Evidence of meeting #30 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was serious.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
No, I'm not going to hold it. It's my time, Mr. Minister. You've answered my question. If you have the data, you can give it to us. If you don't have the data, you don't have to give it to us. You appear--
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Well, I'm finished, because I'm going to move on to my question. You've answered mine. Thank you very much.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I appreciate the manner in which the minister patronizes his parliamentary secretary, patting him on the head, saying, “Good question, excellent question”.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
This is not the way I'm used to doing business around a committee, and a legislative committee.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I took note of the minister's question and wonderful response to the parliamentary secretary.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Order. Direct your question, Mr. Lee. Direct your question to the minister.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I have my time, Mr. Chairman.
So the Toronto firearm incidents have dropped significantly. The point I would make, since we all seem to be making points around the table here, is that last year was a very negative spike in the number of firearm incidents.
Earlier in your remarks, Minister, you mentioned that you had some research data. You cited the authors and you made reference to the fact that you might not be able to provide the whole study or--
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
No, because we weren't allowed to translate it for copyright reasons, and that's why I gave the information here.
November 7th, 2006 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Our researchers can access that easily, and I assume they have or they will, because that data is useful and obviously relevant.
This is one bill, we numbered it Bill C-10, but there are two other bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-27. Each of these bills, Minister, deals with the Criminal Code, deals with sentencing. I'm wondering why we have three bills. Why didn't the government simply introduce one bill dealing with Criminal Code sentencing, dealing with conditional sentencing, in this bill mandatory minimums and the other involving long-term offenders? Wouldn't that have been the simple and prudent thing to do? Why did you choose three bills instead of one?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Because each one tackles a different issue, a different aspect of sentencing.
We have seen, for example--getting back to the earlier question, Mr. Chair--in other jurisdictions, when you simply arrest but don't put people in prison for long periods of time, the crime rate jumps back up again. So as I was saying in answer to the earlier question, in which I was interrupted, policing is an important aspect of it, but if there are no meaningful consequences, if the people aren't actually kept off the street, you'll see the crime rates spike right back again.
The police in Toronto have done an excellent job in terms of arresting and putting those individuals back in prison and in remand. But if you actually look at the statistics of the individuals who committed firearms offences and are out on bail, you can see that once these individuals are back out on the street they're committing the firearms offences. So if there aren't meaningful sentences....and I'm assuming that's why Mr. Lee, during the election, supported mandatory eight-year sentences for these gun crimes. He took exactly the same position.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
It's probably worth pointing out, Minister, that the success of the Toronto police force and other police forces in response to the violence of the last year or two...that progress was made with the existing laws, not the new laws. The police are actually doing very well working with the laws that exist.
That's not to say we can't make changes in these laws, and I can't imagine there would be many Canadians who wouldn't want to have public safety improvements by amendments to the Criminal Code and changes in sentencing. So this committee and the House will look at this bill fairly.
I know my party included an increase in the number of mandatory minimums in the Criminal Code in the last election campaign. I guess the point is that now the Conservatives are in government and they're the ones who have introduced the bill, it is the bill that will have to be tested here.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Yes, as opposed to your election promises, which will be tested in another election.
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
When's that going to be? Can you tell us when that's going to be?
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
You're in the driver's seat.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Let us not talk about elections, let us talk about the law.
I have a very specific question, Minister. You will see that I have done my homework. If your bill is passed, will young offenders’ criminal record be taken into consideration in sentencing?
[Editor’s note: Technical difficulty]
My time is being reduced. That time doesn’t count, isn’t that right, Mr. Chairman? It is very important that we know the answer to this question.