Bill C-27 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace)

This enactment amends the dangerous offender and long-term offender provisions of the Criminal Code
(a) to require the prosecutor to advise the court whether the prosecutor intends to proceed with an application for an assessment under those provisions when the prosecutor is of the opinion that the offence for which the offender is convicted is a serious personal injury offence that is a designated offence and that the offender was convicted previously at least twice of a designated offence and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for each of those convictions;
(b) to remove the court’s discretion to refuse to order an assessment when it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender or a long-term offender;
(c) to provide that, if the court is satisfied, in a hearing for a dangerous offender designation, that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a primary designated offence for which it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more and that the offender was convicted previously at least twice of a primary designated offence and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for each of those convictions, the conditions to make the designation are presumed to have been met unless the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities; and
(d) to clarify that, even when the conditions to make a dangerous offender designation have been met, the court must consider whether a lesser sentence, including a long-term offender designation, would adequately protect the public and that neither the prosecutor nor the offender has the onus of proof in the matter.
The enactment also amends sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code
(a) to allow the duration of a recognizance to be for a period of up to two years if the court is satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of an offence of a sexual nature against a child or a serious personal injury offence; and
(b) to clarify that the scope of conditions available for recognizances is broad and that those conditions may include electronic monitoring, treatment and a requirement to report to a designated authority.

[Pierre Landreville, Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank committee members for allowing me to express my viewpoint on Bill C-2.

I am professor emeritus at the University of Montreal School of Criminology and a Research Associate at the International Centre for Comparative Criminology, the ICCC. I have taught penology and correctional policy since 1970 and have conducted research in those fields for more than 40 years.

My brief will focus on the section of Bill C-2 concerning Bill C-27. I would address two points regarding the bill in succession: first, clauses 40 to 51 concerning dangerous offenders and, two, clauses 52 and 53 on the recognizance to keep the peace.

I will start with the issue of dangerous offenders. The purpose of this part of the bill is to create a measure to neutralize multiple re-offenders. This is not a new concern. In 1908, England passed the Prevention of Crime Act respecting habitual criminals.

In 1947, Canada also passed an Act respecting habitual offenders or “habitual criminals”, which is very much based on the English act which had already been repealed. An offender determined to be a “habitual criminal” could be detained for indeterminate period. The Criminal Code provided that:

[...] an accused is a habitual criminal, a) if, since reaching the age of 18, he has previously, or on at least three separate and independent occasions, been convicted of an indictable offence for which he was liable to a term of imprisonment five years or more and continues to lead a criminal life, [...]

Clauses 40 to 51 of Bill C-2 are also similar to a more recent series of acts, passed in the United States in the early 1990s, commonly called “three strikes” laws, the best known and most used of which is that of California, which was passed in 1994. It is in fact a two—and three-strike Act. Briefly stated, it provides that, in the event of a second felony conviction, the sentence is twice the sentence that would have been imposed for that offence and that for a third felony conviction, the sentence is 25 years to life. On March 31, 2007, 41,503 offenders were imprisoned under that act. Over 90% of all convictions under the “three strikes” laws in the United States have been in California.

Habitual criminal legislation has failed for five reasons: first, it does not distinguish between those offenders who present a real threat to society, since it applies to a considerable number of non-dangerous offenders; second, it is not applied uniformly, thus causing serious fairness problems; three, it applies in a discriminatory fashion against minority groups; four, it has no significant impact on crime; and, five, it can result in a considerable increase in the prison population, particularly the population of older offenders.

Let me reiterate the first point. It does not distinguish between those offenders who present a real threat to society, since it applies to a considerable number of non-dangerous offenders.

In Canada, the Ouimet Committee (1969) examined the cases of 80 “habitual criminals” sentenced to “preventive detention” in penitentiaries in February 1968.

The committee first observed that:

The average age of the 80 offenders at the time they were sentenced to preventive detention was 40 years.

They concluded on this point that:

These figures tend to support the finding that one of the weaknesses of the application of this legislation is that it appears to be most often invoked against offenders at an age where violence is no longer part of their usual behaviour.

