Debates of June 2nd, 2009

Motion in Amendment

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are willing to stand and tell the truth. We heard the minister say that the Conservatives were sending a clear message and getting tough on traffickers. The fact is the bill applies to one plant all the way up to over 500. I have given examples where people could be convicted of trafficking for simply giving one plant to a neighbour or for being in a car and transporting a plant.

I will tell the minister what people in B.C. are saying. Ann Livingston, the executive director of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, says:

There's a term that's used for arresting people who use drugs in our neighbourhood and it's the low-hanging fruit. There's a sense of shooting fish in a barrel.

That is what the minister is doing. Those are the easy targets. The bill will not go after the kingpins, otherwise it would not make references to the drug treatment courts.

Philippe Lucas, who is from The Vancouver Island Compassion Society, says that Canadians deserve policies that will actually achieve this goal of dealing with problematic substance use and not ill-considered responses that have been proven to actually increase judicial and incarceration costs, as well as the transmission of HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend has appeared with us at justice committee, arguing her case with respect to this issue. However, she was not with us in British Columbia when the committee travelled there to hear about the scourge that drugs had played on society there.

She pretends that the bill is not about trafficking. Her amendments are largely about trafficking in marijuana. One of the amendments made was to increase the lower threshold to five plants, from zero plants, but still growing for the purposes of trafficking. The Criminal Code has a definition of what trafficking means.

As the father of three young girls in school, trafficking is probably a bad thing. She is saying that higher levels of trafficking are worse. I do not disagree with that. However, the government is only offering us a few tools. Why do we not embrace this, recognize that drug treatment courts are an option to avoid sentencing and get on with pressing the government for more meaningful attacks on the war against crime.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the Liberal members have chosen to support the bill for what are purely political purposes. They are so concerned about their image of not being tough on crime. The fact is there is such overwhelming evidence that mandatory minimums not only do not act as a deterrence, but they will actually increase backlog of the court system, they will increase incarceration and the cost of doing that without stopping drug use itself. Therefore, I think the member—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the hon. member there.

I should remind all hon. members that when they are in the chamber they should ensure that cellphones, pagers and laptops volumes are turned off. I do not know whose that was, but I heard a cellphone ringing.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and speak in opposition to the NDP's attempt to amend Bill C-15, an amendment which in my view would eviscerate it by taking out all of the minimum mandatory sentences.

The legislation was introduced as part of the government's commitment to tackle crime and to provide safer communities for all Canadians. The bill proposes, among other things, a number of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, for serious drug offences involving schedule 1, which includes heroin and cocaine, and also schedule 2 substances such as cannabis and where there exists certain aggravating factors such as where violence was used to commit the offence or the offence was committed for organized crime.

One of the most important elements of the bill is the MMPs proposed for the offence of production of schedule 1 drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamines and schedule 2 drugs such as cannabis. This motion proposes to remove this very important clause from the bill. As I indicated, it would essentially eviscerate the bill and render the rest of the clauses meaningless.

Clandestine drug labs and marijuana grow operations, or MGOs, have increased significantly in the last few years. They very often constitute a serious threat to the personal safety of persons who are not even involved in the commission of the offence. Meth labs, for example, pose significant risks to public health and security because of their production process. In meth labs there is the risk of explosion, fires and contamination from making methamphetamine.

As the hon. member for Vancouver East will recall, when we were in Vancouver, we heard from the fire chiefs of greater Vancouver. They rightfully pointed out that this was a significant risk to the entire public, not just those involved in the purchase and sale of drugs.

MGOs present other equally serious risks. For example, the bypassing of electricity meters illegally to obtain the power necessary for the MGO constitutes a further fire hazard. Setting traps to protect the grow operation from other criminals put at risk first responders who are called in to extinguish the fires. Use of volatile pesticides and fungicides pose a threat to persons living in or close to such illegal operations. Purely innocent individuals, as innocent third parties, are often caught up in these marijuana grow operations and the organized crime that live off their profits.

