Debates of June 7th, 2006

Criminal Code

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon obviously must have come in a bit late. I indicated at the beginning of my speech that our party would be supporting this bill to go to committee at second reading.

To answer his basic question about the root causes of crime, I have to say that the government in some respects is repeating--and again, because of its straight ideological approach on this issue--the mistakes that have been made at the provincial level in a number of provinces.

I think of the Mike Harris government in my home province. Immediately after he was elected for the first time, his government slashed social welfare spending. It slashed all sorts of programs, including a couple of programs that provided shelters for women and children who had been abused as a result of domestic violence. It was a wide sweep.

Quite frankly, to some degree what Ontario and Toronto in particular now are seeing are the consequences of that. The victims of those cuts were in their early adolescence. They were in their early teen years. In disproportionate numbers, they are committing those crimes on the streets of Toronto right now.

Let us go to the other major cities where the murder rate and the violent crime rate are so high, including your home city, Mr. Speaker, and Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. Let us compare them to Montreal and Quebec City. We find that the juvenile crime rate, the young offender crime rate, is significantly higher in every one of those major cities and significantly lower in Montreal and Quebec City.

What happened? At the same time that the cuts came out in Ontario and from the Klein government in Alberta, the Province of Quebec did not cut. It stood up and in effect defended the use of legislation. It did not impose penalties. It put in place programs to head off those young people from getting into crime and drugs, and it worked.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and ask a couple of questions of my friend. I noted his comment that our incarceration rate is 20% higher than that of some other countries. First of all, I wonder if he noticed the geographic differences. Australia and the United Kingdom are actually surrounded by water and do not have the United States right next door, which of course has the largest gun owner population in the world.

I had an opportunity to attend law school in Australia and volunteered some of my time in Australian jails. I can say with certainty, after being a criminal lawyer in northern Alberta and spending considerable time in Australia, that they are very different systems. They are very different places, and indeed, the people are different. I am wondering if he would comment on that.

Some years ago I had a client who had been caught with a loaded .357 Magnum under his car seat. When he was stopped by the RCMP, the weapon was found. He came before the court. He received a 30 day conditional sentence for carrying that loaded weapon under his seat. Would the member comment on whether or not he thinks that is sufficient time to deter that gentleman from doing it again?

I am a gun owner, but when the law came into effect, I turned in my .38 special, which had a short barrel, to the RCMP for destruction. I felt it was not appropriate to have it at that time. I was not a target practice shooter. I wonder if he would comment on that.

We are different countries and we require different things. We need to make sure that those people who are going to commit crimes and carry weapons such as these, which have only one purpose, do serious time in order to deter them from doing anything again.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will limit my comments to deterrence as a general answer, but I will say this. Regarding the .357 Magnum, I cannot answer that question, nor could anyone else, without knowing all the facts. Is two and a half years enough? Is four years enough? Is six months enough? I do not know. That is one of the problems with mandatory minimums. If we do not have a full assessment of the case in front of us, if we do not have all the facts, we should not be making a judgment call.

On deterrence as a whole, we know it does not work. If someone is high on meth, do we really think that person is going to think about getting a month, six months, two years or 10 years? People do not think of it. For most crimes involving guns, very little thought goes into it. Oftentimes it is a quick reaction, or passion, or is driven by peer influence, especially with the gangs in the major cities.

The one exception, and it is why we think we should concentrate on this, is the organized crime bosses, mid-level or up. They are the ones who understand that if they are involved and convicted of an organized crime they are going to jail for a longer period of time because of these changes in the law.

If we do the same thing with regard to the importing and the smuggling of weapons, they are the ones we are going to go after. As for the mule who is carrying them across, it does not give us very much to catch that person. We have to get the people further up. They do understand. They do the analysis. It is a very small group of criminals. They are the ones we should be targeting because they are the only ones that this kind of legislation works against.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also work with the hon. member on the justice committee and respect him and his work. I look forward to working with him in the future. I understand from his speech that it was because of his leader's position that he is now talking about four year mandatory minimums in regard to this very restrictive and ideologically driven piece of legislation. Four years is what the previous Liberal government chose as its time limit as the mandatory minimum, this being a floor.

However, this bill has seven year mandatory minimums and even 10 year mandatory minimums. I would like the member to comment briefly on what happens in the sentencing principles of our Criminal Code with the proportionality situation that is the major sentencing principle.

