Debates of May 17th, 2007

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I would not do that.

Tomorrow is an allotted day.

Next week is constituent consultation week, when the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings and meet with constituents to share with them the activities of Parliament since the last constituency break.

For the interest of members, I will quickly review our plan for the context of our overall legislative agenda.

As he requested, this is currently strengthening the economy week, where a number of financial bills moved forward. The budget bill was sent to committee and, hopefully, it will be reported back tomorrow, or soon, so we can deal with it at third reading when the House returns after the break.

Bill C-40, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, was read a third time and sent to the Senate. Bill C-53, an act to implement the convention on the settlement of investment disputes, Bill C-33, the sales tax bill and Bill C-47, the Olympics symbol bill were all sent to committee and we all would like to see those back in the House for report stage and third reading.

In an earlier week, Bill C-36, the bill that makes changes to the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act, was made into law after receiving royal assent.

Strengthening accountability through democratic reform week was a success with the consideration of Bill C-43, Senate consultation. We had three new democratic reform bills introduced that week: Bill C-55, to expand voting opportunities; Bill C-56, an act to amend the Constitution Act, democratic representation; and Bill C-54, a bill that would bring accountability with respect to loans. We hope to continue debate on that particular bill later today.

Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, was given royal assent and is now law, which I think is the cause of the commotion now in all the committees where Liberals are using procedural tactics. Now they feel they can do it with a free hand.

Two other democratic reform bills are in the Senate, Bill C-31, voter integrity, and Bill S-4, Senate tenure. I really would like to have the term limits bill from the Senate for an upcoming democratic reform week if the opposition House leader can persuade his colleagues in the Senate to finally deal with that bill after 352 days. We may get 352 seconds in a filibuster, but they have had 352 days so far. They have been stalling for a year.

During the consultation week, I will be interested in hearing what our constituents think of the plight of Bill S-4 and the irony of those unaccountable senators delaying it.

We dedicated a good deal of our time focusing on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime. Now that we have had the help of the NDP, we restored the meaningful aspects that the Liberals gutted in committee to Bill C-10, the bill to introduce mandatory penalties for violent and gun crimes. We are continuing to debate that bill today at third reading.

Bill C-48, the bill dealing with the United Nations convention on corruption, was adopted at all stages.

Bill C-26, the bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to interest rates, was given royal assent.

Bill C-22, the age of protection, was given final reading and sent to the Senate, although it did spend close to, if not in excess of, 200 days in committee where the Liberals were obstructing and delaying its passage.

We made progress on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. We would like to see that back in the House.

Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) and a host of other justice bills are working their way through the system.

Members can advise their constituents that when we return, we will be reviving two themes, back by popular demand. Beginning May 28, we will begin again with strengthening accountability through democratic reform with: Bill C-54, political loans; Bill C-55, additional opportunities for voting; and Bill C-56, democratic representation.

Up next is a second go-round on strengthening the economy week with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will be called as soon as it is reported back from committee.

In the near future, we will have the improvement of aboriginal people quality of life week with Bill C-44. This bill will grant first nations residing on Indian reserves access to the Canadian charter of human rights. They have been denied this right for 30 years. Unfortunately, Bill C-44 is being delayed by the opposition. This is another bill being delayed by the opposition in committee.

After Bill C-44, I intend to debate Bill C-51. The agreement establishes the use and ownership of land and resources and will foster economic development. This bill illustrates Canada's commitment to the North and to settling land claims.

I wish all members a productive constituent consultation week and look forward to more progress on the government's legislative agenda when the House returns on May 28.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have seen the tendency of the government to filibuster itself.

I point out to the House that when the typical Thursday question is asked, it usually takes the House leader for the opposition something less than one minute, respecting the prerogatives, timing and tradition of the House. I trust in future that the question will be allowed something in the order of five minutes so there can be a little fairness shown, obviously in response to the government's tendency to filibuster everything.

If the government House leader is looking for an explanation as to why the atmosphere around this place has tended to sour in the last little while, he might just look in the mirror.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I say in a spirit of generosity, I knew the member was going to ask the context of the legislation that we wished to complete in the balance of our time here. Had that not been held up in committee so long, the list would not have taken so long to read?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find the opposition House leader has asked what is called the usual Thursday question in an attempt to determine the future business of the House for the week to follow.

The reply of the government House leader I can only describe as disingenuous. He has taken the opportunity to give a speech about virtually the entire government agenda, of which he may be very proud, but which was not the purpose of the question.