The committee also stated that:

Nearly 40 % of those sentenced to preventive detention appear not to have presented a threat to the safety of others; 2. Perhaps one-third of persons incarcerated as habitual criminals appear to have presented a serious threat to the safety of others [...] The Committee finds that, although the statutory provisions concerning habitual criminals were enforced to protect the public from certain dangerous offenders, they were also applied to a considerable number of multiple repeat offenders who may constitute a serious social embarrassment, but not a serious threat to people's safety.

Similar observations have been made about England's preventive detention and California's “three strikes” legislation.

Moving on to the second point, it is not applied uniformly, thus causing serious fairness problems. Once again, in Canada, the Ouimet Committee found in its study on 80 “habitual criminals” that:

45 [...] were sentenced in British Columbia and 39, that is virtually half the total number of those so sentenced, in the same city (Vancouver). The Committee feels that legislation the application of which is likely to vary to that degree should not be part of a rational correctional system.

The committee also observed the same disparity in the application of the dangerous sex offender law which existed at the time. Current dangerous offender legislation may also deserve the same criticism. In April 2006, 42% of criminals found to be dangerous offenders were in Ontario, compared to 9% in Quebec and 22% in British Columbia. California's “three strikes” legislation is not evenly applied either.

Moving on to the third point, it applies in a discriminatory fashion against minority groups. In Canada, we have no data on the application of habitual offender legislation to aboriginal persons, but we do know that they are over-represented at all stages of the correctional process, including in the application of the dangerous offender law. This state of affairs raises major issues and is of concern to all those who attach importance to the values of justice and equity. We know that aboriginal persons represent approximately 3% of the Canadian population, that they form 18% of persons admitted to penitentiaries, that they are even more over-represented in certain provinces. In 2003-2004, they represented 54% of persons admitted to Manitoba penitentiaries, and 63% of those admitted in Saskatchewan. Aboriginal persons also represented, in 2005-2006, 23% of offenders sentenced to life imprisonment or given indeterminate sentences. This over-representation of aboriginal persons in penitentiaries, combined with the fact that they enter penitentiaries at a younger age than non-aboriginals, means that they would be even more often affected by the measures under Bill C-2 concerning multiple re-offenders. It will be readily understood that the younger members of a group are when they enter a penitentiary, the greater chance they have of being convicted a third time.

Now, turning to the fourth point, this legislation has no significant impact on crime. Since they are rarely enforced in ordinary circumstances, habitual criminal laws cannot have an impact on crime. However, even where they are used on a broad scale, as in California, they have little or no measurable impact. Even though, in the 1990s, the crime rate fell more sharply in California than the U.S. national average, researchers who conducted a survey of the literature came to the conclusion that the drop cannot be attributed in any significant way to the “three strikes” law.

That takes us to the fifth point. This legislation can result in a considerable increase in the prison population, particularly the population of older offenders. If applied on a broad scale, multiple re-offender laws inevitably cause an increase in the aging of the prison population. On the one hand, longer sentences result in a rise in the prison population...

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will begin with Ms. Schurman.

I would like you to provide us with further explanations so we can be sure we understand. Our main challenge is to ensure that Bill C-27 is constitutional.

You say, for example, that the judge will have to ask for the Crown's report and that there will be nothing left to prove. How, exactly, will this situation unfold in court, and how will the burden of proof and the evidence to be provided be affected? What are you trying to warn us about?

I understand that you are satisfied with the way the current system protects society, but can you tell us exactly why you are so concerned with the burden of proof and the way trials would be affected?

I then have a question for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

[Andy Rady, Director, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers]

Thank you.

Good morning to all. I'm here along with Evan Roitenberg on behalf of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. I want to thank you all for allowing us to attend and be witnesses this morning. I'm going to make a few brief opening remarks and then Mr. Roitenberg will continue.

For those of you who aren't familiar with our organization, we are a council of defence lawyers from across Canada, including the territories, of 17 persons. We represent criminal law associations in all of the provinces; they all have a member on our association. So we respond on matters of national interest to the defence bar as a whole. We've been doing this since 1992, and we've appeared before this committee and other committees over the years.

Bill C-2 consisted of five other bills in the previous Parliament, and we've already made representations on those: Mark Brayford from Saskatchewan on Bill C-32, Bill Trudell on Bill C-35, Mr. Trudell and myself on Bill C-10, and Mr. Roitenberg was set to speak on Bill C-27 before Parliament dissolved.