Another major concern is the presence of families with young children in the clandestine labs or MGOs. Many clandestine labs and marijuana grow operations install families in their homes where these activities take place so as to give them the aura of normalcy and legitimacy. We can certainly appreciate the clearly apparent risk and harm that is put on children who are put in that very difficult and negative situation.

Finally, innocent homeowners who rent out their houses frequently find that the renters have used their property for grow operations and have caused tens of thousands of dollars in damages to their property. Again, another innocent victim, not a person involved in the drug trade, is victimized by these growing MGOs.

There are very good reasons for wanting to ensure that persons who are involved in the illicit production of such substances are subject to harsher penalties than what is now available in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Clause 3 addresses the serious problems described—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue is rising on a point of order.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer hear the simultaneous interpretation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is translation now.

The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up by stating that clause 3, which is the subject of this amendment, addresses the very serious issues that these grow operations and other drug operations contribute to society. For that reason, I will be opposing this motion.

I encourage all hon. members of the House to similarly oppose this motion. Bill C-15 is part of the government's agenda to get tough on crime and to put serious drug dealers where they belong, and that is in prison.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I wanted to ensure that I could hear the simultaneous interpretation because I was listening carefully to what my colleague was saying.

I have but one question for him. Can he, can he, can he—I am repeating it three times to ensure that it is actually translated—today in the House or in committee, as we have requested several times, present one single study—I want just one—that shows that mandatory minimum prison sentences can solve the problem raised by Bill C-15?

It is a fairly short question and I await the reply.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have learned to respect the opinions of my friend from the Bloc Québécois. We serve together on the public safety committee.

Much has been made, not only by the Bloc but also by the member for Vancouver East, about empirical studies regarding the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. It is a very difficult matter in that we have so few mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code, except for the most serious offences such as murder, which mandates a minimum mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and then mandatory periods one must serve before being eligible for parole. With that and very few exceptions, there are very few minimum mandatory sentences in the Criminal Code.

Therefore, it begs the question as to how an empirical study can show that mandatory minimum sentences are effective when we have so few of them? In fact, one time in committee my friend from Vancouver East referred to, and she will acknowledge this, mandatory minimum sentences as a novel or radical approach. She is right. We do not have them except for homicide and very serious offences to the person.

It is impossible to produce an empirical study to show the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences with respect to drugs or with respect to less serious violent crime when those mandatory minimum sentences are absent in the Criminal Code.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having worked at probation and parole for over 13 years, people who stay in jail for a lengthy period of time, unless there are services and programs available to them within those institutions, will not come out any better.

If the government is planning to use mandatory minimum sentences, is it prepared to commit dollars to ensure programming is in place to assist people in rehabilitating themselves?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member can appreciate, nothing in either Bill C-15 and certainly nothing in the NDP amendment to Bill C-15 in any way remotely touches the issue of programs in penitentiaries or in the provincial jail system.

However, drug treatment courts are still available and are being promoted by the government as a diversion for those individuals who have addictions to drugs. They can avoid a minimum mandatory sentence upon recommendation if they effectively and successfully complete a program that is prescribed by the drug treatment court.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of things before I ask my question. The Bloc Québécois and NDP members were talking about overwhelming evidence, is what the NDP member said, that minimum mandatory sentences backlog the courts, for example. I can assure them that after almost 19 years of policing, we on this side of the House appreciate that there are backlogs. We care more about the safety and security of Canadians. Backlogged courts are a result of, most important, the two-for-one pre-custody credit. We are looking at revoking that. I am hoping that the Bloc and the NDP will support us, given what they have said about this.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague with regard to simple possession of marijuana. There are certain people asking repeatedly if this will apply to simple possession of marijuana. Will they receive a—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are only a few seconds for the hon. member.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the proposed amendment to Bill C-15.

Bill C-15, like many of the other Conservative bills, purports to be a cure, the be all and end all, a large solution to an even larger problem. It is a very small step in the war on drugs, Canada's new anti-drug strategy. There is Republican-like language to the war on drugs. There is Conservative-type language to the national anti-drug strategy. The real issue is about the amendment to the bill, which is but a tiny step toward the overall goal of dealing with drugs in our communities, the abuse of drugs and the treatment with respect to drugs.