I also would like him to briefly discuss something he did not cover in his speech, which is the different use in this legislation between long guns and restricted or prohibited firearms, which generally are short guns although there are some automatic weapons that are long guns. In these terms, I am referring to shotguns and rifles that are not sawed off. Has he noticed any discrepancies in this piece of legislation that he would be concerned about?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for London West, especially the last part of it, as I had run out of time and wanted to point out what I see as a real failure in this legislation.

During the election, I was at the funeral of a young woman police officer outside of Montreal. She was killed by a long gun. This legislation does not impose mandatory minimums for the use of long guns in such crimes. It does so for restricted weapons only. The minister has tried to explain this to members of my party and to me, but it makes no sense.

Let us take just this one statistic. Of all the police officers who have been killed in this country in the last 20 years, more than half of them were killed by long guns, not handguns. There is no question about the fact that in the last few years the use of handguns has gone up, but there is absolutely no explanation for or logic as to why we would not have that kind of provision in the bill extending to both, to the long guns as well, as opposed to just restricted weapons.

In terms of the proportionality argument, again I did not have time to get to this in my main address, but I have serious doubts about whether the 10 year mandatory minimum would survive a test in our courts under the charter. The courts have made it quite clear in a number of decisions up to this point, including all the way up to the Supreme Court, that they would tolerate seven year mandatory minimums in very limited cases. That seems to be the top end. Ten years is over the top.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

Just about 40 years ago Canada espoused for itself the goal of building a just society, characterized by truth, fairness, equality of opportunity, and a high degree of social cohesion.

Despite 40 years of mostly progressive social policy at the federal level and a decrease in the general crime rates, we are today debating a piece of legislation meant to crack down on crime and to get tougher on criminals.

The Conservative government does not expect this legislation to deter people from committing crimes. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance admitted as much when he allocated more money to the correctional system to accommodate “the expected increase in inmates” that would result from his law and order agenda.

No, Bill C-10 is not going to prevent crime. It is not going to deter criminal activity. The government does hope it will take some criminals off the streets and keep them in jail longer. It hopes that removing the bad apples citizens will feel safer and less fearful.

The general public is naturally fearful of violent crime, particularly when innocent bystanders are its victims, but that natural fear is exacerbated and extended by the culture of fear in which we live. On television most serious drama revolves around violent crime, whether it is Law & Order or Da Vinci's Inquest, murder is usually at the centre of the plot. Even newscasts are filled with crime, terrorism, war and all the accompanying death. Journalists and editors admit making decisions about publication by the code “if it bleeds, it leads”.

In addition to this encompassing fear, citizens are also caught in a clash of values as they teach their children not to shove or hit to solve a dispute. Adults are solving disputes by bombing and destroying whole cities full of people. As teachers lecture that each person is unique, special and deserving of respect, our own Chief of the Defence Staff states publicly that his soldiers are trained to kill and will go after the “scumbags”. It is hard to find respect in that statement.

The contradictions are endless between the values taught by parents, teachers and clergy, and the behaviours observed by adolescents and young adults. Is it any surprise that they are confused about right and wrong?

They see many people whose lives are characterized by vice rather than virtue, and they see those people achieve great wealth and fame. Steroid using professional athletes, drug using entertainers, and money stealing business leaders seem to have lives of ease and pleasure and celebrity. And our media does seem to celebrate these lives of the rich and famous, no matter their route to fame.

We both celebrate wealth and we accommodate the wealthy with friendly tax policies. Between 1986 and 2000 the incomes of the wealthiest 1% of Canadians rose by a whopping 65%, an average increase of $157,000 a year. During the same period, welfare recipients in Alberta saw their incomes drop by 38%, from $14,000 a year to a shameful $8,800.

While young Canadians may be mainly unaware of these statistics, they do have eyes that see increasing numbers of homeless people begging on the streets and they see more monster homes at outrageous prices advertised in the newspapers. They question what they see. They ask, is this fair? Is this just?

I ask, will Bill C-10 help us create a more just society for all? Will the bill bring Canadians together to build supportive communities? I think not.

Bill C-10 is built on a faulty premise, that is the good versus evil vision of the world. In this world people whose behaviour causes harm are identified as evil. The role of justice is to keep our good society safe from this evil.