If these kinds of liberties are going to be continued to be taken by the government House leader, it may destroy the whole purpose of the Thursday question. He should take that into account, and I think you should too, Mr. Speaker.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think the hon. member did not hear the opposition House leader pose his question. He asked, in addition to next week, what other aspects of the government's agenda did we wish to see completed before we finished the session for the summer.

This happens to be a fairly ambitious agenda. That is the nature of this government. He may not like seeing a government that wants to get things done, but the reality is I was answering the question he asked.

Oral Questions

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I refer to Standing Order 18, which states: “No member shall...use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof”.

I therefore respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development attacked my integrity when attempting to answer my question. When I stand up to the Conservative government to defend the interests of students, seniors, the disabled, and the cultural and community organizations of the Outaouais, among others, I am very proud of my integrity.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the comment to which the member is referring. He might wish to repeat so we could respond more appropriately. Otherwise, I would ask that we be given an opportunity for the Minister of Human Resources to return to respond to it.

Certainly, though, when it comes to question period in terms of attacks on integrity and character, I know where they come from mostly.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

We will leave the matter for the moment. I am sure all hon. members will have a look at the record.

The chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

Minister's Letter to Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of personal privilege.

As members of Parliament, we carry out our everyday work following a code and a set of ethics. I have had the good fortune of having been here for almost 19 years. This is my first experience that I have seen a minister telling committee members how to do their work. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sent a letter to all members of the committee intimidating us as to how we carry on our work. I would like to refer to a few passages from the letter. It reads:

Some of the questions during May 2nd appearance related to matters on which public servants cannot testify. For reasons of clarification, and so that all understand the parameters around such appearances, I have taken the step of instructing my Deputy Minister to provide the following information to departmental officials, prior to their next appearance before the Committee.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this is telling civil servants not to be accountable to this House. It continues:

Public servants are to assist the standing committee by factually answering questions, but are to explain rather than defend or debate policies. Thus, for example, they can provide information on how a particular program or policy is implemented; questions relating to whether the program or policy can or should be changed is the exclusive realm of a Minister.

The minister is there and taking advice of her bureaucrats. Certainly this does not jibe. It continues:

--I will ask that my Deputy Minister indicate that, if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by the Committee members, they should not answer immediately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date. This may delay the Committee receiving full and complete answers to legitimate questions, but as it is your intention to swear them in, this guidance is for their protection.

As I said, this is the first time that I have seen a minister act that way, but it is not unusual. It clearly demonstrates that the minister is trying to muzzle the committee.

As this is a repeated circumstance by the Conservative government in this current Parliament, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you investigate this matter. I feel that my privileges have been infringed and trampled upon by the minister. I am asking that you look into this matter and respond back to this House.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

The hon. member accused me of instructing witnesses from my department of withholding information. This is a very serious allegation, as intimidation of witnesses is clearly inappropriate.

I submit that the member's question of privilege is not valid for two reasons. First, there is no evidence that the situation described by the hon. member constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege. At most, this is a debate about the interpretation of facts. Second, this concerns proceedings at the standing committee. Since the standing committee has not presented a report on this matter, this matter cannot be considered in the House as a valid question of privilege.

Now if I may present the factual situation, Mr. Speaker, the citizenship and immigration committee was hearing witnesses from my department during a committee meeting on May 2, 2007. During this meeting the atmosphere and manner of questioning the departmental witnesses was hostile and some of the witnesses felt intimidated.

As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I wrote to the chair of the committee, copying the members, following this meeting, expressing my concern over the intimidation of witnesses. I informed the chair that I had instructed the deputy minister of the department to instruct any future witnesses from the department that they should put their response in writing at a later date if they were in doubt of information that was required at the time of the questioning. I also instructed the deputy minister to indicate to future witnesses that they should not tolerate instances of inappropriate ways of questioning.

This was an attempt to ensure the well running of the committee and the well-being of my departmental officials.

Here is the $10,000 question. It is the procedural point.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that this cannot be a valid question of privilege at this time since the citizenship and immigration committee has not presented a report to the House on this mattter. Page 128 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.

As the citizenship and immigration committee has not reported on this matter, I submit that this is not a valid question of privilege at this time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Kitchener--Waterloo also gave notice on the same point, I believe.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the same letter dated May 16, 2007 sent to the chair of the committee and copied to all members of the committee.

My question of privilege flows from an attempt by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to intimidate the standing committee on the subject by limiting the testimony of witnesses appearing before it.

