not actually be implemented.

Another issue with the current legislation refers to specific crimes that would establish a mandatory minimum sentence for breaking and entering to obtain a firearm. This will disproportionately affect aboriginal communities where this crime of break and entry to borrow a gun to hunt for food is quite common.

No matter what we think of this crime, how can putting more aboriginal people in our prison system for a longer time address what most of us already recognize as the huge failure of our society. Aboriginal people are hugely overrepresented in our prison population. This step moves in exactly the wrong direction.

In the last election, New Democrats put forward a comprehensive platform on crime. Central to that was an omnibus safe communities act that would take a holistic approach to reducing crime. We know that only a combination of measures can be effective.

Our plan included some of the following items, none of which are part of the Conservative's priorities and certainly none of which are part of Bill C-10.

We propose dealing with the border. We know that most illegal guns used in crime enter Canada from the United States. We need to have more effective border controls and we need to ensure that border officers are properly equipped to do the job, including arming them if an RCMP presence is not going to be provided at all times.

If we talk about border issues, I think most Canadians would recognize that the flow of illegal weapons from the United States into Canada is a serious border issue. We do not hear, report on or discuss this lately. We have been talking mainly about the problems that the Americans perceive with our border and the traffic north to south, which is unproven at best.

We know there is a serious issue of illegal guns coming into Canada from the United States. We need to deal with that effectively. We need to target the selling of illegal weapons on the Internet. This should be a specific criminal offence. The RCMP should have the resources to do the job and Parliament should establish a task force and other proactive measures for discovering and eliminating Internet sales.

We need to provide federal support for multi-level task forces in communities facing heightened violence, making sure that they include broad representation from the community and in youth involvement, and ensuring a focus on all aspects, including root causes, enforcement and prevention priority. We have to involve our communities in seeking the solutions to the crime problem in their areas.

We have called for stricter bail conditions when guns are involved in crimes. We support legislative regulatory and sentencing initiatives to embody the principle that handguns have no place in the cities.

We are also talking about returning a significant portion of the proceeds of crime back to local communities and neighbourhoods as requested by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

We want measures to help prevent youth from becoming involved in gangs in the first place. More funding for community programming outside school hours and other targeted educational programming, and we need to increase funding for programs to address drug addictions.

In my home community we know that most crimes are the result of people who are drug addicted. We know at the same time that there are few treatment resources available, so even when people are prepared to undergo treatment they have to wait and often that is the death knell for their good intentions and for the opportunity to actually get them off the drug that has been ruining their life.

There are many things we need to address. We need to address poverty, alienation, unemployment, literacy, access to education, and victim services, but my fear is that if we go in this direction, we will use valuable resources for those areas on incarceration and not deal with the real issues. So I am left very skeptical about this legislation.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last few speeches we have heard in the House indicate pretty much how nice it is to be a Liberal and an NDP because they have this touchy-feely air about criminals and their activities. We keep hearing that crime is going down but I am not so sure that is true. We hear all kinds of statistics and I would suggest that we need to consider one other thing.

Even if crime is going down and I am not sure it is, in fact I am convinced it is not necessarily true. However, the one thing that is increasing is the amount of guns arriving in this country illegally and the amount of guns available to criminals. Gangs are smuggling in these guns. We know there is a hoard of guns out there and they will not be used for anything but criminal activity.

It seems to me that we are in for some serious problems ahead, probably not from the past but we had better start preparing for the future. This bill is a step in that direction. There are many things we could do besides this bill and we are going to do those things, but in the meantime we have to take this seriously. What we need to do is stop this nonsense of saying, for example, that long guns are not covered by the bill.

If someone uses a gun in a crime, it does not matter if it is a shotgun, a 30-30 rifle or whatever. If individuals use a gun in the commission of a crime, this bill says they are guilty and will be punished. I wish the opposition members would start speaking the truth about the bill and either read it or put it aside, but keep their mouths shut if they are not going to speak about facts and the idea that it does not apply.

Second, I would like to know why we do not get the bill to committee? We are hearing now all this touchy-feely wonderful stuff that we are going to do but nobody over there really knows what we are going do. Let us get this to committee. Let us get this thing closed down and let us get some real study on it because I know that the victims of crime strongly support this bill. Police forces across the country strongly support the bill and all we are hearing right now is this fuzzy stuff.

I am tired of it. I want the bill to be studied in committee. Let us get it right because guns are going to be a very serious problem in the future because of the number of them that exist out there and, by the way, are not registered.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to comment on the member's interjection. I wish he would take some time to look at the evidence about crime statistics in Canada. If he bothered to do that, he would see that crime is indeed decreasing in Canada.

In fact, just this last weekend in British Columbia we saw that auto theft, which has been one of the main problems of crime in the lower mainland, has actually gone down. Some of the preventive proposals that have been gaining use in the lower mainland are things like bait cars. They have gone a significant distance in decreasing the kind of auto crime that we see. It is exactly those kinds of programs that we need to be funding.

If the Conservatives were concerned about not being touchy-feely and wanted to actually do something about crime in Canada, they would put some money into those kinds of programs. They would put some money into restorative justice programs to rebuild relationships, and keep crime, punishment and rehabilitation in the community.

They would put some money into victim services to ensure that victims have the support they deserve when they are faced with dealing with a major crime. There is nothing touchy-feely about calling for that kind of reorganization of government spending and nothing touchy-feely about calling for that kind of reorganization of the government's thinking because that is a significant task ahead of us.

The member mentioned the whole issue of gangs and illegal guns. Bill C-10 is not going to do anything about that, not one thing. Those people could care less what the penalty is for the kind of crime that they are involved in. If the government were serious about dealing about that, we would see some programs that would prevent people from becoming involved in gangs. We would see some programs that would deal with the question of the border. Why are guns still flowing across the border illegally? Why have there not been any specific initiatives to deal with that? Those are really important questions that need to be addressed as well.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Jay Hill]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the vote on the motion be deferred until the end of this day.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

So ordered.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-10.

The question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #18

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)