It is our position that the current system of dangerous offender legislation in the Criminal Code works and need not be changed. We have concerns with Bill C-2. Our concern is that if society is going to seek to lock someone up indefinitely, the burden must in all cases be on society to show that this should occur. In other words, we're talking about what we call the reverse onus provision of Bill C-2 with respect to dangerous offenders.

It is our position that this new section really provides a false sense of security and nothing else to what we already have, which is a very careful system, because dangerous offender designations result in perhaps the most draconian penalities that we know in our law. We are concerned as well that what the burden-shifting does is place it on the defence and on the accused person. One of the things that appears not to have been considered is the effect this is going to have on legal aid plans throughout the country. Obviously, if the convicted person is going to have to try to demonstrate why they should not be declared dangerous, the kinds of resources they are going to require from legal aid plans are going to be very high. We're concerned that there isn't a corresponding amount of funding for that.

We also have some concern with respect to the fact that it would appear that aboriginal offenders represent--at least a few years ago--21% of all dangerous offender designations. This is not reflective of the overall aboriginal population. Again, that may have to do with a cost situation in terms of being able to defend dangerous offender applications. One of the things we read indicated that it takes the crown approximately 600 man-hours to put one of these together. If that burden shifts to the accused, we're going to see more dangerous offenders simply because they're not going to have the resources to meet this reverse onus test.

Mr. Roitenberg.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

This is a new provision, one that was not included in Bill C-27. Was it in fact included in Bill C-27, or is it new to Bill C-2?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'd like to take up where Ms. Jennings left off. I must admit that my understanding of the issue is somewhat muddled and I hope you can clarify things for me, Mr. Hoover.

Perhaps we did not agree with the proposed increase in minimum sentences in Bill C-10, but at least the proposal was clear. It was a matter of judicial philosophy and one could be either for or against the recommendation.

I don't quite understand and I would like you to explain where the problem lies for the prosecutor, who as we understand is often the crown. Why are the current provisions of the Criminal Code inadequate? Why does the government feel the need to put forward a list? You talk about primary designated offences, but as I understand it, there is also a list of secondary designated offences.

What is the problem, if I am a crown prosecutor and I want to invoke these provisions in the case of a dangerous offender? You told Ms. Jennings that the criteria were overly stringent, but could you be more specific? Don't be afraid of referring to administrative realities, because that will be a determining factor in whether or not we choose to back the provisions taken from the former Bill C-27. Administratively speaking, where does the problem lie at this time for the prosecutor trying a case in a court of law?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Is there an obligation on the prosecutor? When one reads the bill, one gets the impression that he has the obligation to divulge or not, but that he's not obliged to use that provision. To put the question simply, what is the new obligation on the prosecutor pursuant to Bill C-27 concerning dangerous offenders?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Good day, Minister. I also extend greetings to your officials.

I will begin with three questions, with your permission. You will understand that my questions are on Bill C-27 since for us, this is the most problematic aspect of the bill.

Firstly, to what extent can one see parallels or make comparisons with legislation in effect in the United States? More particularly, 25 states and the federal government have provisions for what is known as “three strikes and you're out”. I would like you to establish parallels, if there are any. You know that the committee has had access to literature which was not conclusive as to the benefits of this legislation in the United States.

Secondly, I would like you to explain what is wrong with the current regime. For instance, is the burden of proof too onerous for the prosecutor, so much so that the Crown does not use these provisions as it should? The Bloc Québécois does not call into question the fact that there should be provisions on dangerous offenders in the Criminal Code. We are simply trying to understand why we need a system like the one you are proposing.

Thirdly, I would like to go back to a question Ms. Jennings raised without going into it in depth. The obligation relating to the designation of a person as a “dangerous offender” is to make an announcement, but if I understood correctly, there will be no obligation on the part of the prosecutor to use that provision. Could you clarify that for me?

Those are my first three questions. If the chair is willing, I will have three more.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be joined at the table by Catherine Kane, the acting senior general counsel, criminal law policy section; and Douglas Hoover, counsel, criminal law policy section.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to appear before your committee as it begins its review of Bill C-10, the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

This is the government's first piece of legislation in this session of Parliament. The Tackling Violent Crime Act underscores our commitment to safeguard Canadians in their homes and on their streets and in their communities. It is a confidence measure. Bill C-10 reflects the depth of this unwavering commitment by the Government of Canada.

