Justice Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The role of legislators is always to pass laws while taking into account the most convincing and conclusive facts possible. While Bill C-10 was being studied, we asked the Justice Department on numerous occasions to tell us what the impact of minimum mandatory penalties would be.

Obviously, everyone pointed to the contradiction between the desire to fight crime involving the use of firearms and the elimination of a mechanism to publicly control firearms, namely the gun registry. This stands as a major public policy contradiction, but that's not the focus of our attention today.

We have before us Bill C-10. Can the Justice Department and its research and policy division produce some studies that might convince us that minimum mandatory penalties really do have a deterrent effect?

May I remind you that draft legislation introduced by Minister Allan Rock to establish the gun registry provided for a certain number of minimum mandatory penalties. Why are we revisiting this subject today? The department does not have a single serious study in hand to convince parliamentarians that this is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman, the committee has heard testimony from a number of criminologists. The clerk has forwarded some studies to us. Based on all of the information that we have received, aside for law enforcement officials, few people said that minimum mandatory penalties had a deterrent effect. Yet, this goes to the heart of the bill that we are being asked to vote on.

I am very concerned about crime. In my opinion, the best way of fighting crime is to give police officers the proper investigative tools. The Bloc Québécois is planning to introduce a motion calling for police officers who deal with street gangs and organized crime to be given additional resources to do their job.

Give us some additional conclusive evidence that minimum mandatory penalties do help you to reach your objectives. We would then be better able to assess the situation. However, based on the testimony given here, we cannot make this finding. I don't believe that you have any serious studies to share with us. If you did, I'm sure you would have shared them with us by now.

So then, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, do you have any probative, conclusive studies that could guide us in our work?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I thank Mr. Ménard for the question.

I think we're at the stage now where we've heard testimony from people who were in favour of the bill and who were against the bill, and I think most of us have drawn our conclusions.

I don't have any new evidence to present to you today. We're at the stage of fine-tuning the bill, amending the bill, passing the bill, or defeating the bill. We're at that stage now. Hopefully, we've all drawn our conclusions.

I'm seeking to know whether this is something we can work on together so that at the end of the day we have a better law in place for Canadians and for public safety. Or is it something we simply want to get over with and vote on?

I have expressed that the government is open to hearing amendments submitted by Mr. Comartin, and we're open to hearing amendments from the Bloc and the Liberals. If there is a sincere desire to put some amendments forward, then maybe, Mr. Chair, we can find some way to accommodate that. We've all had time to hear witnesses. But I do want to express that there is a sincere interest in hearing opposition ideas about making the bill better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Certainly opinions have been expressed quite clearly, I believe.

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for joining us today for the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Comartin from the NDP.

Like your colleague Mr.Martin in the case of Bill C-2, you have done an excellent job. You have a small team, but you have done a fine job. As a new MP, I appreciate your work and I congratulate you.

As for whether or not we have heard from enough witnesses, let me relate a few facts to you. I'm from Quebec and three Quebec representatives are seated here at this table. Our provinces has been the scene of the most serious offences committed with firearms. There have been three cases of mass murder.

I don't need to hear from a psychologist or a sociologist to gain a better understanding of the problem. Here are the facts: there are 34 active street gangs in my colleagues' ridings. We've been told by people that eleven-, twelve- and thirteen-year olds are carrying handguns. These are the facts. I don't need a sociologist to tell me more. I need to know how my constituents will be protected. We have a problem in Montreal and, in my case, in Quebec City. If we don't resolve it now, I don't want to have on my conscience a failed arrest because we didn't do our job here. It's our problem.

That's why I'm thanking Mr.Comartin. His party did an equally fine job on Bill C-2.

The other parties are always against us. The Bloc Québécois and the Liberals always join forces. Only the NDP seems to take a logical approach and to get results. Were it not for the NDP, BillC-2 would not have been adopted. We have the NDP to thank for that .

