House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rights.

Topics

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Fundy Royal New Brunswick

Conservative

Rob Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

That Motion No. 16 proposing to restore Clause 24 of Bill C-10 be amended

(a) by substituting the following for subparagraphs 346(1.1)(a)(ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 346(1.2) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:

(1.2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I find it astonishing that the NDP, which normally is very sensitive about social justice and the science of social justice and has given discretion to judges to decide on the best type of treatment, would support such amendments.

I have two questions and I will allow the parliamentary secretary to answer whichever one he chooses.

First, could he explain what he just did with the original motions and the amendments he added during his speech just so the public and those members of Parliament who are not on the committee with us have a general idea of what is occurring?

Second, as he knows, in committee a vast majority of the witnesses suggested that escalating clauses did not work, that they were counterproductive and actually made society more dangerous in some cases by training convicts in prison, and that the Americanization of the system did not work because many American states are now retracting such provisions because it has shown they do not work.

I understand where they came from in the first place but, after having heard the witnesses, and one of the purposes of these committees is to listen to experts, why are the Conservatives insisting on a modified or watered down version of their original bill?

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, I should have time to answer both questions.

In answer to his first question, what people find most alarming is that it was the Liberal Party in the last election that campaigned on doubling the mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes. Many serious gun crime offences in Canada have a minimum sentence of four years. The Liberals' proposal would have been to double that to eight years. That is what the Liberals were saying during the election campaign.

After the election, when we got to committee after forming government, we introduced Bill C-10, which would have provided an increase in the mandatory minimum to five years and then, on a subsequent offence for the serious recidivist, repeat offenders who use firearms in our communities, such as gang members, it would have been seven years. On a third offence, if someone still had not got the message, after using a firearm in either a gang related offence or using a restricted or prohibited firearm in a violent offence against Canadians, it would have been a 10 year mandatory minimum.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have completely reversed themselves from their election platform when they were talking tough on crime. Now that it is time to actually get tough on crime, they have completely backed down. We are pleased to be moving forward with our commitments and we are pleased that the NDP is keeping its campaign commitment to get tougher on serious gun crimes.

The amendments that I was just speaking to in my speech would make the mandatory minimum penalty for a serious firearms offence five years and on a second, third or fourth offence the mandatory minimum would move up to seven years. These changes are being called for by Canadians, by provincial attorneys general, by mayors and by police.

We heard from many witnesses who said that the scourge of gun crime has to be stopped. It is a relatively few number of people who are doing it, but when people do not get the message that they cannot use firearms to victimize other Canadians, we as members of Parliament also have to send a strong message.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Unfortunately, we do not have much time left; nevertheless, the hon. member for Hochelaga has the floor for a brief question.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice be kind enough to tell us whether the Minister of Justice has studies that he could share with this House that show conclusive evidence that minimum sentencing serves as a deterrent? As you know, the committee saw no such studies.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, the evidence that all parliamentarians heard was overwhelming. We heard from Canadians, the police and the provinces that we need to get tougher on gun crime. The hon. member was on the justice committee when we studied this bill. We heard from victims' advocates who said that we need to stop letting these people back out on the street.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment more than a question for emphasis.

I am reading from the Liberal platform, which was a speech delivered by the prime minister of the day. In talking about tougher penalties for gun crimes, he stated:

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

The effect of that is that there would be an eight year mandatory minimum--

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comment just made by the hon. NDP member, he knows very well that the former prime minister of the Liberal government was very committed to Bill C-82.

We must ensure that Canadians are not deceived again, which is more or less what the Conservatives and the current Prime Minister are trying to do with the environment. In fact, they are trying to do the same thing with the criminal justice file and, unfortunately, the NDP has abandoned its principles here in this House.

Bill C-10, which the Liberals tried to amend in committee, was blocked by the Conservatives and the New Democrats. The amendments were intended to ensure stronger mandatory minimum sentences for convictions for a first offence.

Furthermore, case law clearly shows that in cases of recidivism, a judge can take into account any aggravating factors, including the recidivism itself, the impact on the victim, the impact on the community, special circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and so on, and can ensure that the penalties imposed are more severe than the minimum sentence.

I have a number of motions to table.

I move:

That Motion No. 5 be amended by deleting all the words after the words “as follows” and substituting the following:

7. (1) The portion of subsection 95(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, unless the person is the holder of

(2) Paragraph 95(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years; or

I also move:

That Motion No. 6 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “as follows” and substituting the following:

10. Subsection 99(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) where the object in question is a firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

I move:

That Motion No. 7 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “as follows“ and substituting the following:

11. Subsection 100(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) by possessing a firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

I move:

That Motion No. 8 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “as follows” and substituting the following:

13. Subsection 103(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) where the object in question is a firearm, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

(2.1) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

I move:

That Motion No. 9 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “as follows” and substituting the following:

17. Section 239 of the Act is replaced by the following:

239. (1) Every person who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years.

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

I move:

That Motion No. 10 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

18. Section 244 of the Act is replaced by the following:

244 (1) Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person--whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

I move:

That Motion No. 11 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

19(1) Paragraph 272(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

I move:

That Motion No. 12 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

20(1) Paragraph 273(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

I move:

That Motion No. 13 by amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

21(1) Paragraph (279)(1.1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

I move:

That Motion No. 14 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

22(1) Subsection 279.1(1) the following:

279.1(1) Everyone who takes a person hostage who--with intent to induce any person, other than the hostage, or any group of persons or any state or international or intergovernmental organization to commit or cause to be committed any act or omission as a condition, whether expressed or implied, of the release of the hostage--

(a) confines, imprisons, forcibly seizes or detains that person; and

(b) in any manner utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat that the death of, or bodily harm to, the hostage will be caused or that the confinement, imprisonment or detention of the hostage will be continued.

