House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the important motion put forward by the member for Vancouver Island North. I am hopeful that all members will see their way clear to supporting the motion.

    Motion No. 262 calls for the continuation of the work previously done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the 38th Parliament. It specifically calls on the House to make further recommendations on strengthening and modernizing the democratic and electoral systems and that we set up a special committee to hear from Canadians on what is important in terms of electoral reform.

    The member for Vancouver Island North and a former member of this House, Mr. Ed Broadbent, have done considerable work in trying to bring this important issue around proportional representation before the House and Canadians. Mr. Broadbent said it far more eloquently than I could ever say it. In his speech at Queen's University on March 2005, he gave reasons why electoral reform was so necessary. He said:

    A number of points have been covered quite well about why we need proportional representation and electoral reform in this country but I will focus on one particular area, the under-representation of women in the House.

     Equal Voice has done a good job of outlining the importance of electing more women and outlining the dismal state of affairs in Canada's Parliament. On its website, it says that once a leader, Canada, with just 64 women in Parliament, 20.8% of MPs, now ranks 47th in the world in terms of women's representation in the national legislature. Canada is far behind countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Portugal. Canada's international rankings in terms of women's representation has been falling. In 2002, Canada was 34th in the world and we have dropped to 47th. Our international standing is declining with every federal election.

    Not a single country in the world has delivered more women to its national Parliament without undertaking action to make it happen. The under-representation of women in the national Parliament is not a problem that will fix itself, which is where the issue around proportional representation comes in. In countries that have looked at proportional representation, they have been able to increase the representation of women, visible minorities and aboriginal peoples in their Parliament. This is why it is such an urgent matter that we must consider.

    When Equal Voice was doing the analysis on women in federal politics, it looked at political party representation. In this current sitting of the House, 64 of the 308 members who are women, the NDP has 41%, which is the highest percentage of any party, down to a dismal 11% for the Conservatives. This under-representation impacts on the kinds of policies and legislation that the House develops.

    At its annual general meeting in 2004, Fair Vote Canada made a presentation on “Reaching Women About Proportional Representation”. Its presentation was entitled, “The Electoral Glass Ceiling” and it says:

    Given those kinds of numbers and the trends in Canada, it goes on to say:

    Given the fact that women represent over 50% of the population, I would argue that having only 20% sitting in the House is just not acceptable.

    Fair Vote Canada talks about why it is important. It says that:

    Why does proportional representation work? Fair Vote Canada states:

    I would argue that if we had more women in the House that when employment insurance reform happened in 1995, we would not have seen women disproportionately impacted by the changes in that legislation. Women are now far less likely to quality for employment insurance under those rules and regulations. I would argue that we would have the national child care system. Instead, we have a family allowance system that does not remotely meet the needs of women and families in looking after their children.

    There are any number of other pieces of legislation that disproportionately impact women. We do not even conduct an adequate gender based analysis on our budget process to determine how it affects women and men differently. If we had more women in the House, surely we would have policies and legislation that more reflected the needs of women and children and their families in this country.

    An organization called Safer Futures looks at safety in communities and the fact that as communities are made safer for women and children they are also made safer for everybody. If we had more women in federal, provincial and municipal politics, we would be developing programs and policies that reflect the reality of women's lives.

    In a newspaper recently was a stunning picture of the premiers and the representatives from the territories but none were woman. We need to change the face of politics so women feel it is an appropriate place for them. Besides looking at proportional representation, electoral reform must look at the larger issue of how we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians.

    Mr. Broadbent not only talked about conduct in this House but also about the fact that we need to change many systems. In a speech that he gave to the NDP breakthrough conference in October 2005, he outlined a number of extremely important elements in electoral reform. I will not go through all of them but there are a couple that are really important.

    He said that reforms were badly needed. He said that wherever we can, we must put an end to backroom wheeling and dealing in politics. He was referring to floor crossing. These days one never knows exactly which member will be sitting on which side of the House. We would argue that any member who chooses not to sit for the party that he or she was elected to represent should either sit as an independent or go back to the electorate for a vote to determine that the new party is actually the party the constituents supported.

    Mr. Broadbent also said that election dates should be fixed. We know there is a bill that attempts to fix election dates in Canada. This would prevent governments from calling elections whenever its numbers took a bounce in the polls. In a minority government, there is still the option for governments to fall if there is a vote of confidence before the House.

    Mr. Broadbent went on to talk about the need for democratic reform for our outmoded first past the post electoral system. He talked about 90% of the world's democracies, including Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland and Wales having abandoned or significantly modified the pre-democratic British system that still prevails in Ottawa.

    I would urge all members of the House to support this important motion so we can ensure that when Canadians vote that every vote truly does count.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today on Motion No. 262. The motion proposes two initiatives in response to the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

    First, the motion proposes that a special committee of the House of Commons be created to make recommendations on democratic reform issues and, second, that a special committee look into creating a citizens consultation group and to report on this matter within six weeks.

    At the outset, I want to make it clear that I will be urging members to vote against this motion, not because involving parliamentarians and citizens in discussion about democratic reform is an unworthy exercise, but because the government has already taken such clear action in this important area and it will continue to do so.

    After the 43rd report was released in the last Parliament, nothing happened in the area of democratic reform, consultations or otherwise. This stands in sharp contrast to the actions of this government. We have engaged and continue to engage parliamentarians in a number of important democratic reform initiatives. We have already started a process to consult Canadians on democratic reform issues. In short, I will demonstrate today that the motion before us has been overtaken by events.

    First , in the area of engaging parliamentarians on democratic reform issues, I am confident in saying that this government has done more than any previous government in bringing forward democratic reform initiatives for consideration in Parliament. Parliament adopted Bill C-2, the Accountability Act, which included a number of political financing reforms, most notably a ban on union and corporate donations, a contribution limit of $1,000, a ban on cash donations and a ban on trust funds. These measures help to eliminate the perception that only those with money have an influence on politics. This, in turn, enhances confidence in the political process.

    The government also introduced Bill C-16 to establish fixed dates for federal elections. This bill was passed unanimously with all party consent in the House. More recently, the House of Commons adopted a motion to reject an unnecessary amendment adopted by the Senate. We are hoping t the Senate will now accept the now twice expressed will of the members of the democratically elected House of Commons regarding this bill. The Senate should recognize the legitimacy of the House, in particular on matters relating to elections, and pass this bill as it was originally intended.