As a confidence measure, Bill C-10 reflects the depth of this unwavering commitment.

Canadians are losing confidence in our criminal justice system. They want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter violent crime. They want a justice system that imposes penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes and that rehabilitate offenders to prevent them from reoffending. Bill C-10 seeks to restore Canadians' confidence in our system by restoring their safety and security in their communities, and this is in fact what is reflected in the preamble to Bill C-2.

The proposed Tackling Violent Crime Act brings together five criminal law reform bills that we introduced in the previous session of Parliament. One of them, Bill C-10, imposed higher mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for eight specific offences involving the use of restricted or prohibited firearms or in connection with organized crime, which of course includes gangs, and also for offences that do not involve the actual use of a firearm--namely, firearm trafficking or smuggling--or the illegal possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm with ammunition. The Tackling Violent Crime Act reintroduces the former Bill C-10 as passed by the House of Commons.

It also includes one of my favourites, Bill C-22, which increased the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age to protect young people against adult sexual predators. There is proposed, as I'm sure you are aware, a five-year close-in-age exception to prevent the criminalization of sexual activity between consenting teenagers. The Tackling Violent Crime Act reintroduces Bill C-22 as passed by the House of Commons.

It also includes Bill C-32, which addressed impaired driving by proposing the legislative framework for the drug recognition expert program and requiring participation in roadside and drug recognition expert sobriety testing; by simplifying the investigation and prosecution of impaired driving; and by proposing procedural and sentencing changes, including creating the new offences of being “over 80” and refusing to provide a breath sample where the person's operation of the vehicle has caused bodily harm or death. The Tackling Violent Crime Act reintroduces the former Bill C-32 as amended and reported back from the justice committee.

We also have Bill C-35, which imposes a reverse onus for bail for accused charged with any of eight serious offences committed with a firearm, with an indictable offence involving firearms or other regulated weapons if committed while under a weapons prohibition order, or with firearm trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking and firearm smuggling. The Tackling Violent Crime Act reintroduces the former Bill C-35 as passed by the House of Commons.

The Tackling Violent Crime Act also reintroduces reforms proposed by the former Bill C-27, addressing dangerous and repeat violent offenders, with additional improvements.

As I have noted, and with the exception of the dangerous offenders reforms, all of these reforms have been thoroughly debated, reviewed, and supported in the House of Commons.

These reforms included in Bill C-27 had not progressed to the same level of understanding and support in the previous session and now include additional improvements to address concerns that have been identified in the House of Commons as well as by my provincial and territorial counterparts. Let me take a moment to go through these reforms.

The Tackling Violent Crime Act retains all of the reforms previously proposed in Bill C-27 regarding peace bonds, which had been well received within the House of Commons and beyond. Accordingly, Bill C-10 proposes to double the maximum duration of these protective court orders from one to two years and to clarify that the court can impose a broad range of conditions to ensure public safety, including curfews, electronic monitoring, treatment, and drug and alcohol prohibitions.

I believe this particular provision will be well received across this country. Many people have complained for many years that by the time you get a one-year peace bond, it's too short a period of time, and that two years would be much more appropriate in terms of getting the bond and having it put in place.

Under this bill as well as under the former Bill C-27, crown prosecutors will still have to declare in open court whether or not they intend to bring a dangerous offender application where an individual is convicted for a third time of a serious offence.

We have retained some procedural enhancements to the dangerous offenders procedures, allowing for more flexibility regarding the filing of the necessary psychiatric assessments.

As in the former Bill C-27, an individual who is convicted of a third sufficiently violent or sexual offence is still presumed dangerous.

Bill C-10 also toughens the sentencing provision regarding whether a dangerous offender should receive an indeterminate or a less severe sentence. This amendment modifies Bill C-27's approach to make the courts impose a sentence that ensures public safety.

Finally, it includes a new provision that would allow a crown prosecutor to apply for a second dangerous offender sentencing hearing in the specific instance where an individual is convicted of breaching a condition of their long-term supervision order.

This second hearing targets individuals who were found by the original court to meet the dangerous offender criteria but were nonetheless able to satisfy the court that they could be managed under the lesser long-term offender sentence. If they show by their conduct, once released into the community, that they are not manageable and are convicted of the offence of breaching a condition of their supervision order, they would now be subject to another dangerous offender sentence hearing.

