House of Commons Hansard #216 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was page.

Topics

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-68, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 109, with the following:

"ment for a term of eight years; and".

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-68, in Clause 137, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 109, with the following:

"ment for a term of six years; and".

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 237

That Bill C-68, in Clause 138, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 110, with the following:

"term of six years."

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 238

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 239

That Bill C-68, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 111, with the following: a ) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.

Motion No. 240

That Bill C-68, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 110, with the following:

"272. (1) Every person commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

(2) Notwithstanding section 85, every person who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable a ) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six years; and b ) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.''

272.1 (1) Every person commits an offence".

Motion No. 241

That Bill C-68, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 111, with the following:

"a term of six years; and".

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 242

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 243

That Bill C-68, in Clause 140, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 111, with the following: a ) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.

Motion No. 244

That Bill C-68, in Clause 140, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 111, with the following:

"ment for a term of six years; and".

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 245

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 246

That Bill C-68, in Clause 141, be amended by replacing line 42, on page 111, with the following: a ) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.

Motion No. 247

That Bill C-68, in Clause 141, be amended by replacing line 2, on page 112, with the following:

"ment for a term of six years; and".

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 248

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 249

That Bill C-68, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 112, with the following: a ) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.

Motion No. 250

That Bill C-68, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 112, with the following:

"ment for a term of six years; and".

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 251

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 252

That Bill C-68, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 112, with the following: a ) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.

Motion No. 253

That Bill C-68, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 112, with the following:

"ment for a term of six years; and".

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 255

That Bill C-68, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 112, with the following: a ) where a firearm or an imitation firearm is used in the commis-''.

Motion No. 256

That Bill C-68, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 112, with the following:

"ment for a term of six years; and".

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

moved:

Motion No. 259

That Bill C-68, in Clause 148, be amended by deleting lines 20 and 21, on page 115.

Motion No. 264

That Bill C-68, in Clause 172, be amended a ) by replacing line 1, on page 127, with the following:

"(8) Sections 114 to 117 of the Criminal" b ) by deleting lines 4 to 9, on page 127.

Motion No. 265

That Bill C-68, in Clause 183, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 29, on page 133.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motions under group No. 4, since this series of amendments basically deals with the decriminalization of the whole registration system for certain categories. In any case, the Bloc, under Motion No. 133, for instance, proposes to decriminalize failure to register shoulder arms. Let me explain that shoulder arms means shotguns and rifles. Contrary to certain comments by the government or even by the third party, we do not want to decriminalize all guns but only shotguns and rifles, referred to as shoulder arms.

Throughout this debate, I was surprised to see that although both the gun lobby and the anti-gun coalition raised some arguments that were very emotionally charged, there was no discussion, although there should have been, about what society wants out of this bill.

I think society wants better gun control. I think it makes sense, in a society like ours, that people who own guns should register them. But do we really want to make criminals of people who, either out of stubbornness or sheer ignorance-although all citizens are supposed to know the law, there are a number who do not- because they do not know all the details of the legislation, will not register their shoulder arms?

Does the minister want to make criminals of these people? I hardly think so.

I was on the committee when the minister came to testify and seemed to be willing to open the door to decriminalizing failure to register a firearm. I felt the minister was listening very carefully. I felt he wanted to make the legislation more flexible in this respect, but I also felt that there was a huge lobby out there asking the minister not to give in, because the public ought to feel the government is very serious about this legislation.

With the amendment proposed under Motion No. 133, the government could have sent a message showing it was serious just the same, since I do not think that giving someone who fails to register a criminal record proves anything about the government's intentions. Sure, it shows it is being serious, but at what price? Some people will be prosecuted for failing to register the old twelve-gauge in the closet-this is one of my favourite examples-will they have a criminal record, with everything that entails? For instance, someone with a criminal record may have trouble finding a job or obtaining a passport. Is that what the Minister of Justice really wants? I do not think so. So why not make this clear in the bill?

With this amendment, we could also have sent a very clear message to the public that it is a serious matter to fail to register, by imposing substantial fines. For the first violation, a fine of between $500 and $2,500, which is quite a substantial sentence. We could also send a clear message by saying that unregistered guns will be seized and the owner will have seven days to register, upon receipt of a notice to that effect. The objective is to register these guns so that the objective will be met without criminalizing a group of people for no good reason.