    The implementation of fixed dates for elections will greatly improve the fairness of Canada's electoral system by eliminating the ability of the governing party to set the timing of a general election to its own advantage.

    The government has also taken important steps in the area of Senate reform, with the introduction of practical and achievable measures. Last May, the government introduced Bill S-4 in the Senate, which would establish a term limit for senators of eight years. The adoption of this bill would eliminate the current situation where unelected, unaccountable senators can sit for up to 45 years.

    An eight year term would allow senators to gain the experience necessary to fulfill the Senate's important role of legislative review, while ensuring that the Senate is refreshed by new perspectives and ideas. Despite widespread support for this initiative, the bill has, unfortunately, been held up in the Senate for almost a year now.

    Also in the area of Senate reform, the government introduced Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act, which would provide a process whereby voters may be consulted on potential appointments to the Senate in their respective provinces. Debate on this bill began last week. For the first time ever, legislation will provide Canadians with a voice on who represents them in the Senate.

    The government has also introduced Bill C-31, which includes a number of initiatives aimed at ensuring the integrity of the electoral system, including a new system of voter identification. Bill C-31 would implement most of the recommendations of the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The passage of this bill will reduce the opportunities for fraud and promote fairness in our electoral system. I hope Bill C-31 will soon be passed in the Senate.

    In summary, this government has demonstrated the most extensive commitment ever to the modernization of Canada's national democratic institutions.

    In the area of public consultations, we are not just looking into the issue, as proposed in Motion No. 262, we are acting.

    On January 9, 2007, the government announced that it was launching a public consultation process on democratic reform issues. In particular, the process would engage Canadians in a dialogue to identify the priorities, values and principles that should underpin Canada's democratic institutions and practices.

    The process consists of two main elements, both organized by independent contractors.

    First, there is a deliberative process to consult Canadians in 12 citizens' forums, one held in each province, one in the Territories, and also in one national youth forum. The process is more than half complete, with the forums in British Columbia, Alberta, the Territories, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island already completed. Each forum includes approximately 40 to 50 citizens who are roughly representative of the Canadian population.

    In that regard, it is worth noting that by the time we are finished approximately 500 Canadians will have participated in the deliberative discussions, all of them giving up a few days of their time, not to mention studying the issues in advance.

    The response so far has been very enthusiastic. Participants are examining a whole range of issues, including: political parties, the electoral system, the House of Commons and the Senate, and the role of the citizen.

    In the youth forum, which will take place in Ottawa, participants will take a close look at why there is low voter turnout among Canada's youth and why a significant number of young people appear to be disengaged from the political process.

    The second element is a large scale national survey that will be administered to a representative sample of Canadians across the country.

     We will learn in the forums and the survey and they will be combined into a final report that will be ready by June of this year.

    I very much look forward to the report and what it will tell us about the views of Canadians and our democratic institutions and practices. The government intends to take the results of these consultations very seriously.

    In conclusion, I urge all members to vote no on Motion No. 262. While the member undoubtedly had honourable intentions in bringing the motion forward, passing this initiative would not serve any useful purpose. The government has engaged and will continue to engage parliamentarians on democratic reform issues; witness the extensive legislative agenda we have introduced in this important area.

    The comprehensive process to hear the views of Canadians on democratic reform issues, which we announced in January, is well under way. We will be listening to the views of Canadians and deciding the next steps in the reform of our democratic institutions.

    Parliamentarians will play a role in that process. Having the information from the consultation process will mean that parliamentarians are better informed when considering further improvements to our democratic process.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this very important motion. I am very supportive of it and I thank the member for bringing it forward. I thank her, too, for her focus this morning on the issue of how this House does not represent the face of Canada and how we had hoped that by a tiny incrementalism we could do better. I think it is quite clear to most of us and most political observers that without a dramatic change in our electoral system we will not reach a House of Commons that reflects the people of Canada.

    As for our journey in this, I was blessed to have the unbelievable force of Doris Anderson teaching me at every moment, with her hope that we would be able to do this and then her realization that only with electoral reform would we actually make the necessary changes. With her death on March 2, I think all of us felt that we had a moral obligation to carry on her fight for electoral reform and for a House of Commons that would more truly represent the people of Canada.

    It is interesting that Equal Voice has set up a fund in her name to do just this job of carrying on the fight for electoral reform and a more representative Parliament. At the April 15 tea held to honour her and to raise money for this fund, it was interesting to note that it was the very day that the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform chose and voted to suggest to the Government of Ontario, and put to the people of Ontario in a referendum this fall, a mixed member proportional system, which was indeed Doris's ideal system and the one that she thought would be fairest for women.

    There is an increasing appetite, I believe, for Canadians to understand that part of their cynicism in terms of politics and Parliament is that their vote does not count. The distortion that can happen in elections means that their votes are not really reflected in the people who come to this chamber. It was interesting in recent visits to Alberta to note that even in Alberta the appetite for this, particularly among Liberals, is very acute in terms of the recent electoral outcome of 15% of the people of Alberta voting Liberal yet not one member being sent to this House.

    We have seen this many times. Almost 20% of Canadians voted for the Conservative Party in 1993, yet only two seats--

    An hon. member: Progressive Conservative.

    Hon. Carolyn Bennett: It was the Progressive Conservative Party. I thank the member from Kings--Hants for the correction. Only two seats were Progressive Conservative.

    As well, many times we have seen a Quebec government with a separatist majority in spite of the fact that most of the people of Quebec voted for a federalist party.

    We have seen a very impressive report from the Law Reform Commission of Canada. My only caution with this motion today is that the timelines may be too brisk. We have learned the hard way what happens when we hurry this process. Indeed, it is countries such as Switzerland that are best at doing bottom-up citizen engagement and that look down their noses at the proposition system in California, which is only six months. Countries such as Switzerland know that it takes at least four years to drill down so that individual citizens actually understand what is being discussed.

    I think the cynicism is really that people are worried that their votes do not count. I believe that for any prescription for a democratic deficit we have to move on all four fronts. We need to move to a true democracy between elections, true parliamentary reform, and true party reform, as well as what is being discussed today in terms of electoral reform.

    Democracy between elections will require a two-way accountability between citizens and their elected representatives, an understanding of assured listening, and a real representative democracy, which requires meaningful citizen engagement.