Importantly, this new proposal does not wait for the offender to commit yet another sexual assault or violent offence to bring the offender back for a second hearing for a dangerous offender sentence. Instead, it would be triggered simply by the offender's failure to comply with the conditions of his release contained in his long-term supervision order--for example, for failing to return to his residence before curfew or for consuming alcohol or drugs. Of course, this second hearing would also be triggered if the offender in fact did commit a further sexual or violent offence after his release into the community.

These new proposals directly respond to a serious problem identified by provincial and territorial attorneys general in recent months. Indeed, some of these issues have been flagged since about 2003. Since the 2003 judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Johnson case, many violent offenders who meet the dangerous offender criteria have nonetheless managed to escape its indeterminate sentence on the basis that they could be managed; that is, the risk of harm that they pose to the community could be successfully managed in the community under a long-term offender sentence.

So we reviewed the dangerous offender cases since the 2003 Johnson case and identified 74 such violent offenders. We then looked at how these individuals fared once they were released into the community. To date, 28 of these 74 dangerous offenders have been released into the community. Of these 28, over 60% were subsequently detained for breaching the conditions of their long-term supervision and 10 were convicted of breaching a condition of their long-term supervision orders.

Bill C-10 will prevent dangerous offenders from escaping the dangerous offender indeterminate sentence in the first place and will enable us to more effectively deal with those who nonetheless receive the long-term offender sentence but then demonstrate an inability to abide by the conditions of their long-term offender supervision order.

Of course I have carefully considered the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights in respect of the totality of these new dangerous offender reforms, and I am satisfied that they are fully constitutional. These measures have been carefully tailored to provide a prospective, targeted, and balanced response to the real and pressing problem posed by these dangerous offenders.

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, the Tackling Violent Crime Act proposes reforms that have already been supported by the House of Commons.

In the case of the new dangerous offender provisions, it proposes modifications that many have signalled an interest in supporting.

I appreciate the collaborative spirit this committee and members have shown thus far to enable the commencement of the review of Bill C-10, and it is my hope and that of all Canadians that this collaboration will continue to enable expeditious passage of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I do not think that it should take the form of a motion. I just want to make sure that we have the three following pieces of information: a table comparing the old Bill C-27 with the additions that have been made; a table showing the sequence of events by which someone is declared a dangerous offender and the court process involved; and finally I would like to have a list of American witnesses who could inspire the committee in the same way as the Conservatives have been inspired by American practices.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have three comments to make.

First, I agree, the committee should not go back over the work it has already done. However, we do wish to add names to the list of witnesses.

Then, I have two requests for our research service. I would like a table comparing the old Bill C-27 with the additions the government has made. I have asked the Department of Justice to provide it, but I do not hold out any great hope that we will get it. I want to have a table showing the additions to last session's Bill C-27.

In addition, I would someone to make us a table showing how things work in a court of law and the steps needed to declare someone a “dangerous offender”. I want a table that sets out the sequence of events for us, a summary, including the sections of the Criminal Code, of course.

Finally, the reason I wanted a steering committee—though I respect the committee's decision—is that I think that the government has been influenced by the American experience. I wish that we could hear from people from the United States who could tell us whether it worked or not. I would ask the research analyst to prepare for us a list of American scholars, jurists, and people responsible for administering the law who could come and share their experience with us. We know that Bill C-27 deals with matters in which the United States has had a lot of experience. The former clerk has already sent us studies, but I would like us, and the research analyst, to consider the possibility of having those three documents.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Actually, I know that this will certainly be discussed at the steering committee, but I would have liked a look at it first. Do my colleagues want to see a list of all the witnesses? When we discussed it with our leaders, we definitely said that we wanted the committee to concentrate its efforts on the contentious matters from the previous session, that is to say Bill C-27.

I would not want us, for example, to hear again from all the witnesses that we heard in the last session when we were discussing Bills C-10, C-22, C-32 and C-37. I would like us to spend more time on Bill C-27 that caused us difficulty. I wonder if all my colleagues are of the same mind, given that it is more or less what the leaders agreed among themselves when they were discussing the legislative committee.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform the House that our colleague did not tell us the whole truth.

First, with regard to Bill C-27, the committee met three times. We cannot say that we will adopt a bill after three committee meetings. The committee had just been formed when the House adjourned.