Today, we have some facts. It's time to be logical and to stop our partisan bickering. Let's ensure that no one is killed tomorrow morning because we failed to fix the problem.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That won't change anything, as far as the bill is concerned, Daniel. They are not demagogues. It makes no difference, as far as the bill goes.

[An hon. member]

That's totally false.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

They are not demagogues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Order, please.

Mr. Petit, continue.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I didn't interrupt you when you were talking, sir.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No, but you've made some accusations that smack of demagogy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Petit, are you finished?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Sorry, I missed that exchange there. I didn't get the interpretation. That's too bad. I like good exchanges.

I'd like to thank the parliamentary secretary for reminding us of the platforms that were struck during the election. This is because I'm finding it really hard to understand, after this period of time, that when I stood on the stage in the campaign and I laid out our platform quite clearly, which I believe didn't even go as far as we'd like to have seen, but I was satisfied with Bill C-10—But when we talked about that platform—and I'm always looking forward to a good debate at election time with my NDP friends and Liberal friends, on justice and law and order—when it came to this issue they made me look like a wussy. They were saying he's right on; we happen to agree with Mr. Thompson on that; we agree with Mr. Thompson. That was the Liberal and the NDP candidate. Maybe they'd like to have their names, so they make sure they don't run again. How dare they support this unwavering old cowboy from the west? He's right. Mr. Comartin is right. I am unwavering because that was very appealing to the public.

It is the public we're here to serve. I constantly hear Mr. Ménard indicating what our duties are in terms of providing legislation. I'm well aware of our duties. But I believe the first and most primary duty that we have as elected people is to provide protection to our society. That has to be priority number one. But I keep hearing these other things that seem to take priority over that, like giving more discretion, like making sure it passes the charter test. Are we going to make protecting society a high priority? I think it ought to be. I know the public would certainly want us to do that.

But we enter into these debates about we have to do this because we have to make sure the judges have discretion, or we have to make sure it passes the charter test. I don't believe the inventors of our charter intended for that document to be a hindrance to any justice and law and order at all. I don't think that was their intention at all. Yet it seems like those kinds of things are always brought forward and thrown into our face, even though, during the election, all the candidates, including the Liberal and the NDP, were quite excited about this kind of legislation being possible.

Then when I get here and I hear what I'm hearing throughout this last year, I'm surprised. What happened? What happened to the desire in the hearts of the elected people to do something about guns and protecting society? I think these debates and these discussions are futile. Either we're going to get at doing the job of protecting the people, as we said we'd do, or we're going to sit around here and debate whether this judge ought to have more discretion, or that judge ought to have more discretion, or is it going to pass the charter test? Those things are not the priority. The priority is to protect our young people, our kids and our families and our women and children. That's our duty. And these kinds of discussions that lead off into these other things just irritate me.

And, Mr. Comartin, you're correct: I don't waver. We have a job to do, and that's to protect society. Let's not waver because of these other kinds of discussions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Ms. Jennings.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When one listens to certain members of the government, one would assume that right now, under our Criminal Code, there are no minimum mandatory penalties, and in particular none with regard to criminal offences committed with firearms.

In fact, members who premise their comments so that people who are watching and listening to this session will believe that there are none—that there are no criminal infractions and sanctions and penalties and minimum mandatory penalties with regard to crimes committed with firearms as we speak, right now, in the Criminal Code--are doing a disservice to the Canadian population.

I'm sure the members—Mr. Thompson and Monsieur Petit, and Mr. Moore himself—have read the Criminal Code and therefore know very well that you already have, for instance, section 85, “using firearm in commission of offence”, and that does not include serious-use offences such as attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, but just use of a firearm in the commission of an offence other than those serious uses in assaults. There is already a first-offence minimum and there's a subsequent-offence minimum. We have section 95, “possession of restricted or prohibited firearm with ammunition”. There is already a mandatory minimum for that offence.

One can go through every single section that Bill C-10 amends and find that in most of them there are already mandatory minimums. In creating higher mandatory minimums and second- and third- and subsequent-offence mandatory minimums, the one thing Bill C-10 accomplishes is the complete removal of the discretion of a judge for subsequent offences.

