Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for escalating minimum penalties according to the number, if any, of previous convictions for serious offences involving the use of a firearm if the firearm is either a restricted or prohibited firearm or if the offence was committed in connection with a criminal organization, to provide for escalating minimum penalties according to the number, if any, of previous convictions for other firearm-related offences and to create two new offences: breaking and entering to steal a firearm and robbery to steal a firearm.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, in today's Globe and Mail the Prime Minister is quoted selectively. I would ask the member for Windsor—Tecumseh if he agrees with the Prime Minister's selective use of statistics and whether he was aware as he was attentively listening to Professor Doob and others indicate that overall gun related crime but overall homicide is not increasing?

I would ask him to recall to this House that the chief of police in metropolitan Toronto with the adequate use of resources used existing laws to crack down on a very serious situation. Maybe more to the second point, what does he feel the government is doing to back its rhetoric of laws with resources, 2,500 police officers for instance?

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

Mr. Speaker, I read the article this morning and unfortunately the reporter made the same mistake that the Prime Minister does all the time of using statistics selectively. I go back to what I just said in response to the member for Wild Rose. The rate of crimes involving the use of guns by organized crime groups, by street gangs, in particular in our inner cities in fact has gone up. That is what we need to be focusing on. That is what this bill does with the amendments that I pushed the government to accept.

With regard to the second point in the question, my friend is very correct. The Conservative Party has so focused itself on penalities and getting people after they have committed crimes, that the Conservatives are not spending enough money, time, or analysis on what is really needed to prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. There are lots of programs that should be in place. I have been critical of the government that the promises the Conservatives made in the election and in last year's budget in terms of some very minor preventive dollars that were available, they did not even spend until near the end of the year because they did not know how to spend them. I do not think they are doing much better this year. They need to spend a lot more in that area.

Of course we have heard from representatives of the police association and how offended they are by the fact that there was this promise of 2,500 police officers on the street. Not one has been put there. There is not one agreement with the provinces to do it and here we are 15 to 16 months into this administration. That was promised both in the election and in the last budget. We still have not seen it. In fact, they are trying to stick the provinces with part of the cost for that and in a number of cases the provinces cannot afford it.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a few brief remarks and I will separate them into three areas. First, I will propose amendments to Bill C-10 that will reflect the government's willingness to accommodate specific concerns, while at the same time keep our election commitment to Canadians and make our streets safer by cracking down on gun crime. Second, I would like to restate the underlying purpose of what Bill C-10 was all about. Finally, for the purpose of informing Canadians, I would like to briefly discuss the events at committee where the majority of the clauses of this bill were deleted.

Let me start by saying that the government has agreed to amend the bill by targeting a core of key offences, those of great concern. Therefore, motions to restore certain clauses of the bill have been proposed. They deal with four serious non-use offences, namely, firearm trafficking; possession for the purposes of trafficking; smuggling; and the illegal possession of restricted or prohibited firearms with ammunition. They also deal with nine offences that involve the actual use of a firearm.

In addition, I would like to take a moment to discuss the amendments moved earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. Motions were moved to amend clause 1, clause 2 and clauses 17 through 24 of the bill. Except for the amendment to clause 1, all of these amendments seek to remove the third tier minimum penalties.

For clauses 17 to 24, which deal with eight serious offences in which a firearm is used in the commission of an offence, the government is prepared to remove the 10 year minimum penalty that has been proposed, leaving a five year minimum penalty on a first offence, and seven years on a second offence or a subsequent offence.

For clause 2, which deals with section 85 of the Criminal Code, the separate offence of having used a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of other indictable offences, the government seeks to remove the five year minimum penalty that is proposed, leaving a one year minimum penalty on a first offence and a three year minimum penalty on a second or subsequent offence.

The amendment to clause 1 relates to other clauses in the bill, namely clauses 2, 7, 10, 11 and 13. It is a consequential amendment that should the clauses I just referred to pass, then clause 1 should be amended as proposed by the motion.

With these additional amendments, I would submit that Bill C-10 would be both appropriately tailored and measured, and therefore should be adopted by this House. I would urge all members to support the bill which will give police and prosecutors what they have said they need to tackle this serious problem.

Moving on to the second issue to which I wanted to speak, Bill C-10 addresses a very important public safety concern, the threat of gun crimes. This bill aims to ensure that the Criminal Code sets out firm penalties for serious or repeat firearm offences.

It is important to note that Bill C-10 targets gangs and it targets the criminal enterprises that threaten our neighbourhoods and our communities through intimidation and violence.

