Debates of June 12th, 2006

Criminal Code

[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, Conservative, 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.