    Canada has led the OECD in some experiments in citizen engagement. The OECD paper, “Citizens as Partners”, which separates out the differences among information, consultation and deliberation, is something that all members of the House would find extraordinarily interesting.

    On parliamentary reform, I think that we have to see a much better use of committees, particularly in this House. I have to say that the rehearsing of government members before committee appearances and using motions for work plans is appalling. It is the worst I have seen in my 10 years here.

     The idea is that non-geographic constituencies must be utilized and that we must do a much better job of using technology in the House in terms of the kind of study that we did on the subcommittee on persons with disabilities.

     In order for any sort of electoral reform and any sort of proportional representation that involves political parties to take place, we need to make sure that the parties themselves have good governance in terms of fairness, transparency and taking people seriously, such as what the decisions taken in terms of the makeup of a party list would represent and again would indeed be democratic themselves.

    I think that most of us do believe that in terms of moving toward electoral reform we would need some sort of blended proportional system. This is a big country in which geographic representatives are still extraordinarily important. I have been very interested in some of the Green Party proposals. It has what it calls the “best losers” system, wherein the party list would be made up only of defeated candidates, people who have chosen to put their names on the ballot and who have been able to knock on doors and know what that really means.

    I think we have to learn from processes that did not work. The B.C. citizens' assembly was run, as one American observer noted, like a university tutorial. People knew from the time that Ken Carty was appointed as the researcher that the single transferable vote would probably preside. Instead of actually engaging citizens, the process was about creating experts and, in some ways, almost lobbying for a certain method.

    I believe that the Ontario process was much improved compared to that one, but without the media attention and without grassroots involvement we still are at risk of having the people of Ontario not really knowing what is going on before they come to what now is really a very short time to the referendum. I call upon the government of Ontario to actually put the resources into a communications strategy and plan so that people will actually be able to have the information with which to cast that very important vote in October.

    The process really does matter. I believe and have believed that we need a step way of process. We have to begin not by spending our time picking which system would be better; we need to have a conversation with Canadians about how the present system is not fair. Until they can understand that this is not fair, I think we will end up in trouble if we then confuse the picture with nitpicking about which system is better instead of actually having a consensus arrived at in this country that this present electoral system is not fair. None of the emerging democracies are picking our system. We are left with England and the United States in terms of this very antiquated system.

    I hope we will understand that from that decision of a consensus on the fairness of this system we need to move into a true deliberative democracy, a true deliberative dialogue that then would explore all of the options for a made in Canada solution. I am worried that the forum the government member referred to is really just again creating 40 little expert groups across the country instead of having a real online conversation with Canadians.

    We then need a communication plan. We need to be able to have a referendum. We then need the legislation. I believe it will take all five steps, but the first step must be creating the case for change.

    I believe that the principles matter and that whatever system we pick must indeed have Doris Anderson's ultimate goal of having a Parliament that reflects the people of Canada. We know that has not been possible in any country that has not moved to electoral reform. It is the legacy of Doris that moves us forward. We know that the bigger parties have always ended up particularly--she always called it the seduction of the big win, which is what has always allowed governments to perhaps resist the--

    Resuming debate. The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 262, which proposes two initiatives in response to the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. First, the motion recommends that a special committee of the House of Commons be created to make recommendations on democratic reform issues. Second, it proposes that a special committee look into creating a citizens' consultation group and to report on this matter within six weeks.

     I intend to oppose this motion for reasons I will make clear in my remarks today. I would also encourage other members of the House to oppose it.

    There appear to be some fundamental inconsistencies in the NDP's approach to electoral reform and public consultation on democratic reform and electoral reform in particular. In this regard I noticed that one of the opposition day motions put forward by the NDP is that we should move immediately to implement electoral reform but that we should implement a specific type of electoral reform, that of a mixed member proportional system.

    At the same time the NDP is putting forward Motion No. 262 to study our electoral system, it is also suggesting that we immediately reform our electoral system, and not necessarily in a way that reflects what the Canadian public may wish, but rather in a way that reflects the interests of the New Democratic Party. We can, therefore, all be excused for being confused about what exactly is the plan of the NDP with regard to democratic reform in general and electoral reform specifically.

    Does the NDP want us to move immediately to implement a mixed member system, as it has stated on many occasions, or does the NDP want us to consult Canadians on electoral reform in advance, as suggested by Motion No. 262, and find out whether Canadians believe electoral reform is an issue they wish to pursue?

    It seems that the NDP has not only prejudged the need for electoral reform, but is also prescribing for Canadians exactly what type of electoral reform Canadians should pursue. I find this interesting because there are a number of electoral systems that could be pursued should it be decided that reform is an advisable course of action.

     Personally, I do not believe it would be advisable to barrel ahead to change our electoral system and change it to a specific electoral system before we even have any indication from Canadians that this is what they want.

    I note that the sponsor of Motion No. 262 in the first hour of debate made it quite clear that she wanted the consultations to focus solely on electoral reform. From her remarks it did not seem that she and indeed her party had anything but a narrow focus on one single issue.

    The question again is, does the NDP want to hear the views of Canadians on electoral reform, or does it want to prescribe for Canadians the type of electoral reform that it has apparently already decided on without consultation?

    The actions of this government in the area of democratic reform stand in stark contrast to those of the NDP. We recognize that democratic reform is not a single issue. It is not just about electoral reform, as the NDP would have everyone believe.

    Democratic reform encompasses a wide range of issues from political financing to improvements to our electoral system and the modernization of our democratic institutions. This was a fact that was recognized in the 43rd report, which was released in June 2005 but not acted on by the previous government.

    The report's conclusions underline a whole range of issues beyond electoral reform that should be the subject of consultation. We need to be clear about the conclusions of the 43rd report if we are to act on them.

    Let me read for members exactly what the report said. The report states that a citizens' consultation group along with the parliamentary committee should:

    My question would be, why is the NDP focusing only on one aspect of democratic reform when there are so many other equally important issues?

    For our part, this government is taking a much different approach. First, rather than just thinking about a consultation process as suggested by Motion No. 262, we have actually taken action to implement a process as the government announced it would do in January.

    As a result of the government's actions, a citizens' consultation process is under way. The process consists of two key parts. The first is a series of 12 deliberative forums, one in each province, one for the territories and one youth forum, each with a participation of 40 to 50 citizens who are roughly representative of the Canadian population. The second part is a telephone survey on a range of issues related to our democratic institutions.