Even in our good society there have to be some bad people who need to be corrected through punishment. This good versus evil theory encourages quick fixes, such as removing the bad apples to keep the rest of us safe. It leads us to think crime is only the result of a few evil persons and implies that we collectively bear no responsibility for what goes on in the hidden corners of our communities, and that individually we have no connection whatsoever to it. According to this theory we could eliminate crime by isolating all the bad people in jail.

Over the last 30 years North America experienced a doubling and a tripling of incarceration rates, but this had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the amount of crime processed by the state. It appears that as we put away more and more bad apples, a constant stream of fresh apples spontaneously began to rot. Increased incarceration rates did not reduce crime, but did create a tremendous amount of suffering for a rapidly increasing number of prisoners, most of them young males.

The government is obviously committed to the good versus evil vision of the world and the removal of the bad apples methodology, even though it has not been proven to bring about the desired result of safer streets and a more cohesive society.

Instead, the result will be more Canadians in jail for longer periods. Longer sentences will increase the rate at which released prisoners who have served their sentences are inclined to reoffend. The longer they have lived inside the unique and brutal culture of a prison, which some call criminal school, the more difficult it will be for them to adjust to the norms and expectations of mainstream society when they come out.

Who will these new inmates be? Aboriginal people make up only 3.3% of the Canadian population but make up 21% of admissions to provincial custody and 18% of admissions to federal custody. I predict that with the 1,000 more RCMP officers announced in the budget that this overrepresentation of aboriginals in prison will at least continue but will probably increase.

Another group I worry about is visible minority youths in cities. Why? Because one can predict the potential for criminal activity by examining the social determinants of criminal behaviour.

The first determinant is family poverty. Family poverty results in a poorer health status, less optimism about life, less self-confidence and less resiliency to setbacks. The second determinant is a lack of parental involvement and supervision. Parents working very long hours to make ends meet and therefore are not around for the kids. Nobody is at home to help them with homework et cetera. This leads to the third determinant, a lack of success in school and little engagement with extracurricular arts or sports activities. Without classroom or sporting field success, these kids have little chance of feeling included in the school community.

In Ontario the strict rules around behaviour in school expanded the social exclusion already felt by some who were struggling there as they were struggling in life. Once expelled, these children found there was still no one at home and no space for them at school. Everybody needs to feel included somewhere, and in Ontario, during the Harris government years, these abandoned young people found their somewhere on the streets.

Now we have Bill C-10 brought to us by the same sponsors who brought us the Harris education policies. When they would not put money into educational supports for struggling young people, they sewed the seeds for the crop of desperate young people we have today. Now Canadian taxpayers are being asked to pay for the harvest in more correctional spaces for the expected increase in inmates. The price tag for this? It will cost over $80,000 per year for one federal inmate.

In Australia and in the southern United States mandatory minimum sentences overcrowded the prisons and required the building of new ones. After some years of experience taxpayers are lobbying their governments to end mandatory minimums as they have proven to be too expensive and they have not reduced crime rates.

When other jurisdictions have tried a justice strategy and it has failed, why would we try now? When it would result in more Canadian graduates of crime school re-entering our society later, why would we implement it? Have we learned nothing from the studies that show that punishment and retribution are less successful and more expensive than upfront social investment?

Bill C-10 adds to the climate of fear. Its terms dictate that Canada will never achieve the just society envisioned by Trudeau. As one Canadian, I will never stop trying to build that just society and therefore I will be voting against Bill C-10.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on a particular story that I would like to tell.

I have a nephew who is an aboriginal Canadian, actually a treaty member of a band in northern Alberta and a good friend of mine. While I was practising criminal law in northern Alberta, he had occasion to put together about two pages of rap sheets, something in the neighbourhood of between 8 and 12 or 14 criminal convictions. Finally, thank God it happened, he went to jail for two and a half years for a simple assault. As anybody would know who has been involved in the criminal system, that is very serious time.

He went in as a 120 pound crack addict and came out as a 200 pound strapping young man who today has a job, and a family of four beautiful kids living with him. Thanks to the day the judge who sent him away to jail for some serious time for a serious crime. so he has a life today.

I talk to that nephew of mine once every week or two and he is a totally contributing member of our society. I am so proud of that person. I am also proud of that judge for sending him to jail.

I would like the member to comment on that aboriginal nephew of mine from northern Alberta.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca has such low standards.