(2) Paragraph 279.1(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

I move:

That Motion No. 15 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

23(1) Section 344 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 344(1).

(2) Paragraph 344(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

Finally, I move:

That Motion No. 16 be amended by deleting all of the words after “as follows” and by substituting the following:

24(1) Paragraph 346(1.1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and....

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine will be interested to know that we have been generous when it comes to the 10 minutes of allocated time. I paid very close attention to the amendments proposed by the hon. member and we will take them under advisement for the time being.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine on a point of order.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, given that you said you would not rule my motions out of order and would take them under advisement, I have a few points to raise, since I was unable to do so while tabling my motions.

The ruling to--

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine will have the opportunity to submit the points that she was unable to raise during questions and comments.

We are beginning the questions and comments period and I invite the hon. member to make her comments during that time.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You said that, for the time being, you would not rule my motions out of order and that you would take the matter under advisement. I would like to take a few moments to provide the Speaker with some additional considerations before he makes a ruling on the admissibility of my motions rather than presenting them after the Speaker has made his decision, which could be an unfavourable one.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

If the hon. member is asking for a few moments to argue whether or not her amendments are admissible, I will gladly grant her a little bit of time. However, if she is asking to debate the original motion, I would like to point out that she has already taken up 150% of the time I granted to her. It is with pleasure that I will listen to her arguments regarding whether or not the amendments she has submitted are admissible.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my amendments are actually subamendments that—

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, but the member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, in response to what you responded to the member opposite, I would like to question how this process is unfolding. It seems to me that we cannot begin a debate on these amendments that have just been put forward until we know whether or not they are in order.

If the member is going to rise and put forward arguments as to why they should be in order or--

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Vancouver East gives good advice. I appreciate it. However, we are not in debate right now. We are listening to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine argue on the eligibility of her amendments in order to help the Speaker to make an appropriate decision.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, will you then be allowing other parties to also comment on whether or not these amendments are admissible? If you are allowing the mover to do so, then there may be other points of view.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

That is a reasonable request. The member will be recognized if she rises at that moment.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the ruling you have just made that allows me to speak to the admissibility of the motions for subamendments that I have just tabled.

In fact, those of us on this side, the Liberal caucus, believe that these amendments in fact are admissible because they speak to the very heart of Bill C-10. If we look at Bill C-10, we see that it says very clearly “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act”.

I do understand that the legislative summary talks about increasing or “escalating minimum penalties”, but I think the Speaker is wise enough to know that the legislative summary that is found in a bill is not something that is debated or voted on in committee. It is not. What is in fact debated on and adopted or modified, for instance, is the title of the bill. The bill talks about “minimum penalties for offences involving firearms”. It does not talk about escalating. That is the first point.

Second, it is clearly what we heard in committee and it is clearly what the original bill itself did, which was to increase the minimum mandatories. Our subamendments do that. I believe that our subamendments are in fact admissible, because were they to be deemed not admissible I think it would be creating a dangerous precedent, like the precedent the Speaker set by ruling that a parliamentary secretary could table subamendments to the amendments that his own minister and government tabled.

I am not aware in the 10 years that I have been here that a competent Speaker has made such a ruling, because in doing so it effectively precludes any opposition party from bringing subamendments to report stage amendments that have been tabled by the government itself. That, Mr. Speaker, is a dangerous ruling.

On the other hand, a ruling to rule the Liberal subamendments at report stage admissible is a ruling that would follow in the tradition of precedents in the House. I will rest at that point, but I believe I have made the point very clearly, and I feel that I have made the case very clearly.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and refer to the page on subamendments that appears in Marleau and Montpetit at page 454. It states that:

Sub-amendments must be strictly relevant to the amendment and seek to modify the amendment, not the original question; they cannot enlarge on the amendment, introduce new matters foreign to the amendment or differ in substance from the amendment.

Every single one of these amendments clashes with that ruling in Marleau and Montpetit. They either destroy the intent of the amendments that were moved by the parliamentary secretary or change them so dramatically as to have the same effect.

These clearly are not proper subamendments. They should be ruled out of order. We should get on with the debate on the basic issues that are in fact properly before the House.

Again, Mr. Speaker, those words are at page 454 of Marleau and Montpetit. I would recommend that they be taken into consideration in making your determination, Mr. Speaker, as to the admissibility of these subamendments.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

As there are no further comments about this point of order, we will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

Motions in AmendmentCriminal CodeGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a bit with the hon. member, but I will put on my glasses so that I can really see her. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is quick to plead her case when circumstances warrant.

In the end, any amendments we can introduce will not alter the fact that this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill because it is an ideological construct that is not backed by scientific evidence.

We heard many witnesses in committee, as my colleagues on the committee will attest. I believe that, at the time, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine had not yet been appointed as opposition critic and that her predecessor was the member for London West.

Criminologists from the Université de Montréal, Carleton University and the University of Ottawa appeared before the committee and said that there was no scientific evidence, based on existing research, including studies commissioned by Justice Canada, by Julian Roberts, a researcher who was given the task of assessing the impact of Bill C-68. Does my colleague agree that minimum penalties are not a proven deterrent and that no scientific evidence was brought before the committee? Should we not be concerned that public policy is being formulated without scientific evidence to back it up?