The minister's letter dated May 16, 2007 proposes to put in place guidelines and severe limitations on the testimony of witnesses. These proposed limitations are contrary to the law, privileges and customs of Parliament. They amount to a serious breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament and to the privilege of the House itself.

I want to be clear in stating that the committees are entitled to seek information from witnesses through both testimony and evidence. In this context, where public servants are called upon to testify, there must be a way to ensure that committees obtain the information they require while respecting the public servants' professional duty to the crown.

The minister will want to look at the appropriate provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act which specifically authorize committees to swear in witnesses. An attempt to deny that part of the law is an assault on my privilege and those of every member of the committee and of the House.

Furthermore, the language in the minister's letter regarding the style of questioning is nothing short of offensive to the committee and also a breach of my privilege as a member of the committee, in that it claims the committee members harassed, demeaned, belittled, humiliated and embarrassed witnesses. All these qualifiers are grossly exaggerated.

In fact, in part of my presentation to the committee, I commended one of the witnesses, Mr. Davidson, rather than criticize him. I commended Mr. Davidson for pointing out to the committee that the previous Liberal government had budgeted $20 million for producing a new updated Citizenship Act and how the Conservative government withdrew that funding.

The principle at stake is the ability of members of Parliament in a standing committee to carry out their legislative work and to fulfill their duties as members of Parliament, independent of the government of the day.

Upon reviewing the minister's letter and checking the minutes of the standing committee meeting of May 2, 2007, I am sure you will find a prima facie case for breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I will table the letter in question with you, Sir.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the point raised by the member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

I begin my comments by saying that I am a new member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. This was in fact the first full meeting that I had attended of that committee. What I found at that committee that day was absolutely shocking.

First of all, I believe that both members have not presented a prima facie case for a question of privilege. What the minister has done is to instruct junior officials to be careful witnesses and to be careful in the information that they relay to parliamentarians to ensure that members on that committee get good information. Of course they are going to be very careful witnesses because members opposite made a big production about swearing in those junior officials of the department. It was an incredibly intimidating meeting for the junior officials that appeared before our committee.

The mood of the entire meeting was most distasteful. The junior officials were berated. If anyone is guilty of intimidation of a committee, it is the member for Scarborough—Agincourt. It is also the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and also the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you were to look at the blues from that committee meeting on that day, you would be shocked and amazed at some of the tactics used by members of the opposition to berate junior officials. These officials are good public servants who go to work every day and do their jobs and pay their taxes and raise their families.

At that meeting we dealt with lost Canadians. The only motives of these officials were to deal with this matter and to help to identify who falls within the realm of a lost Canadian. They are doing an incredible job, despite receiving tens of thousands of phone calls. I believe they are down to 75 individuals who are in dispute as to whether or not they are lost Canadians. They are doing an incredible job.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to check the blues from that committee, the word “liar” was thrown out many times by members opposite. The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country accused the officials of being guilty of a snow job. He said that he knew a snow job when he heard it and they were guilty of creating a snow job that day at committee.

Those poor officials were berated by members of the opposition. I want to commend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for standing up for these good public servants, for standing up for these officials and saying to them that if they are not sure of their answer, to take some time, make sure they get it right and then get back to the committee.

There were only three people in that room that day that were guilty of intimidation. They are the members opposite that I have already mentioned. I want to congratulate the minister.

This clearly is not a point of privilege.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my colleague only joined the committee that particular day. He is not aware of what happened the first time that the minister came to the committee.

In the same vein, a question was asked of the minister and also was asked of a senior official, none other than the deputy minister, and the question was very plain, “Have you advertised?” The minister, not knowing, looked at the deputy minister and the deputy minister said, “I assure you we have advertised”.

Later on the deputy minister sent out a letter apologizing for misleading us. He even sent me a personal letter because I put the question to him, apologizing personally for having misled me.

The whole thing on this file, and I did not raise the file here today on the report, I raised the request for you, Sir, to take a look at this letter and how it is intimidating.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to examine the blues. If the minister wants to examine the blues and my colleague from Palliser wants to examine the blues, do nothing else but examine the whole thing. This has done nothing else but to trample and infringe on the rights of the members of the committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am prepared to deal with this matter immediately. I have heard enough. We are getting away off the point of a question of privilege and getting into what happened in the committee which in my view is irrelevant to this issue.

We have here a case where the minister has sent a letter to all the committee members from the copy that I have received. It is marked “copy” to all the members of the committee. It is addressed to the chairman of the committee. It is dealing with the giving of evidence before the committee.