Everyone who deals with human beings knows that addiction to illegal substances or mind altering substances is an illness, that once the addiction kicks in, these are people who need help.

It is very sad to think that the only place this particular individual could get help was in a jail cell. In my view, it is an indictment of our society that we do not provide the help and health restoring situations for people like that, so that they can come back and fulfill their promise without living in the misery of a jail, excluded from society and given little hope.

Having said that, it seems that it did work for this person, but I, for one, aspire to a much better social support system, rather than throwing these poor, miserable souls in jail.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the last exchange. In the exact case that the Conservative member just gave, this particular bill, Bill C-9, would have exacerbated that situation and may have prevented that success story.

We will incarcerate more people under this legislation. As the justice minister suggested, it would cost about $250 million out of the system, money that could be used for healing, for working on drug addiction and on anger management.

I have visited our prisons. I hope all members will. There were inmates, young aboriginal people most of them, who wanted more services, more education, more anger treatments, and more treatment for drug addiction.

If there is already not enough treatment, how will taking another $250 million out of the system help, especially when prisons will be overcrowded even more by incarcerating more people? I just wanted to make that point.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising this point because all taxpayers should be concerned about the allocation of their money.

Our current Minister of Finance was part of the team that decided to remove from schools all the support, the psychologists, the social workers, the nurses, et cetera, so instead of having one of those professionals per school or per couple of schools, there was one for 30 schools. If a person seemed to have trouble in school and the teachers could not find out why, they could not get a psychologist to come for a full year. That meant the child slipped behind and could not be treated. That was in Ontario.

I say this for the benefit of my colleagues from other provinces. I want to warn them about the placement of tax dollars into things like corrections because the investments have not been made upfront.

I cannot help but mention, not to connect it to corrections, but the whole idea of social investments is to build the strongest and healthiest people who can reach their potential. That is one of the reasons why the people on this side of the House, actually the majority of the House, feel so badly that after 30 years of working to build a child care system, where every child could have early learning opportunities, the government chose to throw out those spaces. Not for every child, but for those children whose parents choose it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

One in twenty.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

No, there are many more waiting for those spaces.

The government never gets in at the bottom level and puts the money in where it is needed for investments. Instead, it comes in at the rear end and puts money into correctional spaces when it could be too late.

I am happy to hear that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca has one success story from our jails, but I think there are probably many more sad stories and many of those could be avoided by investments at the front end of a child's life as opposed to the back end.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-10 on the subject matter of mandatory minimum sentences.

I doubt that there is a member in this place who would not generally agree with the premise that the punishment should fit the crime as a general principle. Add to that the aspect of whether there are circumstances in an individual case which may distinguish it from another case which is the same crime but we have some different facts on the table. I think that members will be aware of a number of cases where there are some circumstances that may be exacerbating and some may even be mitigating. It is for this reason that I am not going to support this bill. I want to amplify some of the reasons.

The former minister of justice will be addressing the House. We are going to hear that there are a couple of analyses of case studies which have been used to justify moving toward these mandatory minimum penalties to a greater extent and members are going to find it quite interesting that these were not interpreted correctly. In fact they would argue strongly against the implementation of stronger mandatory minimums. I hope that members will be present for that speech from the hon. former justice minister.

There has been some question, and I hope it is not the case, about whether or not the judiciary of the courts, the crown attorneys and our justice system generally have been doing the job for us. I hope that members do not believe for a moment there is a reason to be concerned or a suggestion that we have lost confidence in the judiciary and the Supreme Court, which has opined on most of these issues, including mandatory minimum penalties.

One of the things I found interesting in this debate is there seems to be this illusion that there are no mandatory minimum penalties under the current Criminal Code, and that somehow Bill C-10 is going to bring in these tough new mandatory minimums. I cannot count the number of speeches that have already been given that have listed the 42 mandatory minimum penalties that are already under the Criminal Code.

I am not sure if Canadians really understand that there already are penalties. They deal with the full range of the areas about which probably most Canadians would be most concerned. They relate not only to things like impaired driving, betting and bookmaking, but also to high treason, first and second degree murder, the use of a firearm in an indictable offence, and the list goes on.

There are also 10 listed offences that include mandatory minimums related to firearms. Firearms is one of the areas which is emphasized in this bill, particularly as it relates to gang use. They include use of a firearm in the commission of an offence causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, causing bodily harm with intent, sexual assault with a firearm, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, extortion and hostage taking. Certainly there is no debate with regard to these serious crimes.