    The deliberative consultation process is well under way. Consultations have already taken place in British Columbia, Alberta, the territories, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

    In contrast to the process recommended by Motion No. 262, the government sponsored process is consulting citizens on a broad range of issues. Each forum is addressing a common set of topics, including political parties, the electoral system, the House of Commons, the Senate and the role of the citizen. It will be noted that this is very similar to the recommendation of the 43rd report. Unlike the NDP approach, we are not focusing only on a single issue and we are not prejudging the views of Canadians on these issues.

    Once the process is over, a report on the process will be prepared for the government. The government intends to take the results of these consultations very seriously and parliamentarians will continue to be engaged on these important subjects.

    It appears that the government is pursuing a much more comprehensive approach to consultation than is proposed in Motion No. 262. Since the process is well under way, Motion No. 262 has become redundant and has been for some time now.

    Apart from the consultation process, the government has engaged parliamentarians on a wide range of important democratic reform initiatives, as we indicated we would do in our electoral platform. I dare say that no other government in history has accomplished so much in this important area. Allow me to review some of the initiatives we have taken so far on this issue.

    First, we passed Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, which provides for some important political financing reforms, including a ban on corporate and union donations, and the reduction of contribution limits to $1,000. This will ensure that money and influence are not the determining factors in financing political parties and the parties can operate on a level playing field.

    We have introduced practical and achievable legislation in the area of Senate reform, including Bill S-4, which would limit the tenure of senators to a period of eight years, and Bill C-43, which would establish a national process for consulting Canadians on their preferences for Senate appointments.

    Of particular interest for this debate, the consultations proposed in Bill C-43 would not be carried out by means of a first past the post system. Rather, elections would be conducted using a proportional and preferential voting system called the single transferable vote, or STV system. It will be interesting to know the ultimate position of the New Democratic Party on Bill C-43 since the bill is proposing the introduction of a proportional electoral system which the NDP has been advocating for the House of Commons. Bill C-43 is an important initiative because for the first time Canadians will have the opportunity to have input into their selection of senators.

    The government has also moved forward on an important initiative to improve the integrity of our electoral system. Bill C-31 includes important provisions to combat electoral system fraud, in particular through the introduction of requirements for voter ID. If passed, I believe the bill would make a tremendous contribution to ensuring that no election was tainted by the possibility of voter fraud.

    The government is taking steps to increase electoral fairness through the introduction of Bill C-16 which establishes fixed dates for federal elections. If passed, this initiative would ensure that elections occurred once every four years and not just on the whim of a prime minister who might choose to call an election on the basis of whether or not his or her party was high in the polls.

    The government has demonstrated a tremendous commitment to electoral reform. We are well on our way to meeting the commitments that we made to Canadians.

    To conclude, I must encourage all members to vote against the motion for the reasons I have stated. Given that the government has already taken action to implement a public consultation process, Motion No. 262 is redundant. Not only that, but the government's process is much more comprehensive than was recommended by the NDP. It will not be focused only on electoral reform, contrary to the desire of the sponsor of the motion. It conforms largely to the recommendations of the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

    The New Democratic Party has already decided prior to consulting with Canadians that the mixed member proportional system is the way to go. This government does not want to prejudge the views of Canadians on this important matter.

    Might I add that the previous speaker made mention of several changes that she feels need to be made to the way that Parliament works. It is important to point out that the previous Liberal government was in power for 13 years. The Liberals moved forward on none of these provisions. I find that extraordinary.

    Quite frankly, as someone who has had a lifelong interest in democratic reform, I am proud of the initiatives that our government has launched. I encourage all members of all parties in the House to support them when they come forward.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Motion No. 262, which proposes two initiatives in response to the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The motion proposes that we strike a special committee of the House of Commons to make recommendations on democratic reform. The motion also proposes the creation of a citizens' consultation group to report on the matter.

    This is the type of motion the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London made at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The member proposed to do a study on democratic reform. What I find interesting is that the member's proposal was voted down by the committee, which included the NDP member on the committee at that time.

    I am curious as to why the NDP member would bring forward Motion No. 262 at this time, based on the fact that this was something that one of our members had earlier proposed. Also this is an initiative that as a government we have been looking at as well. Therefore, I find that the motion is redundant.

    I appreciate what the member for Vancouver Island North is trying to do. I think we all agree that it makes sense to look at the democratic process from time to time and see if there are ways that we can change it to make it better.

    It is for all of these reasons I will not be supporting the motion. Certainly, as I have said before, it is very worthwhile to look at ways to make the democratic process better, but the government has already taken action. Our government has already initiated a process to start looking at this issue.

    The previous government did not do a whole lot about the democratic process over the 13 years that the Liberals were in power. They certainly talked about doing something about the democratic process, but unfortunately it never materialized under the previous government.

    One thing our government has definitely been looking at is how we consult with Canadians and how we can do a better job on democratic reform issues. With that in mind I would like to talk about what the government is looking at doing over the next little while.

    We certainly want to engage parliamentarians. We have initiated a number of legislative issues. Public consultation is also very important to make this process work. We should engage all Canadians.

    The work the government has been doing has been noted by other members, but it bears repeating.

    The government enacted Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. This is one of the most notable things this government has done. The act bans union as well as corporate donations, and limits contributions to $1,100, and makes sure that no cash donations are accepted. In terms of the democratic process we have seen what happens in other parts of the world where there is not a limit on donations. People seem to have more influence with the more money that they are able to spend on elections. Limiting the amount will work in our democratic process. It is important regardless of where Canadians come from that they be able to have a say in government and not just be able to influence the government with money.

    Bill C-16 was introduced by the Conservative government. The bill looks at establishing fixed election dates. The bill passed unanimously by the House. The Senate recently attempted to add an amendment that the government rejects. We are hoping that the Senate will move forward and put the bill back to the way it was originally.

    What is important with fixed election dates is that we would not just worry about what is going on in the polls. Whatever party was in government would have an opportunity for more stability. People would know that every four years an election would be held on a certain date. This has worked in some provinces. This is something that we could look at federally as well.

    The third initiative that the government has introduced in terms of legislation is Bill S-4 which was introduced in the Senate. That bill limits the terms for senators. It would eliminate the current situation where unelected and unaccountable senators can sit for up to 45 years. An eight year term would allow senators to get the kind of experience they need when looking at legislative initiatives and ensure they would get new perspectives.