It is not a matter of the privileges of the members of the House. It is a matter for the committee to decide whether this directive is something that is satisfactory to the committee. That discussion must take place in the committee and not here on the floor of the House.

It is not for me to decide what evidence committees hear or what restrictions the committee may put on members or what restrictions the minister may be allegedly putting on witnesses who are appearing before the committee.

The minister is entitled to give directions to her employees in the department. She is entitled to write to the committee and express her views and pass on to it what she is telling the people in her department. It is for the committee then to make decisions whether or not this is satisfactory to the committee and its members, and not for Speaker on a question of privilege in the House.

If the committee reports that in some way its ability to do its work has been restricted or impeded, that is another matter and it will be dealt with by the House if such a report should come to the House, as the minister has pointed out.

However, it is not for me today to make a decision on whether the minister's letter constitutes a breach of members' privileges. It does not, it cannot, unless the committee finds that in some way its ability to do its job has been impeded or impaired. We have had no such finding from the committee.

I am not going to hear a whole lot more argument about what happened in the committee in terms of answers to questions. That is simply not the business of the Speaker, nor in my view is it the business of the House at least until such time as the House receives a report from the committee indicating some problem.

I urge hon. members to raise this matter in committee. They can have a fulsome discussion there. The chairman of the committee has the letter. There is nothing secret about it. The discussion can take place in committee and in my opinion, that is exactly where it ought to take place.

Therefore, I cannot find a question of privilege here today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Prior to oral questions, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine had the floor. She has seven minutes for her remarks. She now has the floor to speak on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to resume where I had to interrupt my remarks. The Liberal Party of Canada is not against minimum sentences. However, it considers that they do not represent the best way to combat crime in Canada. That is why we believed that Bill C-10, as amended in committee, constituted an excellent compromise because it dealt in a serious and coherent manner with major crime in Canada. As I have explained, this compromise was destroyed by the deplorable union of the Conservatives and NDP.

Without trivializing crime and the problem of access to weapons, the bill, newly amended by the Conservatives and the NDP, serves to establish and reinforce the neo-conservative ideology that is trying to impose itself in this House. It promotes increases in mandatory minimum sentences, so generously used but really only effective in very specific circumstances. It is important to mention that the Liberal Party in no way opposes minimum sentences but like a majority of the stakeholders in the criminal law community, it considers that they must be limited in use to already existing offences. They cannot constitute a new response to crime management.

Finally, I must remind members that the Liberal Party proposed a multitude of amendments designed to improve the original bill during discussion in committee. We tried the same thing at the report stage. Unfortunately, this government and its loyal allies in the NDP obstinately voted against my party’s initiatives on this issue. That is why the value of their joint bill is so diminished

I therefore invite my fellow members to reject Bill C-10 at third reading, in large part, because of the amendments adopted at the report stage.

“The fight against criminals won't be won with more police officers and bigger jails”. That is not only my view and that of my Liberal colleagues. It is a quote from Ben Anderson, spokesman for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

If front line witnesses of crimes, victims of crimes, our police in Canada, consider that crime needs to be tackled through social development in large part, maybe it is time for this government to show leadership in that direction. I suggest that effective justice is more than just a slogan.

I would like to talk about what a new Liberal government would do.

We would immediately convene a round table meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers, together with representatives of key organizations representing the police, to commence discussions on developing a long term, sustainable, cost-sharing arrangement for additional police officers. This is a step the Conservatives have refused to take despite their campaign promise to hire more police officers.

We, a new Liberal government, would give the RCMP money for 400 additional officers to help local police departments deal with guns and gang activity as well as organized crime and drug trafficking.

We would ensure that more money is made available to the provinces to hire more Crown prosecutors or Crown attorneys. We would continue to support, as we have done, the reverse onus bail hearings for those arrested for gun crimes.

We would establish a fund that would help at-risk communities cover the costs of security of their places of worship and other gathering places, whether it be schools, community centres, for instance, which was started by the previous Liberal government but which has been abandoned by the Conservatives.

We Liberals would strive to set up organized crime secretariats, like Ontario's anti-guns and gangs task force, in every province, ensuring that each of the provincial secretariats would be seamlessly integrated across the country, kind of like organized crime is. But the Conservative government does not seem to realize that.

A Liberal government would also strengthen legislation aimed at preventing Internet luring. While passage of the above-mentioned bill would assist law enforcement in tracking down predators who use new technologies, new offences are needed to address explicit online conversations initiated by adults with children that are intended to groom the child for future attempts at luring the child.