As I looked at some of the transcripts of the debate, the justice critic for the Liberal Party wrote a legislative summary which I would commend to all members of the House to look at carefully. It is a very difficult bill to read. We have to put it in some context and the context she has put this in would help all hon. members to understand where we might be going here.

One of the key points to know is that this bill is actually going to create new levels of mandatory minimum penalties. It is going to increase them, and with the first set of offences concerning serious offences which are committed with a restricted firearm, one of the things we learn is that under the bill, firearms will not include long guns. I do not know why that is the case.

Back in 1993 when I came here and registration of long arms became an issue, criminal offences committed with long guns were in fact almost as great as criminal offences with handguns and restricted weapons as they now exist. Since that time, the crime rate with long arms actually has gone down very substantially. That should be encouraging to all members with regard to the progress that has been made in terms of ensuring that firearms are used by people who are properly trained, know how to store them properly and transport them properly and use them in a responsible fashion.

I also believe that kind of education process that has been going on for over a decade has led to a greater confidence level in terms of the general population knowing very well that owning a gun is a serious responsibility. This bill has a flavour of inflexibility and I must admit it was concerning to me to find out that in fact the Supreme Court itself has opined on mandatory minimums, particularly increases.

The Supreme Court struck down a seven year mandatory minimum penalty for importing narcotics. The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum penalty of four years for the use of a firearm and criminal negligence causing death. The case was the Queen v Morrissey. The Supreme Court commented in that decision on the negative effects of mandatory minimum sentences for introducing rigidity into the sentencing process. What it really gets down to is the issue of proportionality of sentencing. That is the issue we are really talking about.

We cannot suggest there are no mandatory minimum penalties. I have not heard too many people talk about the deterrence side, but I am not sure whether that is totally relevant because we are talking about crimes for which there is a comprehensive approach to deterrence and certainly the potential penalties are not going to be something that we would rely on totally.

In the remaining time that I have to speak, I want to cite one further example of a situation which I feel would cause me some concern with regard to the rigidity of introducing greater levels of mandatory minimum penalties. It has to do with the population in Canada's jails today.

A research study was done collectively by the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They found that approximately 50% of inmates in provincial jails suffered from alcohol related birth defects. In fact, the former minister of justice of the past government actually confirmed that in federal institutions across the country, approximately 40% to 50% was reflective of the prison population.

When I started off my speech, I talked about whether we should have the punishment fitting the crime. As a general principle, that is a starting point, but are there circumstances in which there would be some difficulty? In a situation where people have mental illnesses or alcohol related birth defects and are put into prison, especially for an extended period of time notwithstanding the crimes that have been committed, their affliction does not allow them to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation of people with mental illness is not applicable. They should not be in the jails in the first place. They should be dealt with in proper institutions which are going to help them and their families to cope and to deal with their problems.

I know the courts are becoming more and more educated about the incidence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is a very serious situation. It is a very significant portion of our population. Indeed, many of these people have committed some of the crimes for which this bill purports to have greater levels of mandatory minimum penalties. I am not sure that it is appropriate. I believe there are circumstances. I believe this bill should probably also cover long arms. I believe that the constitutionality of this bill is going to be challenged by the Supreme Court, if not by the Attorney General.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting Bill C-10. Notwithstanding my belief that the punishment should fit the crime, the circumstances certainly must be taken into account.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question regarding a comment which it seems I have heard 100 times from the opposite side of the House.

If long guns are used in the commission of a crime, people will be charged and it will come under the auspices of Bill C-10. I would like to know why the member and others of his party continually say that if a long gun is used, it will not come under Bill C-10. Why do they say that? It is not true.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the basic reason is it is not the same penalty for a long arm. It is handled differently than a restricted firearm. That is the answer.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member for Mississauga South, he reminded me of the recent election campaign when I went door to door, as did everyone in the House. I listened to many Canadians who did want change to mandatory sentencing with regard to firearms related crimes.

Considering the member's view on long arms and his discussion of fetal alcohol syndrome, I am a little surprised and perhaps he could explain to the House why he would not be prepared to send Bill C-10 to committee to review it and consider amendments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my simple answer to the member would be that the bill in essence creates a rigidity within the sentencing regime which is not reparable. It is the fundamental principle of the bill. That means, for the hon. member's interest, that if the bill is passed at second reading, those principles then become enshrined and cannot be changed at committee.