The government whip speaks of Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The fact is that we did not block the bill and, what is more, we were at report stage. We had agreed in committee that the chair would table a report. If the whip was in such a hurry to pass the bills, then why did his Prime Minister prorogue the House? We were ready to return and study these bills.

I believe that is a myth. The opposition parties co-operated with the government. However, we will not allow this government to tell the opposition parties that they will not do their job. And when we deem it appropriate, we will amend the bill.

I was not elected on the Conservative's platform. I was democratically elected, with 60% of the votes in my riding, as an alternative to the Conservatives. We will do our work. If we believe it necessary, we will amend the bill.

The Prime Minister must be more democratic.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, as I have done with all the speeches this afternoon, I listened with great interest to the words of my colleagues from the opposition parties. I would like to take this opportunity to perhaps correct some of the motives the member attributes to the Conservative government in bringing forward this tackling violent crime act, Bill C-2, and then pose a question.

Toward the end of his remarks he asserted that our government is driven by partisan political considerations. I would like to state for the record that no, what we are driven by here is to try to reform our justice system or, maybe more appropriately, that we are driven by a desire to restore fairness and justice to our legal system in this country.

That is the real reason behind the fact that in our short-lived government we have brought forward so many new initiatives in the justice department. In fact, he mentioned the fact that we brought forward a dozen bills alone in this Parliament already.

The other fallacy that I would like to quickly correct for the record is this whole business that somehow by combining these bills we are going to delay them. The fact is, and my colleague clearly identified this, Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, encompasses some five previous bills. I will run through them very quickly.

Previously, Bill C-10, mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences, was stalled in committee for 252 days and the bill died after a total of 414 days before Parliament.

Bill C-22, age of protection, was stalled in committee for 175 days and the bill died after a total of 365 days before Parliament.

Bill C-27, dangerous offenders, was stalled in committee for 105 days and the bill died after a total of 246 days before Parliament.

Bill C-35, reverse onus on bail for firearms offences, was stalled in committee for 64 days and the bill died after a total of 211 days before Parliament.

Finally, Bill C-32, drug impaired driving, was stalled in committee for 149 days and the bill died after a total of 210 days before Parliament.

I think Canadians are waking up to the fact that a lot of these bills were stalled in the upper chamber in our parliamentary system. What are we talking about? We are talking about an unelected, unaccountable, Liberal dominated Senate. In other words, an upper chamber dominated by our process in this Parliament by the opposition.

Obviously, even the temporary current leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, has no control over the Senate. He has no control over his colleagues over there in getting this legislation moved forward.

In the last election campaign, all four parties running in the election said they wanted to get tough with violent crime. Yet, when we put this legislation through, the Liberals allowed it to be stalled over there. What have we done? We have combined them because the Senate will be less able to stall one or two bills because Canadians will be awakened to the fact that if the Liberals stall Bill C-2, they will clearly understand that the Liberal Party has never been serious about violent crime. It says one thing but does the opposite.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating what the government considers to be the most important component of the throne speech presented a few days ago, Bill C-2.

First of all, there is a myth that I would like to dispel. On several occasions the members on the government side have unfortunately taken some liberties with the truth. They have suggested that, in this Parliament, the opposition parties—the official opposition, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—did not cooperate, that they acted like spoilsports and had unduly and excessively delayed passage of the justice bills. We need to set the record straight. This presentation of the facts is false, dishonest and, at the very least, misleading.

Since coming into power in January 2006, the Conservative government has tabled 12 justice bills. They were studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the legislative committee and six of them have received royal assent. Therefore, since the government came into office in January 2006, six bills have been adopted and received royal assent.

I will mention them quickly, for information purposes: Bill C-9, on conditional sentencing; Bill C-17, on the salaries of judges; Bill C-18, on the DNA data bank; Bill C-19, which was meant as a tribute to a Conservative member who unfortunately passed away, and which makes street racing a new offence under the Criminal Code; the fifth bill, namely Bill C-48, on the United Nations Convention against Corruption and on international crime, was fast-tracked and supported by all opposition parties and the government; finally, the sixth one, is Bill C-59, creating a new offence, under the Criminal Code, for the unauthorized recording of a movie in a movie theatre. That legislation was quickly passed, at the request of the Bloc Québécois, which had enlisted the support of the official opposition and of the NDP.