We would also act on the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner to update and toughen current legislation to deter and prevent identity theft.

There were almost 8,000 reports of identity theft in the past year, resulting in losses greater than $16 million. Too often, the victims have been seniors whose lifetime of hard work and savings can vanish in an instant.

A new Liberal government would also amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, to make it mandatory for organizations to notify people of data breaches involving their personal information. We would act immediately to implement all 22 recommendations made by the federal task force on spam, which have been completely ignored by that Conservative government.

These recommendations include: introducing legislation that would make it an offence to use false or misleading headers or subject lines, construct false or misleading URLs and websites for the purpose of collecting personal information under false pretenses, and the harvesting of email addresses without consent.

Those are just some of the initiatives that a new Liberal government has made a public commitment that it would implement immediately upon return to power.

However, I want to come back to Bill C-10. The Conservatives use retail politics when it comes to the fight on crime. They are not using effective measures that really would result in effective justice because were they doing so, they would be listening to the experts, and the experts, yes, include our law enforcement.

What does our law enforcement tell us, whether it be the Association of Canadian Chiefs of Police or the Canadian Police Association? They tell us one thing very clearly. They want the government to invest in our children and to invest more money in targeting our at-risk youth, and our communities, which are at risk of either being victims of crime or being perpetrators of crime.

One of the ways to do this is by actually investing in the organizations that deal with our youth in those communities where there is a high level of crime, where there is a high percentage of youth being swept up into street gangs or into organized crime. Investments, funding and opportunities need to be provided for the local law enforcement in the field to be able to work with those communities. We have seen it happen.

I urge every single member in this House to vote against Bill C-10 at third reading because it is not effective justice. It is simply sloganeering.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if those are all the wonderful things that the Liberals would do if they formed government again, then my question is somewhat rhetorical. How come they did none of those things in the 13 years when they were government, most of the time a majority government where they could have done whatever they wanted? They did not do it.

I have one daughter, a daughter-in-law and five grandchildren. I am thinking of the following situation. Someone assaults or rapes either one of my adult female children or one of my grandchildren and that criminal has a gun and/or a knife. Let us say that when the perpetrator was found, it was discovered that this was not his first, not his second, but his third offence. I do not know the family situation of the member opposite. I have never investigated whether she has a daughter or not. If this were her daughter who was brutally attacked by an individual with a weapon who had three previous offences, I wonder what she would do in order to address the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said that if a new Liberal government were prepared to do all of these things, why did it not do it when it was in power? Let me talk about some of the things the previous Liberal government members did when we were in office.

The previous Liberal government brought in the national strategy on crime prevention, which directed moneys into local communities that needed to work with their youth at risk and to ensure better levels of security. They were able to coordinate with the local law enforcement, community police officers, the health organizations and the schools to bring down to the grassroots real effective programs to ensure we had lower crime rates. That is an example of what a previous Liberal government did.

The previous Liberal government brought into being the dangerous offenders system. It was not a Progressive Conservative government, it was the Liberal government. It was a Liberal government that brought into existence the long term offender system. It was a Liberal government that recognized minimum mandatory penalties in very targeted areas could send a clear message and could be effective in the sense of removing the offender from the community and ensuring that the victim and the community were not re-victimized.

We are the ones who brought in minimum mandatory penalties for firearm related criminal acts. It was not a Conservative government. It was not a Progressive Conservative government. It was a Liberal government that brought into effect integrated law enforcement teams. Whether it was for the border enforcement, or for financial money laundering, or for whatever, it was a Liberal government that brought those into effect.

It was a Liberal government that brought into effect all the new provisions, which are no longer new, to the Criminal Code to create the ability for law enforcement to seize drug money and to define a criminal organization and organized crime.

The Liberal government did all of that.

I believe the member opposite should go back to the school benches, learn the actual history and cease taking the rhetoric and sloganeering of his party, which has tried to paint Liberals as not being tough on crime. Tough on crime does not do it. The supreme court of the United States of America recently ruled that its determinant sentencing, under the American federal sentencing guidelines, what it calls mandatory minimum penalties, was unconstitutional and should be used as an advisory only. In other words, in the United States federal mandatory minimum sentencing is considered to be unconstitutional and should only be used as a guideline.

I am appalled that the Conservative government would want to take a failed model, which is the escalating minimum mandatory sentence system that existed in virtually all of the states in the United States and for which 25 of the states since 2003 have eliminated or severely reduced, and impose it here in Canada.

