Debates of June 6th, 2006

Criminal Code

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NDP platform said it would:

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

Should it be that way?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second aggravating factor is whether a restricted or prohibited firearm, such as a handgun, is used in the commission of that offence. If either of those factors is present in the commission of attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to injure a person or prevent arrest, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery or extortion, the following mandatory minimum penalties will apply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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