I think we could have achieved the purpose of this bill. But no, as I said earlier, there is this debate between two groups at the opposite ends of the spectrum, about the same bill. The first group says: Listen, the legislation goes too far, it is too totalitarian and will cost too much money. What this group really wants is no legislation at all.

On the other hand, the coalition and every other group in favour of firearms registration would like the legislation to go

further. The penalties are never severe enough; they are asking for pretty outrageous sentences. Basically, what would make them happy is for no one to be allowed to own weapons.

I think that the Bloc's proposal regarding decriminalization makes for a balanced amendment. I think that this kind of amendment favours neither the gun lobby nor the coalition. The ultimate objective could be served by such an amendment.

This bill is certainly a step in the right direction. There is obviously a need for the government to legislate in this area. This bill meets a need. I think that the statistics showing a large majority of voters in Canada and Quebec in favour of increased gun control are right.

I spoke to my constituents, not only hunters or representatives of one group or another, and they have told me that they want increased control. But they do not necessarily agree with certain specifics, such as criminalization. I think that a considerable education effort is still required if we want to know what the people really want us to do in this regard.

Yes, the people want firearms legislation, but I think this is not the kind of legislation they want. In light of the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois in committee, the government has relaxed a number of clauses in its bill along the lines of what the Bloc had suggested. Much to its credit it paid attention, in certain respects, to the amendments and suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-68.

If what the government is looking for is a bill that meets a consensus, a bill that will gain the widest support possible, the bill before us contains a stumbling block called decriminalization and, on this subject, the government should consider the proposed amendment carefully.

Ten minutes is a very short time to debate these amendments, but since I can speak only once and this bill is being debated globally, let me say that we cannot address decriminalization without addressing something else at the same time. As regards the issue of decriminalization, I feel that the minimum sentence of four years is unconscionable. To provide a minimum sentence of four years for certain offences committed with a firearm is to yield to the gun lobby.

Why remove the courts' discretionary power? Why remove the discretion which judges can use, given the evidence before them? The government argues that, on average, the courts currently impose a four year sentence for such offences. But why force them to automatically impose that sentence? Why not let them weigh the evidence? Why not trust the courts and the appointed judges, who are supposed to represent the public?

Why not let them weigh all the evidence and then impose the sentence which they feel, is the most appropriate, given the evidence before them? This is an aspect which the Minister of Justice should look at very carefully, to comply with the existing legislation and to promote Canada's objectives in that respect.

There is also the issue of universal appliction of the act in Canada. The Minister of Justice repeatedly said that the act would apply everywhere in Canada. I hope it does, including on Indian reserves. If this act is going to be implemented everywhere, why does clause 110, among others, provide that the government can exclude a person?

Since the past is indicative of the future, we are well aware that some people, particularly aboriginals, will be excluded because hunting is an important activity for their survival.

Why not pass legislation which will not only apply everywhere, but also to everyone? In conclusion, if the government is prepared to listen to Canadians, including Quebecers, it will accept the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois regarding decriminalization. This would ensure that people are really treated fairly, and it would also ensure that the legislation targets those who should be targeted, which is not the case right now.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I will just take a few minutes to address my amendment here. It has to do with the subject of decriminalizing the offences that are now in the Criminal Code.

If we look at sections 91 and 92, we see that the penalties under indictment of both of those sections are absolutely draconian. Section 92 allows for an individual who knowingly refuses or neglects to register his or her firearm to be sentenced to a term of ten years. Under section 91 if they proceed by way of indictment they can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years.

There has been a new section put into the act at committee stage, I think it is 107.1, which makes it a summary conviction offence. However, the police will have the authority to arrest anyone in possession of a firearm under any of those sections, even the most draconian, which is under section 92. They can arrest them. It is an indictable offence. They can charge them, fingerprint them, and then they can reduce or withdraw the charge afterwards, while that person's fingerprints are on file.

We see the same kind of thing occurring to a certain degree under section 85 of the Criminal Code, where they lay charges against individuals for using a firearm in the commission of an offence and then later withdraw those charges as a plea bargaining tool. I see the same kind of power and authority being granted through these sections.