Effective justice is not sloganeering. Effective justice is not retail politics. Effective justice means taking the time to educate people. It means putting the taxpayer money where it will reduce crime. It is not pandering. The Conservative government panders and it conducts retail politics. It is not too lofty for the government to stoop to the most base accusations, disinformation, untruths in its quest to try to portray itself as being tough on crime.

Being tough on crime means taking the effective measures that will actually make a difference on the ground. We had expert after expert come before the justice committee, whether it was on Bill C-35, or other bills, which the government has lauded to try to make Canadians believe they will make them safer. The experts have said that they could not really oppose them because it would not make any difference.

The de facto reality is that it already happens. Whether it be reverse onus for bail for gun related crimes, it already happens. If one is accused of a criminal offence and a firearm is involved, judges do not give bail. Therefore, we would simply be codifying an actual de facto practice.

That is one of the reasons why the Liberals are able to support Bill C-35, but we are unable to support Bill C-10. It is not effective justice. It is retail politics, and shame on the NDP for supporting it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine might like to know that the question lasted two minutes and the answer six minutes, so there are two minutes left. Let us hope the question will take about 45 seconds and so will the answer.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the thrust of Bill C-10 has to do with the subject matter of mandatory minimums. It has been suggested by some members on the government side that the Liberals are opposed to mandatory minimums. I do not believe that is the case. Could the hon. member inform the members of our history?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal government that brought in mandatory minimum sentencing for firearm related crimes. There is a whole category of them where currently it is a minimum of one year. There is second category of designated offences where currently it is four years. In committee, and again at report stage in the House, the Liberal members attempted to increase the one year to two years and the four years to five years.

What we oppose is escalating mandatory minimum penalties. That is where if a person reoffends, the judge will have no discretion. The studies have shown and the experts have stated that it does not work.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate I have heard today is an interesting one. We are involved in a very serious and complex discussion.

The New Democratic Party is supporting the bill, with the amendments that our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, brought forward.

I realize the Liberals and the Bloc are not supporting it. I heard an earlier comment by the member of the government that it must mean the people approve of criminals. In fairness, I do not think anyone who sits in the House approves of criminals, whether they support the legislation or not. It is not a matter of supporting criminals. However, I do think it is a matter of how we approach it.

First, I have asked myself some questions. How do I, as the member for Surrey North and as a member of the House of Commons, ensure that the public can have faith in our justice system? I can assure the House that much of the public with whom I speak do not have faith in the justice system. These people have not necessarily found that because someone comes before a judge on a firearms offence, that they are not released on bail. We would have many examples where this was not the case.

Second, we have to look at what is the appropriate use of this legislation on crimes committed with a gun. In all the debate this morning, if people were sitting at home listening, they would fail to recognize that we are not talking about a general discussion on mandatory minimums. It is a discussion about crimes committed with a firearm. By the way, firearms today are much more technical, much more deadly and much more powerful than the image people might have of firearms that may come from a different place.

Third, I have to ask myself is what are we doing, other than the sentencing, to reduce gun crime. I have heard many people say either one is tough on crime or soft on crime, depending on where one stands on the bill. I do not think that is the case at all. We talk very much about being smart on crime. It is not hard or soft on crime. It is being smart in the way we approach crime.

Think about this. When someone picks up a gun to commit a crime, they automatically know there is a risk of someone being killed or critically injured. There is not a question in anyone's mind that this is what a gun will do, unless we are talking about a child picking up a gun. Anyone who is going to commit a criminal act with a gun knows there is an extreme risk to the person who will be the victim of that crime, not that any crime is acceptable.

I come from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, from Surrey. Many of the things I have experienced around gun crime do not fit some of the things that I have heard about in the House. I hear people talking a lot about gun crime in inner cities. The gun crime I have seen, some of it certainly is inner city, but much of it has nothing to do with youth raised in inner cities. Some of it has to do with youth raised in affluence.

We must be careful not to stereotype this by saying that it is only inner city people who are vulnerable to being involved in a gun crime.

Over the last 10 or 11 years, 100 young men in the lower mainland and some in Surrey have been killed in a gun crime, which is not an insubstantial number. Is anyone behind bars? No. Was it the person's first offence? I do not know for sure, but I know with some it certainly was not their first offence.

We must remember that what we are doing is being smart on crime.

Although I am in support of the bill, with the NDP amendments, and having talked to the parents whose daughters and sons have been killed in a gun crime or critically injured, I do not feel that I have turned into a neo-Conservative. I do not know if anybody has ever called me a neo-Conservative before.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You would remember.