This bill provides minimum penalties for serious drug offences. My hon. colleague from Alberta who is on the justice committee fairly summarized those steps forward. It increases the maximum penalty for cannabis or marijuana production, which in fact is what this amendment is mainly targeted at eradicating from the bill. It also moves certain drugs from one schedule to another, recognizing the more serious nature of their abuse, which again my friend from Alberta on the justice committee made very clear and very convincingly so.

It also requires that there be a review of the act undertaken and reports submitted to Parliament. This was as a result of an amendment at the justice committee. It is a very good step toward dealing with that lacuna, the lack of evidence we hear with respect to the efficacy of mandatory minimum sentences.

I find it ironic and actually funny that people unknowingly say “mandatory minimums” or “minimum mandatories”, but the people who are against mandatory minimum sentences perhaps slip into a Freudian thing where they want a minimum of mandatory sentences. However, it is actually a mandatory minimum regime which has been used in the United States with conflicting evidence, for sure, and it is being imported with increasing regularity by the Conservative government.

Let us keep in mind the historical context. We have had mandatory minimums for a long time in this country, and there ought to be some evidence about how they are working. That is one aspect that is very good about the bill. Finally there is a reporting mechanism back to Parliament, as there was with the Anti-Terrorism Act. That is a good thing about the bill.

Finally, it is the first time in the three and a half years that I have been here that there will be an alternative to the mandatory minimum sentence for the convicted trafficker, let us say, by going to the drug treatment court. This is an option of an accused and convicted drug trafficker. He or she will have the choice to go to a drug treatment court, which is a diversion from the criminal justice system of incarceration, perhaps without treatment, as our colleague from the NDP suggested. It is a very novel approach for Canada, because unlike its introduction in the United States some 20 years ago, and it flourishes in the United States, we have a very sparse distribution of drug treatment courts in Canada.

We can handle this part of the bill. We can say to criminologists that this is a way to avoid the imposition of the mandatory minimum in that an accused can say that he or she will go to the drug treatment court and will try to get better.

Those drug treatment courts should be expanded. They should be resourced. They are not adequately geographically dispersed throughout this great country of ours. They are in major centres, but where they are, they have met with some success.

At committee, we did not get to hear from the Attorney General of Manitoba. He sent us a very complete brief on the subject, about 20 pages of suggestions. He lauds the Winnipeg drug treatment court and hopes that the government takes seriously this anti-drug strategy by resourcing it, by making sure that we get to the cause of drug abuse and that we get to issues of treatment with respect to drug abuse.

I have heard from various law enforcement officials, the chief of which was the Chief of Police of this fine city of Ottawa, who is responsible for making sure that, unlike D'Arcy McGee, we get home safely every night from this place. He was very compelling in suggesting that drug treatment courts work, but the government has to take seriously the issues of prevention and cause and treatment. Everyone knows that, yet the statistics are quite boggling.

I can support Bill C-15 for the minor steps it takes, but I want to discourage members from supporting the NDP amendment. The amendment attempts to say that if someone is convicted of growing 5 to 200 marijuana plants for the purposes of trafficking, which means trying to sell those drugs to people like my children, the person should not be given a mandatory minimum sentence, when we are at war on the issue of drugs.

To say that we support the bill does not in any way say that we are stepping away from our obligations and the government's obligations to be serious about studying the root causes of crime, and in particular drug crimes and drug abuse. It does not mean that we are stepping away from our obligation and the government's obligation to be more serious about combatting organized crime, which feeds for its lifeblood on the growth of drugs, including cannabis and marijuana.

There seems to be an attitude coming from that side of the House over to my left that it is cannabis, it is a joint, and if it is given from one friend to another, they will be trapped by this legislation. The bill is very clear to me. If someone grows 200 plants and that person is caught for trafficking, that is, selling those plants to people like my children, that person is going to do a minimum sentence in this country. That does not seem all that shocking to me.