The member should understand that once we give second reading approval, the approval in principle for the bill is locked in and what a committee can do is very much restricted.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South mentioned statistical data saying that long gun crime had gone down. I was wondering if the member could table that in the House because that is not my understanding of the statistics.

Also, the NDP member who spoke earlier suggested that long arm guns had killed half of the police officers, or something like that. Automatic weapons are long arm guns. They are included in those statistics.

I worked in the trenches. I was a criminal lawyer. I worked for the other side of justice. I believe that this legislation is necessary and it is long overdue. It will solve some problems. It is not going to solve all of them and certainly we have more of an obligation to society than what we are putting forward as a culture, but this will be a good first step to solve it.

It was mentioned earlier by a member opposite that said TV has changed our culture. I remember when I was in Australia, and I mentioned it earlier, every day for the first week I was on the beach because I love the beach. Then all of a sudden within a month I did not go to the beach at all. Within three years I probably showed up there once every two or three months.

The reality is people get desensitized. That is what happens with judges. We can see statistics that show when they become judges they are hard; they are fast. They make sure that the person does time for crime. Unfortunately when they hear that every day, just like when people see murders on TV, just like when people go to Australia and see the beach every day, they become desensitized.

That is why we as a group, as a body of Canadians, must represent those people back in the constituency who want some answers and want some changes. This bill will do that. This will set a template for judges to follow and make sure the judges follow the guidelines of Canadians.

I would like the member opposite to comment on the desensitization of judges.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the member's own mouth, the idea that I referred to of whether or not there was a respect for our judiciary, obviously the member has decided that the judiciary is not doing a good job for us. He is implying somehow that the bill is going to do something new. It does not do anything new. All it does is introduce additional levels of mandatory minimum penalties. They already are there.

The Supreme Court of Canada has opined on this issue. It takes away from the fundamental principle of proportionality of sentencing. It takes it out of the courts' hands.

If the member has lost confidence in the judicial system, he should support the bill and take the sentencing out of the hands of the judges. If he supports proportionality, if he supports a system which takes into account the circumstances on a case by case basis, whether it be someone suffering from an alcohol related birth defect or other mental illness, and the member is shaking his head. When 40% to 50% of the people in the jails of Canada suffer from mental illness or other alcohol related birth defects, he cannot shake his head and say it is not applicable. There is nothing more applicable in this case than fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East, EnerGuide program; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, passports.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, as the member of Parliament for Parry Sound—Muskoka, to address the House and to speak to Bill C-10 introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, on May 4.

As we on this side of the House know, the bill proposes to tackle gun violence in a manner that is specific. The specific focus is on gang and gang activity.

Canadians in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, from Parry Sound to Dorset, from Port Loring to Honey Harbour are all too familiar with the reported stories of gangs engaged in turf wars, often in public areas where innocent bystanders are shot in the crossfire.

The police also relate incidents of illegal gun trafficking, for example, handguns being rented out for the night from the trunk of a car and illegal guns traced back to the United States origins being smuggled into Canada.

We recently discovered, on a farm outside of London, Ontario, eight murdered men who were reportedly members of a notorious biker gang, which brought to the forefront the whole spectre of organized crime in Ontario. However, that particular rural spot could have been any other place in Canada. It could have been just outside of Bala in my riding or just further south in the riding of my colleague from Simcoe North, somewhere out of Orillia.

While this particular crime has stunned all Canadians, communities and provinces have faced organized crime and the fear and terror it brings, unfortunately, for some period of time. For instance, the province of Quebec has long faced reported violence stemming from Outlaw motorcycle gangs, including biker wars over control of organized crime and the illicit drug trade.

Gang and gun related crimes have an impact on the Canadian way of life, on the safety and well-being of our communities and on the livelihood of our businesses. This type of violence has absolutely no place in our children's schoolyards, in our communities, in our cities and throughout our great nation.

Bill C-10 seeks to crack down on gangs and guns. It seeks to make gang members who use guns accountable, once and for all, for their crimes. The use of a gun in a crime that relates to a criminal organization would result in mandatory minimum penalties. I speak in favour of that. Police report that the firearm of choice for street gangs and drug traffickers are handguns or other restricted or prohibited firearms. This is supported by available data from Statistics Canada.