Therefore, the purpose of our amendments is to eliminate the draconian measures and penalties that are included in this bill. I might bring to everyone's attention that the idea of sentencing someone or making them liable to a penalty of ten years for

deliberately neglecting to register their .22 or their shotgun is absolutely absurd and unacceptable.

We all remember Mr. Lortie, who went into the Quebec assembly and murdered three people. He served ten years. To equate that kind of an act and that kind of punishment with the failure to register a rifle or a shotgun is to me beyond comprehension and absurd.

These amendments are designed to decriminalize offences where there is no mens rea involved, no intent and no overt act to endanger anyone. It is simply that they have failed, whether deliberately or inadvertently, to fulfil an administrative act, which is to register. It should not be a criminal offence and there should be no means whereby the police can arrest the person under those circumstances and have that person face an indictable offence where the punishment is as much as ten years or five years, depending on whether it is under section 92 or 91 of this act.

Those are my comments on that.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments to Bill C-68. The reason I am so delighted is that since the government invoked time allocation last Thursday, I find myself being one of the chosen few who will be able to speak at report stage.

The government's motive is one of fear. It knows that many of its backbenchers are already going to vote against the bill and they are afraid that if Bill C-68 is not dealt with before summer, many more of their backbenchers would find themselves having to commit that greatest of all sins a Liberal member can commit, the sin of representing one's constituents.

That is what I am attempting to do with this bill. I am trying to gauge the sentiments of my constituents. The bill is one of the few issues where people have expressed a great deal of interest. In my recently released householder I provided each side of the argument with the opportunity to state the case for or against the bill. Representing those who support the bill is none other than the Minister of Justice.

My householder is in the homes of my constituents. While I have started to receive responses, the government's artificial deadline will prevent many of their voices from being heard. If the majority of my constituents wanted registration, given the opportunity, I would support the registration portion of Bill C-68.

It seems the government wants as few voices heard as possible. The bill has been rushed through the entire process. The schedule to hear witnesses was fixed in advance, ignoring hundreds of requests by groups and individuals to appear.

The timeframe to enter amendments was rushed, not allowing sufficient time to have legislative counsel prepare amendments. The clause by clause consideration was rushed, forcing the committee to sit until one o'clock in the morning.

What can one say about report stage and third reading? The tactic of introducing time allocation before debate even starts is a tactic that would have made the Mulroney administration blush.

The Liberals always complained when the Tories introduced closure but they have fully embraced the concept themselves. What is interesting is that there has never been a hint that the Reform Party or anybody else was attempting to filibuster the bill.

We have played by the rules, trying to improve a poorly drafted bill in case it passed third reading. How badly drafted was this bill? Let me say that during the clause by clause consideration the member for Crowfoot noticed that the wording of one clause would make it necessary for anybody wishing to buy a box of ammunition, even a box of .22 shells, would have been required to obtain prior approval of the chief firearms officer of the province.

It was interesting to see the look of confusion on the faces of the parliamentary secretary and the assistant deputy minister when they quickly realized that that was not their intent.

The bill has been amended but this is an example of the poor quality of legislation that goes through when Parliament rushes. Another example of the quality of this bill is the list of 37 amendments that the Minister of Justice is making at report stage. This is in addition to approximately 80 amendments that the government made in committee during clause by clause.

Government members say: "So what? Who cares? We are sitting so high in the polls". One wonders if they will remember that the Ontario Liberals went into their provincial election riding high at 53 per cent in the opinion polls as well. Probably not, since Liberals have very short memories. After all, it was only in the last Parliament when Liberals were loudly protesting over rules by the Tory government to introduce more legislation where Parliament would be bypassed with orders in council.

However, these protests are now silent as the government has created unprecedented provisions for government by order in council. There are 75 instances in this bill that call for regulations to be introduced. The government's attitude is forget Parliament, the cabinet knows what is best for Canada. After all, if amendments had to come through Parliament there may be

more of those Liberal backbenchers who may try and represent their constituents. The government would not want that to happen, would it?