What is shocking is that in the three and a half years I have been here the government has stood up time after time saying that the bill would go toward its national anti-drug strategy and achieve success. It is right to ask where the evidence is on mandatory minimums. It is right to ask where the evidence is on the efficacy of drug treatment courts. What is missing is a response on those two questions.

There has been a fairly long history of mandatory minimum sentences. There has been a long history with respect to drug treatment courts, as sparsely dispersed as they are throughout the country. There ought to be some compelling evidence from the government that these are worth resourcing, and yet they are not being resourced to the level that is needed.

There is no drug treatment court in my province of New Brunswick. I laud the bill because it would give someone an opportunity to pick drug treatment court. For the average person who has an addiction and does a property crime and perhaps is perhaps convicted under this offence, that person will not have a chance to take advantage of a drug treatment court, not because of this law, not because of the Criminal Code, but because there has not been the élargissement, the widening of the drug treatment court program.

As much as we support the bill and reject the NDP amendment, the bigger issue is when the federal government spends, and these figures go back some years, $426 million on drug programs, and $164 million goes to the RCMP, $157 million goes to corrections, and only $8 million to $15 million goes to Health Canada for treatment. The 90% that goes into detection and corrections heavily outweighs what is spent on prevention, rehabilitation and finding out how we might stop people from using and abusing drugs. We know from all the evidence we have heard that is the goal here.

We need to know whether the government will stop flouting bills on the 5 o'clock news and saying it is doing something, and stop ignoring the idea that a lot of these programs, such as drug treatment programs, have to be resourced. They have to be expanded. We are a country from sea to sea to sea. There are drug abuse problems in all parts of this country, not just in big cities. Drug abuse is as prevalent in rural and poorer areas of our country as it is in big cities.

Where is the access to the drug treatment courts to make Bill C-15 more effective? Why does the NDP think that being convicted of selling 5 to 200 marijuana plants is some small offence when really that is all the bill is aimed at?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals used to have a half decent drug policy but they seem to have abandoned it. After listening to the member's comments and questions today about this bill, a member who was the lead member on the justice committee, I really do not get it. This bill goes in exactly the opposite direction of the so-called four pillar approach that I understood the Liberal government had adopted a number of years ago.

The member talked about drug treatment courts. Canada has only six drug treatment courts and they do not work very well. A lot of information shows that they have very mixed reviews. They hang their hat on the fact that this is about drug treatment courts but it is not. This is about mandatory minimums.

The Minister of Justice said that this bill would make it illegal to deal and sell drugs near schools. Could the Liberal member confirm that in the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act it is also illegal to sell drugs near schools?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member was present in committee when we heard evidence from justice officials that the law exists to penalize that but it also exists so that for serious trafficking offences large sentences will be meted out.

All this bill says is that if people grow 200 plants, they will receive a minimum sentence of six months if it can be proven that those plants were intended to be used for the purposes of trafficking. Selling 200 marijuana plants for commercial purposes to users who are then themselves subject to the minor offences that my friend would lead the House to believe are covered by this act, is scare-mongering of a different kind.

We get scare-mongering from the Conservatives all the time. They prop up a bill and then do nothing about the underlying root causes, rehabilitation and treatment. However, the scare-mongering of the other kind is to say that it is okay to grow 5 to 200 plants for commercial purposes, be proven under the existing code that it is trafficking and not to be penalized when we are at war with drugs.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say, and I have a question for him.

He mentioned a large figure, and I will come back to the services provided in penitentiaries. One has to visit a penitentiary to see how things happen there and to have some understanding of the situation. Since the member comes from New Brunswick, I would like him to explain something to me. In the figures the government released about treatment centres and services, did he see any amounts that could, should or will be paid to the provinces?

The problem with this bill is not related to time served in a penitentiary. The bill imposes six-month minimum sentences. These sorts of sentences are served at the provincial level. Among the figures, did he see any amounts of money that would be transferred to the provinces for drug treatment programs in correctional facilities?

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

Mr. Speaker, in two or three past budgets, the Conservative government changed the equalization formula for all the provinces. In New Brunswick, that means far less money for social services, crime fighting and rehabilitation services. That is very clear. But that is not what we are talking about today.