The factors that trigger the toughest sentences in Bill C-10 are limited to those who are linked to criminal organizations, or the use of restricted or prohibited firearms which are the signature tools of gangs and organized crime. This bill seeks to establish escalating mandatory minimum sentences of five years for the first offence and seven years for the second offence and offences thereafter.

I would like to read the list of offences into the record so that this House can truly understand the intent of this legislation: attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion. These are very serious crimes. During the last election our party committed to raise the mandatory minimum sentences for violent gun crimes and so did the Liberal Party and the NDP.

The Liberals promised to toughen sentences for firearm offences. Let me read a few lines from an election platform. This platform said that they would reintroduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence and double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun related crimes. I probably do not have to tell the House that the platform was a Liberal platform.

I am pleased the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and his party are in part honouring their election commitment and have worked cooperatively with the government to amend Bill C-10 in a manner that is not what we originally wanted, but it is effective and it does reflect in a positive way our campaign commitments.

The protection of our citizens from preventable harm is a responsibility of the government and it supercedes all politics.

Bill C-10 is being reported back to the House from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights although it looks nothing like the original bill, which was approved by the majority of the House prior to being sent to committee for consideration. It is very important that I take a moment to discuss what happened to Bill C-10 in committee.

As I mentioned a moment ago, Bill C-10 seeks to increase the minimum penalty for gun crimes. However, the bill, as amended by committee, is left with no increase or new minimum penalties whatsoever.

At committee the Bloc members ideologically stated from the outset that they were opposed to the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. If we act ideologically, it makes it very difficult when action requires pragmatism, not ideology.

The position of the Liberal members on the other hand was much harder to comprehend. Even though they promised in the last election to double mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes, it did not happen at committee. The Liberal members stated their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, decrying the lack of statistical evidence to prove their effectiveness in reducing crime.

They then proceeded to introduce amendments that sought to increase the mandatory minimum sentences on a number of non-use or possession offences, while opposing their campaign promise to increase the mandatory minimum sentences on the violent crimes, which I listed previously. This action clearly illustrates that the opposition and its priority on criminal justice matters support only initiatives from which one can gain political mileage. Once again Liberal politics trumped public interest.

The committee heard from numerous witnesses who had divergent opinions. Many questioned the effectiveness of minimum penalties. The government believes it is a matter of perspective. Bill C-10 does not seek to address the overall criminal justice system. Nor does it seek to address the societal factors that contribute to crime. Bill C-10 is a pragmatic response to the specific problem of gun crimes perpetrated by gangs and organized crime. It is fair, it is focused and it is firm in its resolve to make our streets safer.

This type of focus was woefully lacking from the Leader of the Opposition's press conference where he announced his sudden conversion to law and order by stating his steadfast opposition to stiffer sentences for violent criminals. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition did not heed the advice from an attorney general in the country whose commentary on federal Liberal justice policies were recently quoted in the Globe and Mail. I just happen to have a few excerpts with me. He said:

—the Liberals have very little substance to offer by way of alternative, and certainly nothing new or effective....The typical federal Liberal approach to crime, in a word, is a boomer approach that is stuck in the summer of love....focus on prevention alone does nothing for those families in crime-ridden high rises where illegal guns police the hallways...

He went on to say:

We need to take a close look at strong statutory measures, including reverse-onus clauses and mandatory minimums.

Michael Bryant, the Liberal attorney general in the province of Ontario said that.

The government has acknowledged that tougher laws, such as those proposed in Bill C-10, are only part of the solution to this complex problem, but it is consistent with the Criminal Code and sentencing principles as a whole, and is not merely focused on the goal of general deterrence.

In light of this, the government demonstrated its willingness to examine how Bill C-10 could be amended in a manner that would be accepted by the majority of parliamentarians but, more important, to a majority of Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some good points. One of them was that many of the witnesses questioned the effectiveness of mandatory minimums. Why does he not take his other point, that a party should not be dogmatic on ideology and hold to its position after hearing scientific evidence to the contrary, which is exactly what his party has done in this bill.

Because the member is new to committee, I want to update the House on what actually happened in committee. The points he mentioned were good, but over and above that the Liberal Party proposed, when all the mandatory minimums had been eliminated by the committee, that more mandatory minimums be put in very similar to our previous bill and the Conservatives rejected those.

If they are really serious in wanting mandatory minimums, they could have had some, but they voted them down. They would not accept the mandatory minimums in committee. That is what happened. It is perplexing if the party is really interested in mandatory minimums.