Its attitude is: "Trust us. We know what is best". Having sat through the committee hearings on Bill C-68, it is apparent that the government does not know what it is doing.

The pretence under which this bill was introduced was that it would reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately there was no such substantive evidence presented that indicated this bill would do either. The bill was purported to go after the criminal use of firearms, yet most of the bill is directed against the ordinary law-abiding gun owner.

Those aspects of the bill that do deal with the criminal use of firearms are insignificant. That is why I have introduced the amendments I have.

The government chose to identify 10 serious crimes such as manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated sexual assault, robbery and to create a minimum four year sentence if a firearm was used. However, what difference will these minimum sentences make? Not very much because the down side of minimum sentences is that they all too often because maximum sentences. Unless the minimum sentence is raised to a level that is sufficiently higher than the current average sentence, there will be no deterrent effect.

Will a four year minimum sentence for manslaughter with a firearm prevent any deaths? The average sentence for manslaughter in British Columbia is currently four years. Under current law, if a firearm is used in a death an additional one year sentence is added under section 85. How is it possible that a four year minimum sentence could have any deterrent effect when the average sentence is already five years?

That is why I have entered amendments that would increase the minimum sentence for manslaughter to eight years. For eight other crimes it would be increased to six years and for one crime, criminal negligence causing death, we are suggesting the minimum sentence should be reduced.

Another flaw in the bill is that under these 10 specific crimes, it is necessary to prove that the object used in the crime is a firearm. While this may not be difficult in manslaughter cases or those charged with causing bodily harm, what about cases involving sexual assault, kidnapping or robbery? If the gun is not fired or if it is not recovered, how does the crown prove that the object used meets the legal definition of a firearm? The short answer is that it cannot. Thus, in many of these cases there will never be a charge of using a firearm because the crown simply will not be able to prove that a firearm is used.

That is why I am moving the second set of amendments. It will no longer be necessary to prove whether the object used was a firearm or just an imitation firearm. The victim of a sexual assault may not know if the object used is a real firearm or just a replica. The terror is equal in any event. To let a sex offender walk away from this crime because the victim is unable to state whether it was a real firearm or just an imitation is wrong. These clauses must be amended.

Bill C-68 is bad legislation. It does not do what it sets out to accomplish. If this law is not bad enough, the way the government has handled it is even worse. How can anyone justify closing down debate before it even started on legislation that will not come fully into effect for another eight years? They cannot. Arrogant governments believe they do not have to explain anything, except when they try to explain to themselves why they have been rejected by the voters and have fallen into oblivion.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Cape Breton—The Sydneys Nova Scotia

Liberal

Russell MacLellan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, in listening to the debate I cannot help but wonder why the opposition is all of a sudden so exercised about time allocation when in fact we dialogued about this bill for almost a year.

The Minister of Justice went from coast to coast to coast speaking to groups on the bill. The subject matter of the bill was brought forward on November 30 and the bill was brought forward based on that subject matter on February 14, 1995. There has been a lot of dialogue and a lot of consultation.

The committee has met, but not all the witnesses who wanted to appear could appear. There was a restriction on the number of witnesses, but it was done with the belief that those witnesses would have their points of view brought forward by either a national organization to which they belonged or a similar organization which would speak for the the interests of witnesses. There were individuals who wanted to come forward. That was not possible.

Many people wanted to speak to the bill as with most important bills. It is not democracy to hear everybody. That is not the way it has been practised since Athens and the days of Pericles. The way it is done is to choose representatives to come before the committee.

Also, we are talking about the amendments today at report stage. In some cases we are getting a point of view on these amendments and in other cases we are not. The fact of the matter is we have third reading yet to come.

Perhaps not everybody who wants to speak at third reading will be given the opportunity to do so. At committee stage we allowed members to have five minute interventions on points before the committee, which was requested.

Members will know that as speakers come before the House and speak at third reading that the first speeches are 20 minutes and then the other speeches are 10 minutes. Many members are giving those 10 minutes speeches here today.

Relating to the last speaker on minimum sentences, this area has been given a great deal of attention. The member is not satisfied that in 10 very serious offences the minimum sentence would be four years. She wants it increased to eight years in the case of manslaughter and six years in other cases. That is one point of view.