We are talking about the amendments proposed in Bill C-15. It will mark a small step in the war on drugs. I am in favour of that. But I am totally opposed to the steps the Government of Canada has taken with the provinces and against New Brunswick. There is not enough money and there are not enough resources to implement this system. Bill C-15 will place a very heavy burden on the provinces. It is clear—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Brunswick because I will start exactly where he left off.

The fight against drugs, like all battles, must continue on several fronts. That is the problem with the Conservatives and unfortunately it is the trap into which the Liberals have fallen in supporting Bill C-15.

I will say from the outset that we will not support the NDP amendments. We too find that 200, 250 or 300 plants is a fair bit of trafficking. However, we at least were able to ensure that it does not apply to just one plant. They relented somewhat.

That is not the problem. The problem is that we are dealing with minimum prison sentences. The Conservatives have really understood absolutely nothing and will never understand until they are defeated. Perhaps then they will ask us questions in an attempt to understand. They will never understand that minimum sentences do not solve the problem of crime. I hope that I have said it clearly enough and without shouting. I know that they will not get it. I even spoke to the minister about it when he appeared before us. It does not solve the problem. He answered that there would be fewer criminals at large, but that is not true. Minimum prison sentences, and especially Bill C-15, will create many more problems.

This begins with a minimum six months jail sentence. I agree with this, and I will revisit this when we get to the in-depth debate. It is, however, important to stress that minimum prison terms do not solve problems, and never will. The proof of this is that the Conservatives have never been able to table a single study. I can table at least a dozen that demonstrate the opposite, and not from just anywhere either: from the United States, for example. The Conservatives take their cues from the U.S., so let them go and see what is happening there. There are also studies from Australia and New Zealand. They can speak and read English, so they should understand. In the U.S and in Australia, in northern Australia in particular, studies have been carried out since 1992 on legislation that imposes minimum prison terms. That is not just last week. The studies are clear, and I will read slowly to be sure they get it.

Evidence shows that long prison terms increase the probability of recidivism...

I think I will repeat it. These are not my words, they all come from studies.

Evidence shows that long prison terms increase the probability of recidivism... In the end, public safety is more compromised than protected if the courts lock people up and throw away the key.

That is exactly what they are doing. Getting rid of them, locking them up for as long as possible, thanking heavens that they are not getting back out too frequently. Unfortunately, that is not the way things work. I have a little news bulletin for them. They have not been inside a penitentiary for a long time. I do not want to hear that this one was a police officer for 15 years, others Crown prosecutors. They need to have been inside a prison. I can organize a guided tour if they like. We will show them how things work. Not the way they would like them to.

Unfortunately for them, inmates eventually come out. That is where the problem lies. Mandatory minimum sentencing solves nothing. The problem is not when they go to jail—I repeat, not when they are going in—but when they come out.

In other words, they get out too fast. The men—since 90% of the time it is men who serve prison sentences, and the majority of my clients were men—get out too fast. When a judge carefully studies a case, pronounces a sentence and tells the individual before him that he deserves three years in prison, and then eight months later meets that man on the street, we have a problem.

The problem that the Conservatives have yet to understand is that, even if they impose a minimum prison sentence, these men and women will be entitled to parole. Even if an individual is given a three-year sentence, it is not certain that he will serve a minimum of three years. No. The suggestion is for a three-year sentence. What will happen in prison if this is the individual’s first conviction? Suppose he is a good sort who causes no problems? Right: he will be released after serving one third of his sentence.

Those in this chamber who know how to count know that 36 months divided by three gives 12 months. There is no program. Those who know and are following this, apart from the Conservatives who know nothing, should realize that less than 12 months in a penitentiary is not enough time to work with the individual. Why? Because the individual is sentenced to 36 months, but he does not go straight to prison. He goes to a federal reception centre, where he spends three to four months having his case analyzed to see what can be done with him.