    Even though that bill was introduced in the Senate, we are stuck. It has been sitting in the other place for almost a year now, which is kind of surprising. It may be a bit of a concern if a bill was introduced to limit a term from 45 years to 8 years, but we would encourage that unelected, majority-driven Liberal Senate to pass that bill.

    There are also other areas that we have looked at. The government introduced Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act, which we will be debating next week. This bill would enable us to talk to people about how senators should be appointed.

    These are all great initiatives that will help make the democratic process better.

    We have also introduced Bill C-31 which looks at a number of different measures in terms of the electoral system and voter ID. This is important based on all the recommendations that were contained in the 13th report of the procedure and House affairs committee. The government is looking for a way to implement those recommendations through Bill C-31. We are trying to make the electoral system more fair. We are trying to reduce fraud. The bill has the support of all parties and we are certainly hoping that it will be passed very shortly in the Senate.

    The second issue that I would like to address today is public consultations. It is important that not only elected representatives participate in the system, but individuals from across the country participate as well. The government is already engaged in this. We started the process back on January 9.

    We want to set up citizen forum groups across the country, so we could deal with all the provinces and territories. We are midway in this process. We have been able to talk to people. At each of these forums somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 to 50 individuals have represented the Canadian population. We are hoping that when we are done with this process, we will have spoken to some 400 or 500 Canadians.

    In this way, we really believe that we can get some impartial views. One of the members talked about the fact that certain parties were already leaning toward one certain system. In this way, we have a chance not to bias the process but give Canadians an opportunity to participate. So far the participation and the response has been very enthusiastic. This is good to see as we look at a whole range of individuals from different parties, from across all electoral systems, as well as the House of Commons, the Senate and citizens.

    We are also looking at a youth forum that would take place in Ottawa. This forum would try to establish why there is such low voter turnout among young people. We realize that young people are disengaged and sometimes frustrated with the system. It is important that we look at ways to engage young people, so they can be part of the political process and look at making a difference.

    We are also looking at sending a survey out across the country. This could be part of our final report.

    We have consultations going on with members of the House and with the Senate. We have surveys, citizen groups and youth forums. All of these things will be important as we look at delivering the final report some time in June of this year. I certainly look forward to seeing it.

    As we look at introducing legislation in the House, it is important that we consult with people. This gives us a better understanding obviously as we look at different parts of the country with different needs. I have sat in on a few meetings of the procedure and House Affairs, and I know there are concerns given the fact that we have large urban ridings and rural ridings. Because of the uniqueness of this country, I believe this consultation process is important.

    Once again, I am going to urge all members to vote against this motion because of what we already having going on in the House. I want to thank parliamentarians for their participation in this process.

    The hon. member for Vancouver Island North is the mover of Motion No. 262 and I am about to recognize her. This will be her five minutes right of reply. The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

     Mr. Speaker, I know I only get five minutes, but I think I need at least half an hour to counter some of the inane arguments that I have heard on this issue.

    Just to talk about the single issue that the Conservatives repeatedly brought up, they talked about Senate reform. We are talking about electoral reform, our electoral system that gets us to the House of Commons, but they repeatedly talked about Senate reform in their remarks. Therefore, I would counter that single issue argument.

    The Conservatives put together a series of focus groups. Those focus groups as we know are designed mainly to look at Senate reform. They threw electoral reform into the mix hastily, I might add, after I put my Motion No. 262 forward. They basically hijacked that motion. They hired a biased think tank, a special interest group, to have one meeting in each province across the country with hand-picked attendees at these meetings.

    I have heard from some of those attendees. What they are telling me is that 45 minutes of each day of these focus groups was spent discussing electoral reform. The Conservatives call that broad consultation.

    Consultation takes time and the member who previously spoke said that the Conservatives want to have consultation. Here is the way to do it: support Motion No. 262 and have that consultation process go across the country and involve citizens, have full participation and citizen engagement.

    The Conservatives say a report will be written and that report is supposed to go to the minister, to the government, but I ask: will Parliament ever see that report? We are not so sure.

    The Conservatives also said that the NDP has put forward some ideas on electoral reform. That is just what they are: ideas. I thought that was our job in Parliament, to put forward ideas, to have fulsome debate on those ideas. For the member to say that we put something forward is quite ludicrous as well as to speak against putting ideas forward in the House. We have been putting them forward for years.

    Motion No. 262 is a specific motion. It is calling for broad consultation, something that all members of the House say they want to hear. Over a period of time we want a full discussion by asking Canadians about the values and the principles that they want to see in an electoral system and then have that report come back to Parliament, to the members of the House, so that we can continue the work that was started in the last Parliament by Ed Broadbent and others in the House.

    Every one matters and every vote should count. However, over the past 10 years we have seen a decrease in voter turnout. Why is that? It is because more and more Canadians feel that their vote does not count. That is especially true among young voters. They need to be engaged in a fulsome debate as well, not just in one province, in one town, to have a one day discussion, but across this broad country to involve them at every level.

    We look around the House and we see less than 30% of the members are women. We should be plus 52% if we had equality in this country. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, talked about the need for electoral reform to ensure a more gender equal representation and I thank her for those comments.

    I also want to honour the work that was done previously by our former leader and member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Ed Broadbent, who worked tirelessly on the issue of electoral reform so we could have gender equity in the House.

    I also want to thank the member for St. Paul's for her comments. She spoke about Doris Anderson and her work to bring electoral reform to this country. Doris never gave up on that subject. Right until the day she died, she was fighting for electoral reform.

    Our voting system is outdated. Most other older European nations use a voting system developed in the 20th century, while Canada uses a voting system that was developed in the 12th century. It is outrageous.

    Canadians know their system is outdated and unfair. They are ahead of the government on this issue. Canadians are ready for a change and the government knows this or it would not have put electoral reform into its Senate reform debates. Canadian need to be heard.

    I call on all parties to support this motion and let us move forward so everyone's vote will count.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In my opinion the nays have it.

     And five or more members having risen:

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 2, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

    Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

    Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Before I recognize the hon. the parliamentary secretary, I must read a decision by the Speaker.

    There are 20 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-10. Motions Nos. 1 to 20 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

    I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 20 to the House.

    seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, moved:

    moved:

    , seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, moved:

     moved:

    , seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, moved:

    He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Motions Nos. 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 as moved by the Minister of Justice.