It also creates two new offences: breaking and entering with an intent to steal a firearm, and robbery—which is under section 343—with intent to steal a firearm. Those two new offences were actually introduced in Bill C-82 of the previous government.

In relation to those two new offences Mr. Comartin makes the point very clearly, as I believe Mr. Murphy did, that if there are mandatory minimums and the judges have absolutely no discretion, it could have a serious negative impact on our aboriginal communities.

So, first, I would ask the members, when they are speaking to Bill C-10 and criticizing the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québecois, and the NDP, to please not do so in a way that would lead Canadians to believe that the current law has no mandatory minimum penalties for criminal infractions committed with firearms, because it does. That's the first thing.

Second, I would also ask members when they are speaking to this to not lead Canadians to believe that the laws on the books as they are now are not being enforced or are not being used, because they are in fact being used. Law enforcement will tell you that very clearly.

So don't use your ideological bent to push it. This committee heard scientific fact, based on scientific study. Now, if a member wishes to throw that out the window and base his or her voting intention and work here in the House of Commons on the subjective and the emotional, fine; that is your right, but say so in the beginning. Say that you do not base your decisions as a member of Parliament on fact, proven fact, scientific fact; you care nothing about science; you care nothing about accurate, proven fact; you care only about emotion and subjectivity. Then we know what we're dealing with.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm certainly a bit puzzled to hear some of the comments from the official opposition about misleading. I know that many members of the government have mentioned throughout the hearings—I realize there have been some changes in the Liberal composition of the justice committee, but we've repeatedly raised that there already are minimum penalties, and it's simply a natural evolution on the success of those initiatives.

What I find disingenuous, Mr. Chairman, is that at the same time we hear shouts from the official opposition that we can't limit judicial discretion, they're saying we already limit judicial discretion. So you can't be for and against the same concept. You can't be saying we have minimum sentences that are great, and that work, while at the same time you're saying we can't entertain any more, because they don't work.

We do limit judicial discretion in this country. It has worked. It has been successful. We've heard testimony from law enforcement saying how it has worked. To hear someone say that we need to listen to law enforcement, when their very own policy propositions are a complete contradiction to what every law enforcement person who has come before this committee has said, is surprising, to say the least.

Listen to what the Canadian Police Association has said. Listen to what Bill Blair has said about minimum penalties. It's comical to hear a member say that we should listen to law enforcement. They may not have been here when law enforcement made their comments, but they should certainly do their homework and listen to what those comments were.

I would really hope that every member of this committee would recognize that we have a duty to make this Parliament work. We're hearing that openness from Mr. Moore. We're hearing that openness from Mr. Comartin. Obviously, the Bloc have their objective, and certainly they've been frank about it. They've been honest about it. It's not to make this country work. It's not to improve current laws. But certainly we would expect the official opposition to work with other federalist parties to have openness, to make this Parliament work, and I sincerely hope we'll see a change in their tone. For them to hang their hat on the limiting of judicial discretion is simply a disingenuous concept.

We already limit judicial discretion in this country. We have maximum penalties. We have minimum penalties. We've heard that in testimonies. It's time to decide whether we want to hang our lot against a law that Canadians resoundingly voted for and expected all parties, save the Bloc, to work for or to simply play politics. Those in opposition to this law are misleading their constituents and playing politics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

I have five speakers on the list. You're one of them, Mr. Ménard. I trust it's the committee's desire, after we go through these five, to cut it off.

No, you're on the list too, Mr. Murphy.

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

I want to be off the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'll include the existing list that I have right now, and I'll leave the final comments to Mr. Moore, if that's the committee's desire. Is it? It is.

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Either we're going to go to clause-by-clause, or we're going—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We're going to clause-by-clause, as soon as these speakers are finished.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay. That may not be the best approach, but members will decide and let the chair know what they think. It's my perception that if we proceed with clause-by-clause today, this bill will get very rough treatment.