We have had witnesses before the committee who felt that a 10 year minimum, and in fact the previous speaker from the Bloc condemned the government for having a four year minimum in these cases, saying that the discretion should be allowed to go to the courts as is the case at the present time. We have heard it from both sides. We feel four years is a period of time that is defensible in this case.

Minimum sentences are never something that a government wants to bring forward because it takes discretion away from the courts. The courts are put in place to judge the actions of our fellow citizens in relation to the laws, both statute and common law. They are to use their discretion and they are trained professionals in the law and with experience on the bench.

To say that we are going to implement minimum sentences is a curtailment of that discretion and to say that we are going to have a minimum sentence of eight years is an absolute affront to that discretion. The question is, would a minimum sentence of that extent in fact not be challenged under the charter of rights and freedoms. Frankly I feel that it would.

We have have a minimum sentence for those 10 situations. We have a minimum sentence of one year for illegal importation and exportation of a firearm and also for other criminal offences as well. We have attempted to impress on Canadians the seriousness of the wrongful use of a firearm with these minimum sentences. There is a limit to how far we can go and many people and institutions have told us we have gone too far already. We do not think so but we do not think that going further will gain any respect for the law. It is only going to lead to a complete and utter disrespect for the law where the law arbitrarily is imposing extremely harsh sentences without the judge being able to have some latitude.

We talk about section 85 and plea bargaining and also about section 85 with respect to an imitation firearm. If we are going to give four years for a firearm, it is awfully hard to give four years to an imitation firearm that is not a danger to the person on the other side of the counter. There has to be some discretion. It is still possible for the judge to give a stronger sentence. That imitation firearm would still come under section 85 where robbery is included. There would then be a subsequent one year sentence for the imitation firearm.

The case is also put to the attorneys general and provincial ministers of justice as to why these extra charges are plea bargained away. This area is within their discretion. It does not have to happen in the provincial jurisdiction because the provinces have control over the administration of justice. As in the case of dangerous offenders they have to say these offences are not to be plea bargained away.

I want to mention Motion No. 133 as brought forward by a member of the Bloc Quebecois. Motion No. 133 would impose a simple fine for first and second offences. These are offences that would be under clause 107.(1), the new offence under the firearms bill which takes the possession of unregistered long guns out of the Criminal Code and puts them into the firearms act.

The member suggests a simple fine for first and second offences of not only illegal long guns but also for possession of prohibited fully automatic firearms, silencers and prohibited ammunition such as armour piercing bullets. Such a lenient offence would be a mockery of what we are attempting to do under this legislation. Clause 107.(1) attempts to treat leniently and with some kind of compassion those who honestly did not register their long guns. It is certainly not an intent to excuse people with prohibited fully automatic firearms from non-registration.

The penalties the member would impose under Motion No. 133 are much less severe than is the case right now. It would say to someone who blatantly violates the law that they would not be convicted of a criminal offence. As I mentioned, it would trivialize the severity of possessing firearms without a licence and a registration certificate.

We have attempted to bring forward laws and eventually regulations that will not minimize the seriousness of the offence but which will honestly recognize the honest mistake of non-registration. They will also allow those who are in charge of enforcing these laws to deal with the offences in a humane and a compassionate way relating to the facts of the situations as they see them.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Waterloo-national defence.

Firearms ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the motions before us in group No. 4, if I am not mistaken. I would like to point out that the Criminal Code currently provides a number of mandatory minimum punishments. The one of interest to us today is set out in section 85 of the Code. It reads as follows: "Everyone who uses a

firearm while committing [-]an indictable offence [-]is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment, in the case of a first offence, [-]for not more than fourteen years and not less than one year, and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, [-]for not more than fourteen years and not less than three years".

As we can see, the Criminal Code already provides a mandatory minimum sentence of one year for the use of a firearm with criminal intent. It also provides a minimum sentence of three years for all subsequent offences. These sentences are served consecutively to any other sentence. That means that an individual found guilty of robbery, for example, would be sentenced for the principal offence-the robbery itself-and would then have this sentence extended by one or three years, as the case may be.