The Conservatives do not understand that the problem is not with the highly criminalized individuals. That is not just my opinion. Studies say that the problem is that this does not target the most notorious and most dangerous offenders, who are already subject to very strict sentences, precisely because of the nature of their crimes.

This means that someone who goes around with a gun selling drugs has to serve, from the outset, a sentence of three years. He is sentenced to three years. On top of that is the sentence for trafficking narcotics. Those who tell me they want to get traffickers off the street are correct on this point, perfectly correct. Everyone wants to get traffickers away from schools. However, we can look at the definition in the bill with respect to an individual trafficking near schools. I can guarantee—and I say this honestly—that bad laws make good lawyers rich. Some will become rich thanks to the laws that the Conservative Party wants passed, particularly this Bill C-15. I will give another example. This bill will have a disproportionate impact on minority groups in Canada that are already suffering poverty and privation.

The aboriginal peoples are a good example. Look at the west. There must be a few Conservatives who come from the west. They should go see what is happening in the western prisons, how many aboriginal people are there compared with the rest of the population. They might realize that there may be a problem somewhere. This is what they do not understand.

I have only a minute left, so I will speak quickly. Being tough on crime has never solved anything. Yes, sentences are necessary and criminals have to be taken off the street. However, I repeat: the problem is not when they go into prison, it is when they get out. Let them serve their sentences. The Minister of Public Safety should explain why he is not proposing a bill to amend the Conditional Release Act. That is where the problem is. The judges who pass sentences have taken the trouble to analyze their cases. I tell you that criminal activity is not going to be resolved with this bill. In fact this bill is going to increase it.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stated earlier, when the member asked me a question, that I served with him on the public safety committee. It was actually the justice committee, so I wanted to correct that.

I have heard him speaking many times in the justice committee against minimum mandatory sentences, citing his belief that they have no deterrent value.

I have a couple of questions for the member. He comes from the province of Quebec where we have been studying the fairly intense organized crime issue that is currently going on in that province with bikers and other gangs that are making a lot of money off of cannabis and other illegal substances.

What is the solution for the recidivism among people in organized crime who traffic in drugs if the member does not believe in minimum mandatory sentences?

I appreciate that he is against minimum mandatory sentences and he quoted several times that long detention increases the probability that the individual will commit further crimes. However, will the member at least acknowledge that during the duration of a prison sentence that individual has no ability to commit further crime?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. That individual will commit other crimes, because those who serve prison sentences, those who are members of the Hells Angels—who are well known in Quebec—direct their trafficking activities from prison. And that is a fact.

Crime is a very serious problem. However, imposing minimum prison sentences will not solve it. The problem is that criminals are not serving their time. They behave themselves in prison. They are decked out in white collars and are cleaner than clean. They never committed any crimes, but when they are in prison, they are released too early and they never serve their time.

When it comes to crime and the Hells Angels in particular, the Bloc has worked very hard in this House to change the legislation and seize goods obtained from the proceeds of crime. We are beginning to have an impact there, and that is why the Conservatives have a problem. The key element here is to prevent people from receiving the money they earn from criminal activity.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech. I also wanted to quote some other people. My colleague quoted some excerpts from studies, and I would also like to quote some before I ask my question.

I am going to quote in English:

We have to send a strong message, especially to high-repeat offenders, which the bulk of them are, that this will not be tolerated, and that if you get caught you're going to get a certain sentence--count on it.

Who said that? Dr. Daryl Plecas from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police research chair and director for the Centre for Criminal Justice Research, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University College of the Fraser Valley.

Therefore, there are researchers who are in support and who believe in what we are doing. When my colleague opposite said that if we have minimum sentences, we are going to see a higher rate of recidivism. Most of these drug offenders, according to some of our experts, are already repeat offenders.

We need to protect Canadians from these repeat offenders. We need to do everything in our power to make sure they do not drag our children into a drug world and that they do not drag our children into drug addiction.

That is why I believe strongly in the measures our government is taking. However, I want to ask the member a question.

He said that minimum sentences will not solve the problem of crime. However, doing nothing will not help the situation either.

If my colleague has a magic bullet to solve all the problems of crime, can he share it with us?