    Bill C-10 addresses a very important public safety concern, the threat of gun crimes. The bill aims to ensure that the Criminal Code sets appropriately tough penalties for serious or repeat firearm offences.

     The aggravating factors that trigger the toughest sentences in the bill are limited to those linked to gangs and criminal organizations or those who use restricted or prohibited firearms. These crimes include 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 penalty for violent gun crimes, as did the Liberals and the NDP.

    I am pleased that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and his party are honouring their election commitment and have worked cooperatively with the government to amend Bill C-10 in a manner that is effective and reflective of our campaign commitments.

    After discussion with the opposition, the government has agreed to reduce the scope of the bill by targeting a core of key offences, those of greatest concern. Therefore, I will proceed to move amendments to those motions that reflect the compromises reached with the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

    Time does not permit me to fully explain these amendments, however, my colleagues will do so later in the debate.

    I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure that a member can amend his own motion. Could we check the records on that?

    I thank the hon. member for Miramichi for his point of order, but the hon. parliamentary secretary is not amending his own motions. He is amending motions of the Minister of Justice.

    Mr. Speaker, for those listening to my riveting speech, I do not know whether to start over because thanks to the intervention by the member for Miramichi I am not sure exactly where I was. I will go back to subparagraph (ii).

     I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

     I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved that Motion No. 3. be amended. Shall I dispense?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy—Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved that Motion No. 4 be amended. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy—Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved an amendment to Motion No. 9. Shall I dispense?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    An hon. member: Dispense.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Hon. members should know that I asked for dispensation and it was denied, so I am continuing.

    Hon. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I also said no and I was in my place.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I appreciate all the advice by all hon. members. I know who was in their place and who was not. I recognize that the hon. member for Yukon was in his place. I also recognize that he denied unanimous consent.

    For those members who want to speed this up, I wish they would just let me get on with it:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy—Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved that Motion No. 10 be amended. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved an amendment to Motion No. 11. Shall I dispense?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy—Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved that Motion No. 12 be amended. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy—Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    This is the moment where I wanted to check with the hon. the parliamentary secretary on Motion No. 13. I thought I heard subsection 239. Did he mean 239 or 279?

    Mr. Speaker, it should read 279(1.2)

    Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved an amendment to Motion No. 13. Shall I dispense?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved an amendment to Motion No. 14. Shall I dispense?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved an amendment to Motion No. 15. Shall I dispense?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

    Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved an amendment to Motion No. 16. Shall I dispense?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

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

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

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

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

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

    I have a number of motions to table.

    I move:

    I also move:

    I move:

    I move:

    I move:

     I move:

    I move:

    I move:

    I move:

    I move:

    I move:

    Finally, I move:

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

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

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

    The ruling to--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The hon. member for Hochelaga.

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the experts in committee generally said that mandatory minimum sentences did not provide the desired results, except in a few very specific cases, and only when it was a first conviction and a first offence.

    In cases where subsequent mandatory minimum sentences apply—during a second or third conviction—the intended purpose is not achieved. The experts generally said that minimum sentences did not work for reducing crime, except when very specific crimes were targeted and if mandatory minimum sentences were imposed only on a first offence. Going any further would limit judicial discretion and prevent judges from taking into consideration the suspect's reality, the victim's reality, the impact the commission of the crime had on the victims and the community where the crime was committed and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. This could be justified for a first conviction because society has decided that a certain type of criminal offence is reprehensible and that a clear message must be sent. We want to ensure that the offender is removed from society for a set amount of time. However, according to some studies, mandatory minimum sentences in cases of recidivism do not make the community more safe; they make it less safe.

    The Conservative and New Democratic MPs heard the same testimony that the Bloc and Liberal MPs did in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. These two political parties, the one forming the government and the other one forming the smallest opposition party, have decided to disregard the expert testimony they heard. They have decided to disregard all the studies, the experience in the United States—

    Order, please. During this five-minute period for questions and comments, only one question has been asked, and one response given.

    Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hochelaga.

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the members to calm down, since things seem to be getting a little out of hand. We must be calm while doing our work.

    I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10.

    We must remember that, unlike what some government members have been insinuating, violent crime and the number of homicides are on the decline in Canada. Since 1992, crime rates have been decreasing in Canada, and there is every reason to be happy. Is crime going down because our economy is doing well, because, demographically, there are fewer young people? These are explanations that should be considered.

    Let us talk about the solutions put forward by the government. It does not tend to take action in terms of prevention, to trust the judges, and to invest in social programs, but rather to resort to incarceration. It is inclined to go for mandatory minimum penalties, in its push for incarceration.

    We in the Bloc Québécois are convinced that there are situations that call for incarceration. Moreover, it was the Bloc Québécois that took the initiative in the mid-1990s to propose measures to combat street gangs and criminal biker gangs. The Liberal government at the time said that the conspiracy provisions were enough to dismantle biker gangs. The Bloc Québécois, together with the police association and a number of other stakeholders, called for a new offence and new legislation. In response, the government introduced Bill C-95, which was amended by Bills C-24 and C-36.

    Today, the government is addressing a real problem, compounded by the street gang phenomenon: the use of firearms in the commission of crimes. But the government is taking the wrong approach. It is focussing on certain specific offences, which are admittedly serious, disturbing and reprehensible. I am referring to attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion. For each of these offences, the government wants to increase three-year minimum sentences to five, five-year minimums to seven and seven-year minimums to as much as 10. The government is completely ignoring the fact that true deterrence means that a judge who is sentencing someone who has committed an offence involving a firearm, which is reprehensible, must assess the overall context in which the offence was committed. Does the individual have a criminal record? Was the offence premeditated? Did the individual act on behalf of a street gang or organized crime? In light of these factors and using judicial discretion, the judge must hand down the most appropriate sentence. In criminal law and especially in sentencing, the punishment must fit the crime. It is not a question of being soft on crime or saying that individuals should not be convicted.

    Why are minimum sentences not the answer to the problem we are trying to solve?

    First, let us start with the studies that were provided by the Department of Justice.