Why does the member not follow his own advice, forget ideology and listen to the witnesses who he so correctly quoted in his speech?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, if we make a commitment in a platform and we go across the country committing to Canadians that we will do something, that is not ideology. That is being honest and fair and doing what is right.

At committee, witnesses delivered messages from one side and from the other side. I acknowledge that, yes, I am new to the justice committee, but I am not new to what has happened in the country with respect to the lack of justice.

The important part to keep in mind is that we heard from both sides, but what we all agree on, certainly the NDP and the Conservative government agree on, is we need to take a strong stand on issues of gun violence.

You may say that you want to do it, but you have not taken any step—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member is lapsing into the second person, referring to the hon. member as “you”. I let him get away with it once and he did it again.

The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, to go back to the case of the evidence. Maybe the member, if he thinks there is evidence supporting mandatory minimums, could provide it to the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was asked that this morning by the member for Hochelaga and he could not provide any evidence or point to any information from the Department of Justice that supported mandatory minimums.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot take an approach to justice that is a revolving door. If we do that, then we will treat our justice system like the polls, which go forward and backward in the country.

What somebody believes or thinks one day and what somebody does not think another day, proven by statistics, if that is how we will be running government, then we are in a whole bigger problem than what the member likes to think or wants to suggest. We need to solve problems and we do that through legislation.

The legislation is good and it is sound. It is supported by a majority of members in the House, and most important, it is supported by Canadians.

I understand the hon. member's passion and commitment. However, at the same time, we cannot say on the one hand that we are for something, an election commitment, and then after try to use statistics on this issue to argue why we are against it.

If the member thinks about this a bit, he will understand that the right thing to do is stand up in the House and support Bill C-10.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Before we resume debate, the Chair is ready to rule on the admissibility of the amendments by the official opposition to Bill C-10.

The Chair has carefully examined the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to report stage Motions Nos. 5 to 16 of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms). The Chair has also reviewed the arguments presented by the hon. members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and for Windsor—Tecumseh.

The Chair would articulate the principle of the bill as imposing mandatory increasing minimum penalties for repeat offences. The amendments are at odds with this, as they basically propose minimum sentences, thus contradicting the principle of the bill, which is to deal with repeat offences. Therefore, I regret to inform the member that all these amendments are inadmissible, as they are contrary to the principle of the bill.

In addition, the Chair notes that a series of amendments to Motions Nos. 9 to 16 are also inadmissible for a second reason, as they do not relate to the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Fundy Royal. In other words, they could only be proposed as subamendments to the amendments of the member for Fundy Royal and not as amendments to the motions.

I thank all hon. members for their contributions.

Resuming debate, to the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

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

Mr. Speaker, I realize I will be cut off here by other proceedings, but I might as well begin some debate.

I have tried to follow the debate as best I can and I am disappointed that there has been some fairly wilful attempt to misconstrue, or perhaps even mislead, in relation to previous electoral commitments.

It is a fact that in the last Parliament a bill was introduced by the government that would have doubled the mandatory minimums for firearms crimes from the then existing one year minimum to two years. In fact, the election commitment and debate, as I recall it, referred to that explicitly, the doubling of those mandatory one year minimums to a two year mandatory minimum.

Some members have tried to suggest that this election commitment involved much more than that. The election commitment did not, and any attempt to suggest that is misleading of what the facts were.

Members are entitled to their own views. They may wish to misconstrue, and I suppose they are entitled to do that. However, as a long-time Liberal sitting in the House, a member who was active in this envelope prior to the election, I want to state that the commitment to double the mandatory minimums was related to precisely that, to doubling the one year minimum to a two year minimum, and not anything more than that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member has eight minutes remaining in his time, which he can pursue when we resume debate on this later in the day.

We will now proceed to statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motions Nos. 1 to 20.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I believe when the House was last debating this matter the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River had eight minutes left in his ten minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are correct. I will try to use my eight minutes well.

When we were interrupted by question period and other valuable proceedings, I was referring to what I regard as misleading comments about the position of the official opposition Liberals here, but I will move on because the record has that.

The second part of it was that Liberals have accepted the need for mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code and, as has already been pointed out by members on both sides of the House, the code is replete with examples. We have mandatory minimum sentencing for some drinking and driving offences. The mandatory minimum sentence for first degree murder is life in prison, a life sentence. These are all existing minimum mandatory sentences in the code.