The proposal by the Minister of Justice to increase the minimum sentence to four years would not improve the situation in any way. At best, individuals would be given only the minimum sentence of four years. At worst, the Supreme Court would consider the provisions setting the mandatory minimum punishment at four years unconstitutional, because it would consider such punishment cruel and unusual under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At the moment, an individual found guilty of one of the offences set forth in the new section 85 could very easily be sentenced to a term longer than that contemplated by the Minister of Justice. In fact, the combination of a consecutive mandatory sentence and sentencing for the principal offence could easily exceed four years.

Section 85 of the Criminal Code is therefore amended in Bill C-68 with the addition of a list of ten violent offences to which the provision will apply. We have wondered about the seriousness of the minister in establishing this list. It includes manslaughter, a crime without criminal intent, but it does not include armed assault. Is punishment to be the same, regardless of whether the victim survives his or her wounds?

Forcible confinement is not on the list either, although kidnapping and hostage-taking are. I must say I have serious doubts about the deterrent effect of an increase in the minimum sentence provided in section 85 and related sections.

I would like to point out that the working document prepared by the Department of Justice on the present section 85, in particular, and on the imposition of minimum sentence in general, concludes that the public as a whole is not aware which offences carry mandatory minimum sentence. It is hard to see how such a measure would deter potential delinquents, since they generally do not know what the minimum sentence is.

In addition, the same document that the Minister of Justice should have examined more closely concludes that mandatory minimum sentences probably have very little effect as deterrents and on the rate of the commission of serious crimes. Robbery is a prime example. And what is worse, apparently juries are less inclined to find someone guilty if they know that the crime the defendant is accused of committing carries a mandatory sentence.

If judges choose not to allow sentences for multiple offences to be served concurrently, the result would be a substantial growth in the prison population. In fact, the minimum sentence of four years would be the starting point to which any additional period of detention necessary would be added, depending on the circumstances surrounding the offence.

Obviously, an individual accused of several offences could serve sentences consecutively. The Minister of Justice seems to believe naïvely that detention centres will be able to hold more inmates. He argues, in fact, that his bill will be a deterrent and will decrease the number of crimes perpetrated with a weapon.

He has no way of knowing what impact his bill will have on the number of convictions made under his reformed system in the future. Let us not forget that a chain is only as strong as the weakest of its links.

If we increase the minimum sentence provided for in section 85 of the Criminal Code, we must expect the prison population to swell although we do not have the facilities needed to accommodate the new inmates.

The warning issued by Université de Montréal Professor Pierre Landreville is worthy of consideration. In an article published in the December 23, 1994 edition of Le Devoir , Mr. Landreville outlines the danger of such legislation, and I quote: ``[-] every year in Quebec, some 1,500 individuals are convicted and could eventually be sentenced to a minimum of four years in prison, in addition to the sentence given for the main offence. Quebec's prison population, which is now around 4,000, would almost double in the first four years following the implementation of this measure''.

The increase in the prison population would lead to an increase in related costs. Did anyone bother to find out how much Bill C-68 would cost, when we know that, in 1992-93, the annual cost of keeping a single inmate averaged $56,000 in maximum security and $36,000 in medium security?

The mandatory minimum sentence is the minimum number of years to be served. In a so-called clarification effort, minimum punishment was included in the wording of the offence itself. That is why we find the phrase "to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years" in 10 different clauses

listing possible sentences for the offences in question. I am talking about clauses 135 through 144 of Bill C-68.

The amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois in Motions No. 182 and following are all aimed at eliminating the mandatory minimum sentence by revoking these clauses. Significantly increasing mandatory minimum sentences is an ill-advised public relations exercise. There is no better way to score points.

The Minister of Justice wanted to ease the fears of a generally misinformed public and to make the pro-gun lobby swallow the pill by claiming that Bill C-68 does not deal with the registration of long guns. He failed miserably in both cases.

Increasing mandatory minimum sentences involves far too many uncertainties, considering eventual tangible benefits. Bill C-68 is a bill on public safety and not a marketing operation. The Minister of Justice would have been better off explaining his bill and answering gun owners' legitimate questions. Had he done so, he would not have provoked such a general outcry.

I therefore urge the House to support the Bloc motions, which reflect the kind of society we all want to live in.