In the homicide statistics for 2003, the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics focused on the characteristics of homicide incidents in Canada and found that gang related homicides increased. While the centre explained that some of the sharp increases are due to changes in reporting practices, there has been a notable increase over the past decade since the collection of this kind of data commenced.

In 1993, for instance, there were 13 victims of gang related homicides, 13 too many. However, in 2003 there were not 13 gang related homicides, there were 84. Victims of gang related homicides accounted for approximately 15% of all homicides. We know the targets are not just gang members. Innocent bystanders killed as a result of gang and gun related crimes are victims as well. How can we forget the Toronto Boxing Day shooting spree that resulted in the tragic death of 15-year-old Jane Creba?

All of us were on the campaign trail at the time but I am sure every member of the House heard people in our constituencies, at the door, at the coffee parties and at all candidates meetings expressing sorrow for Jane Creba's needless death and demanding that the next elected member of Parliament in each of our constituencies took this issue of gang related gun violence seriously.

I heard the message at every campaign meeting I had in Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound and Gravenhurst, as I am sure every member heard it in their respective constituencies. This innocent girl was caught in the crossfire of a gun battle on the busiest street in Canada and on the busiest shopping day of the year in broad daylight. The most common motive underlying gang and gun related homicides was reported to be the settling of accounts. Drug debts, turf wars, revenge and arguments were other common motives.

The homicide survey also found that the proportion of handguns used in firearm related homicides continues to escalate and that the types of firearms used during the commission of a homicide have changed over the past three decades. This is what the hon. member was talking about earlier. These are the statistics. Prior to 1990, rifles and shotguns were more commonly used to commit homicide. However, beginning in the early 1990s, the proportions began to dramatically reverse. By 2003, 68% of firearm homicides were committed with handguns. The survey further reported that most handguns used to commit homicides were not registered. This should come as no surprise.

Although these statistics relate specifically to homicides, Canadian crime statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics show similar proportions of handguns being present in other violent crimes as well.

I do not need to remind the House that handguns are restricted firearms. Few Canadians are authorized to possess handguns and yet they continue to be more prevalent in violent gun crimes. Handguns, illegal restricted firearms, are the first choice weapon for criminals who want to advance the interests of their criminal organization.

While the overall firearm crime rates have decreased in Canada over the last three decades, it is not true when it comes to the proportion of violent crime committed with handguns or other restricted or prohibited firearms.

Gang and gun related crimes are an issue for all Canadians. It happens too often. One life lost to gang and gun violence is one life too many.

I come down on the side of my constituents in Parry Sound—Muskoka to say that it is time the House tackled this problem directly and Bill C-10 would do precisely that. The bill encompasses the firearms most commonly used in violent crimes and the offenders involved in gangs. The bill also targets other serious firearm related crimes of increased concern to law enforcement officials, such as the theft, trafficking and smuggling of guns, the illegal possession of a gun or if a person is already prohibited from possessing firearms.

Bill C-10 sends a clear message to those who use handguns and illegal weapons to commit crimes that their actions will result in real penalties. These penalties would escalate in the event that a prior offender chooses to use a handgun or a restricted weapon for further crimes. The bill also assures Canadians and my constituents of Parry Sound—Muskoka that the government is committed to creating safer streets and stronger communities.

I urge all members of the House to support the bill.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Health is here I would like to take the opportunity to ask him a few questions about health, the number one issue affecting Canadians, no doubt, as it relates to the bill.

As the minister mentioned, people are shot in our country and are then met with the health care system. As the minister knows, the waiting lines in our emergency departments are extremely long.

I have two questions for the minister. First, is he prepared to meet with his provincial counterparts on how the private sector and public sector can work together to support the public sector?

Second, will he work with various other health care professionals to establish a national medical manpower strategy for Canada? As he knows, we have a major deficit in terms of our physicians, nurses and other health care professionals who are growing older, as we too grow older.

The first question concerns working with his provincial counterparts to develop a national medical manpower strategy and the second one concerns developing a strategy to ensure the private sector supports the public sector and does not erode it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca started out by announcing that his questions were not relevant to the debate and proceeded to prove it. The Minister of Health is free to answer the questions if he so chooses but the questions were not about the legislation at hand.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to look at Hansard you would find that the questions in my preamble related to the relevance of my questions to the bill at hand, not the irrelevance.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The Minister of Health.