    When former minister Allan Rock—I do not know if I am conjuring up good memories or bad in this House—had Bill C-68 passed to create the firearms registry—a registry the police want to have and which is consulted 11,000 times every day across Canada and that the Conservatives want to abolish—he created mandatory minimum sentences for a certain number of offences, particularly those involving firearms. Minimum sentences of four years were created. The logic behind minimum sentences is that they are deterrents and studies have been done to determine whether their intended purpose is being achieved. Allow me to read what an expert said at the University of Ottawa, which is a good university. Criminal lawyer Julian Roberts, from the University of Ottawa, conducted a study in 1977 for the Department of Justice of Canada, which the parliamentary secretary should have consulted. He found that, “Although mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations...the studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations”—he was referring to the rate of recidivism—“and no discernible effect on crime rates”.

    In other words, just because some countries, some legislatures, or some justice systems have mandatory minimum sentences that restrict judicial discretion, that does not mean they have lower crime rates. All the studies show that a true deterrent to crime is the real fear criminals have of being caught red-handed and ultimately being charged. Being caught has more to do with our ability to lay charges, with having police in the field, with the ability of crown prosecutors to review the evidence, and so forth.

    Furthermore, several witnesses told us about the perverse effects of mandatory minimum sentences. I would like to quote some of the witnesses. André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal—which is also a good university—said:

    Obviously, minimum sentencing can have extremely perverse consequences. We are not saying that people who commit offences with firearms should be let go. What we are saying is that there are maximum sentences and that judges have the discretion to impose appropriate sentences somewhere between the maximum sentences and acquittal, sentences that take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the offence. That is why the Bloc Québécois, which has an extremely tough attitude toward criminals when severity is required, does not want to have anything to do with the artificial, ineffective logic underlying mandatory minimum sentencing. That is why we do not support either the bill or the amendments.

    We have proposed a whole range of solutions to the government, solutions that include maintaining the gun registry, reviewing the parole issue, reviewing the double time issue, and doubling the budget for the national crime prevention strategy. We think that all of these options are far more appropriate than automatic sentencing, which does not stand up to scrutiny and which makes Bill C-10 a very bad bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Hochelaga on his speech. I know that he was present when the evidence was presented to the committee. He knows that there are no other studies or statistics.

    On the other side, we have the Conservative members of the committee. There is the member for Wild Rose who was very honest and clearly stated—he is probably the most honest member in this House—that he does not need any studies or statistics to support this bill.

    Then we have once again the parliamentary secretary who said in this House that there are studies and statistics in support of Bill C-10.

    Do studies or statistics exist, were they submitted at our hearings and do they basically support the bill?

    Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I congratulate my colleague who also worked on Bills C-9 and C-10, because there are links to be made between the two.

    It is true that the government has not been able to provide convincing and conclusive data. I believe that is what my colleague is getting at with his question. It is the role of parliamentarians to make decisions based on convincing and conclusive data. Naturally, we must be wary when we are told that statistics, witnesses and rigour are not necessary. However, that does not mean that our desire to back up our claims with scientific studies cannot be reconciled with raw instinct and pure common sense.

    It is true that our fellow citizens are worried about offences committed with firearms. It is true that at this time there are street gangs in the major urban centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. But there are ways of effectively dealing with street gangs, firearms, and the flow of firearms. We can never say it enough times. It is quite a contradiction for the government to want to abolish the gun registry that police forces wish to have, on the one hand, and to have mandatory minimum sentences, on the other hand. That is very contradictory, lacks logic, and shows a lack of respect for those who support this gun registry, which, naturally, must be managed effectively.

    Mr. Speaker, I sat through the justice and human rights committee hearings both in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament and, in the previous Parliament, the Liberals consistently supported mandatory minimums in numerous areas and passed laws to introduce them. Even though they heard the same evidence, they went ahead and introduced mandatory minimums. In fact, during their 13 years in government they introduced 40 to 45 mandatory minimums into the Criminal Code.

    I would just like the member's comments on the position the Liberals are taking now, which is that we cannot have any mandatory minimums or at least that we should have no mandatory minimums of this scale. It is similar with the Bloc members where, in the last Parliament, they voted in favour of mandatory minimums.

    I am wondering under what circumstances the member would see it as appropriate for us to have mandatory minimums.

    Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall that, a few years ago, our neo-Bolshevik colleagues failed to grace this House with their presence to vote when the hon. member for Richelieu introduced a bill to protect workers. Of course, I am referring to the anti-scab measures. I doubt it would occur to my neo-Bolshevik colleague to say that, because of their cowardly refusal to be present in this House to support workers at one time, this invalidates the principle that anti-scab provisions are needed. The issue here is that we voted in favour of mandatory minimum sentences in the matter—

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In recent weeks, various types of unparliamentary language have been called out of order. One example is that when I used the word “fascist” it was ruled to be out of order and unparliamentary. My colleague is now calling us “Bolsheviks”. Both words are types of governments that we frown upon in this Parliament. We do not approve of calling each other names.

    If one legitimate form of government that has fallen out favour, i.e. “fascism”, is unparliamentary, would it not also be unparliamentary to call someone another form of government that has fallen out of favour, and that is “Bolshevism”?

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

     I urge my hon. colleague to be very vigilant and very careful. It seems to me that, by comparing the word “fascist” to the word “socialist” or the term “neo-Bolshevik”, he is taking liberties with history that are not his to take. I also hope he understands that I did not mean to make the slightest allusion to any authoritarian ideology, nor did I intend to insult him.

    Thus, he should be very careful and more vigilant.

    I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Hochelaga for their interventions. The Chair will take the matter under advisement as to whether calling someone a neo-Bolshevik is unparliamentary. If there is a need on the part of the Chair to get back to the House, then the House will be gotten back to.

    The hon. member's time has almost expired.

    Mr. Speaker, basically, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh always comes back to this.

    It is true that my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg lent his support to a vote. It is true that we voted on the principle of mandatory minimum sentences in cases of child pornography.

    Every rule can have its exceptions, of course, but generally speaking, and certainly in the matter at hand, we do not believe that the use of a mandatory minimum sentence will serve our purposes here.

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to the use of mandatory minimums, the history in Canada has been, for a long period of time, to look with great concern on the use of that technique in dealing with sentencing individuals who have been convicted of crimes.

    It has been generally frowned upon, both by historical legislatures at this level and by our courts. I think back to a period of time, which was a long time ago, going through law school and having the mandatory minimum of seven years for importing drugs into Canada. Shortly after the charter came into effect in 1982, that was struck down by our courts.