However, the one thing that the opposition Liberals did not agree to as a party was the development or the creation of an escalating series of mandatory minimums, an escalating meat chart, so that a first offence would be three years, then it would be five years, then seven, then ten, whatever the various proposals were coming forward. This is not something that I agreed with. I still do not. There are some members here who apparently do. I have accepted the mandatory minimum sentence, but not the escalating series of mandatory minimums. That is an important distinction in some quarters.

I would point out that all of the sentencing alluded to in the mandatory minimum proposals is currently available to judges now. Judges are perfectly capable of sentencing a person convicted of the crimes involved in this bill to the types of sentences described in the mandatory minimums; it is just that they are not obliged to give the mandatory minimum. They can still give five years, seven years, ten years or whatever the sentencing range allows.

This bill would remove that judicial discretion and impose on judges the need to give a sentence of whatever was prescribed in this escalating series of penalties. It is important to keep this in mind: that we would actually be removing some of the discretionary aspects in sentencing.

I do not want the word “discretionary” to be taken too loosely here. Our judges fully take their responsibility seriously. They realize that the sentencing they impose is done in the context of community standards. I do not think there is any place in the country where that is not the case.

I would have to say that the bill is being driven in part by a degree of political pretence. There is a pretence out there that Canadian society is beset with crime, that crime is escalating, and that violent crime is taking over our communities.

It is true that television and the Internet are giving us access to a lot of this information. We are seeing a lot more of it, but data on crime shows the opposite. It shows that crime is reducing. I do not have to repeat too much of that. The data is out there. Since 1991, for reasons that sociologists have not ever been able to fully explain, our violent crime rates and our overall crime rates are decreasing and continue to do so.

Thus, there is a pretence that we have a crime problem. While we actually do have crime problems, we just do not have the escalating crime problem that some politicians are urging upon us.

The second thing that is being urged upon us is that a more severe sentence would actually deter but that has not been proven. What normally deters criminals is the prospect of getting caught. If they did not think they would get caught, they might be more likely to do the crime. I suppose there might be the odd exception to that little equation but I think sociologists are pretty clear on that as well.

I want to refer to the experience in Toronto over the last couple of years. One of the factual backgrounds that gave rise to the sense of considering increased sentencing was the uptick in the number of shootings and homicides in Toronto in 2005-06. As a result, Toronto's policing became a lot better.

As a result of those policing efforts, and I will need to allow room for the sociological impacts, crimes of this nature have dropped just as much as they spiked. I will deal with some of the data. From January through to the end of April 2005, 73 shootings; 75 shootings in 2006; and in 2007, 51 shootings, a drop of 33%., which is huge no matter how we look at it or what side of the House one sits on.

The point here is not that there was no crime. The point is that crime is not increasing. The attention that the increased shootings received in 2005-06 allows us to now look back on it as a spike. The data is showing that we are ending up with violent crime rates that are even less than before the spike. That would be consistent with the overall demographic trends of the last 15 years that are clearly out there. If anyone is in doubt, they should go to Juristat or Statistics Canada and look at the data. The most recent publication is there for all to see. Although it shows crime, it shows a reduction in crime. I still accept that crime is always a problem with a community and that one crime is too many.

It is easy to say that by passing a law in here that we will affect the incidence of crime. That may be politicians thinking they are a much too valuable part of the system. Just because we pass a law in here does not mean that it will produce a reduced crime impact. A lot more is involved in this than politicians passing laws.

The public needs to be educated, the police need to do their job, which they do admirably well across the country, and prosecutors need to do their job. A whole constellation of factors enter into crime rates, such as enforcement, sentencing, corrections, prosecutions and police enforcement.

However, I would say that just putting people in jail or threatening to is not the big answer. It costs $75,000 to $80,000 to keep somebody in a prison. Three good students could be put through medical school for that kind of money. These mandatory minimums will actually put people there, irrevocably, no choice. We will just keep throwing another $75,000 or $80,000 at this problem when the real problem is probably out on the street and needs to be addressed in ways other than just warehousing inmates.

Our American friends have learned this. Many states have taken steps to reverse the warehousing of inmates. They have some very serious problems there. We have always had a chance to do it right. We will have to see what the outcome of the vote is but--

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but I rise on a point of order.

In light of the fact that the official opposition today brought concurrence down and interrupted debate on Bill C-10, one of the government's justice bills that we are trying to get passed as quickly as possible this week, I wonder, if you sought it, if you would find unanimous consent for the House to continue to sit for an additional three hours for the consideration of Bill C-10.