    In a riding like mine, which has a large number of people moving back and forth between Canada and the United States on a daily basis, one can imagine the number of individuals who were convicted and sentenced to jail for seven years for the simple possession of a small quantity of marijuana.

    When the charter came into effect, the courts took the opportunity to strike that down. That is a good example of a mandatory minimum that was grossly inappropriate to the crime and the consequences of the crime.

    When we look at mandatory minimums we must ask ourselves when it is appropriate to use them. I will use an example of when it was appropriate in a campaign that worked extremely well, which was with regard to impaired driving as a result of the consumption of alcohol.

    What happened, historically, was that large groups of people, MADD in particular, but also our police forces, our judiciary and the legislature, recognized that we had a major problem with impaired driving due to alcohol consumption and that we needed to do something about it, which we did.

    We introduced massive education programs to determine the seriousness of the problem and to deter people from using alcohol. We introduced legislation for mandatory minimums, fines, suspension of licences and, in certain cases, jail time. These things had a significant and effective impact. It has tabled off in the last few years but it significantly dropped the rate of impaired driving in this country.

    When we hear the Liberals and the Bloc stand and say that it never worked, we need to think of the impaired driving program and that campaign which was effective in driving the rate of that crime down significantly.

    What we are faced with today is the use of firearms by a small group of people, which is one of the reasons we were prepared to push the Conservative government strongly to back down from the extreme positions it has taken with some of the provisions of Bill C-10 and brought forth these amendments that are contained in the motions that are currently before us.

    Where the principles lie when we use mandatory minimums is to focus on the specific crime and determine whether the use of mandatory minimums will have some impact. We know that it only has an impact if there is an overall campaign, and there is that campaign in this country. We are saying to criminals who are prepared to use guns to commit a crime, serious violent crimes in particular, that we as a legislature will penalize them for the crime. Our police officers are saying that on the street and our judges are saying that in the courtrooms. What we are doing here is being part of that overall campaign to drive the use of guns in violent crimes, in particular, completely out of the country.

    We are focused on the specific crimes, which is what the bill does. It looks specifically at serious violent crimes and uses mandatory minimums to say that we condemn the use of guns in those circumstances. We are telling criminals that if they insist on pursuing that type of activity they will face a serious penalty if, at the end of the day, they are convicted of that crime. It fits within the scheme of when we would use it.

    I am particularly critical of the Liberals and a little critical of the Bloc in this regard. The use we can make of this has been watered down because the Liberals used it so often when they were in power. In excess of 60 crimes now have mandatory minimums. This will add a number more. Quite frankly, a number of those 60 crimes do not need mandatory minimums, but that was done under the Liberal administration.

    When I deal with the Conservatives on these issues, I tell them not to make the same mistakes. If they are going to use mandatory minimums they should use them sparingly, appropriately and in a focused fashion. If they were to do otherwise, they might as well not bother because mandatory minimums would not have any impact whatsoever. A mandatory minimum worked in the impaired driving situation, but had we done that on a whole series of other crimes of that nature, its effectiveness would have been extremely limited and reduced.

     I told the Conservative Party, on behalf of the NDP, that as we promised in the last election, and as opposed to what the Liberals did, we kept our promise, that is what we did here, but we were not prepared to go to the extreme to which the Conservatives were prepared to go. That is why we have these amendments. It is quite clear in my mind and from all the opinions that we have heard, if we had included the mandatory minimum of 10 years on the third offence, it would have been struck down under our charter. Our courts have sent us clear messages that they are not prepared to allow mandatory minimums to go that far even on these serious crimes.

    I proposed that amendment to the government. It accepted that. It was an acceptance of the reality of our jurisprudence at this period in time.

    That is not to say at some point we may not move to a mandatory minimum of greater than the seven years which we have now, but at this point in time, with our jurisprudence in our courts in terms of proportionality of sentencing and under the charter, that is as far as we can go. I believe it is as far as our courts would allow us to go. Quite frankly, I agree with our courts in that regard.

    If we pass these amendments, what clearly will go out is the message that we are serious when it comes to the use of guns in serious violent crimes. To some degree, the bill targets the street gangs and organized crime more extensively because most of the guns are smuggled into this country through more traditional organized crime groups and are sold to street gangs. We are telling those groups that we are not tolerating that any more. If they do not stop using guns in crimes, they will go to jail for an extended period of time. There is no discretion. They will go to jail for an extended period of time. That message has to be communicated.

    I will finalize my comments with direction to the government. As with the mandatory minimum used in impaired driving, we have to have a very clear and focused educational program directed to those two groups that this is what is going to happen. We have to carry that out.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his little talk this morning. I do appreciate that during the campaign what I heard from the NDP members is pretty well what I am hearing in the House of Commons. They did stick with what they said they would do during the election and that is commendable.

    The Liberals have turned a complete about face. I heard the same thing on the campaign trail that they heard about what they were going to do with mandatory minimums, particularly on the use of guns. What a change has come about since that time.

     I cannot recall what riding in New Brunswick the member of the Liberal Party is from, but he said that I do not really care about numbers and all of that. I do not put a focus on the numbers. I have said many times that when somebody is killed through the use of a gun, or when some child is raped and murdered, that one victim is too many and we must take measures to ensure things like that do not happen again. I heard his talk about focus on certain aspects, but I did not hear a focus on the victims.

    In my hometown a bank was held up and there was a devastating effect on the lives of the victims, the tellers, workers and patrons. That was just from that incident when the bank was held up by someone with a gun. There were shootings in a mall on Boxing Day. There were numerous victims. A young girl was killed in warfare between gangs. This has an impact on people who are caught in those situations. I can only imagine how the survivors at Virginia Tech feel--

    I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Wild Rose, but he has taken a big piece of the time already.

    The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

    Mr. Speaker, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe raised the issue of numbers. The reality is that the use of handguns and rapid fire guns has increased. As opposed to what most of the Conservatives think, gun crimes overall have not.

    Back to the point that I made, there are numbers that justify our focusing on this, and in particular focusing on those groups. Our responsibility as legislators here is to protect our society. That is our absolute number one responsibility. Any crime is one that we have to work and see if there are ways we can stop it or prevent it from ever happening. We should not play with the numbers too seriously. We have to look at programs and campaigns that will reduce the amount of crime in this country, down to zero hopefully some day.

    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?

    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.

    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:

    He went on to say:

    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.

    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?

    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—

    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.

    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.

    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.