Again, of the 12 bills introduced by the government, six received royal assent. That left six, with four of them being in the Senate. That was the case for Bill C-10, on minimum penalties for offences involving firearms, and for Bill C-22, on the age of protection. The Conservatives proposed to raise the age of protection from 14 to 16 years. As mentioned earlier, opposition parties requested that a close in age provision be included, to provide for a difference of five or two years, depending on the age being considered.

As I just mentioned, Bill C-10 and Bill C-22 were before the Senate. Bill C-23, which is a rather technical bill on the language used during a trial before a jury, was also before the Senate, as was Bill C-35, dealing with the reverse onus, at the pre-trial hearing, for a number of very serious offences. The committee was told that this was already the usual practice, and that a justice of the peace or a superior court judge very rarely grants bail at the pre-trial hearing, when the individual is accused of murder, assault or sexual assault. This was already an established practice.

In summary, six bills have been passed and have received royal assent, and four had already gone through third reading in the House of Commons and were in the Senate. This left us with two bills: the dangerous offenders bill, Bill C-27, which I will address later, and Bill C-32 dealing with impaired driving.

Could the Prime Minister and the Conservative team be asked to be a little more relaxed and show a more nuanced and respectful attitude toward the opposition?

We are going to do our job. In the past, we have given the government our cooperation when that was necessary, but we have introduced amendments because, unfortunately, an entire segment of the Conservative caucus has no idea of nuances. I will give examples. Had Bill C-32 been passed as written, without amendments, anyone driving his or her own car with a passenger on board who was in possession of a small amount of marijuana could have faced prosecution or arrest.

Was that the purpose of the legislation? This bill was intended to address a public safety issue, recognizing that no one should be operating a vehicle on public roadways while under the influence of drugs, and to allow for drivers to be subjected to standardized tests known as standardized field sobriety tests. The intention certainly was not to pass legislation to target drivers carrying drugs without their knowledge. That could happen. I could give three people a ride to my cottage without knowing that one of them has marijuana in his or her pocket. This would have made me liable to prosecution.

This is the sort of excess the Conservatives are guilty of, when we are talking about a bill, a motivation, and an intent that are utterly defensible in terms of public policy. But when the Conservatives are left to their own devices, when they are ruled by that extreme wing of their caucus and blinded by the idea of law and order, they come up with bills that have to be amended.

Conditional sentencing has been mentioned. When we began looking at Bill C-9, the first justice bill the Conservatives introduced—the member for London West will recall—we were told that conditional sentences represented only 5% of sentences.

If you look at all the sentences handed down in all the courts in Canada in recent years for which records have been kept, you see that conditional sentences, which allow offenders to serve their sentence in the community under supervision, represented only 5% of sentences.

If we had adopted the bill as introduced by the Conservatives, all offences punishable by more than two years in prison might have been excluded from this tool judges have for determining how a sentence can be served in the community.

I repeat that I am extremely disappointed with the attitude of the Prime Minister, who asks the opposition to vote for bills, but will not tolerate any amendments to those bills. How can anyone be so authoritarian? How can anyone be so cavalier? How can anyone be so disrespectful of Canadian democracy and tell the 57% or 58% of Canadians who did not elect Conservative members that if their representatives do not fall into line with the Conservative platform, they cannot introduce amendments in this House?

I assure my colleagues that we are going to consider the issue and that we will work very quickly, with all due diligence. And we will introduce amendments if we feel that they are in the interest of the people we represent.

The government wants this bill to go to committee quickly. The leaders have agreed on this. Later today, the whip will introduce a motion, and once again we have offered to cooperate.

Next week, we will have this bill before us, but we will not allow ourselves to be led by the nose by this government. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they were intractable and often mean-spirited. They constantly, systematically filibustered. Never have I seen such filibustering. Sometimes it went on day and night.

The current Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food did the filibustering. He led this House in circles regarding employment equity. At the time, I was a young, naive and vulnerable member. I had just been elected and was experiencing my first filibuster. Furthermore, the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was uncompromising on the issue of employment equity, which was under the responsibility of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

They cannot have it both ways. A person cannot say that it is fine to filibuster when they are in opposition, only to turn around, once they are in the governing party, and refuse the opposition's right to present amendments. This is irresponsible and disrespectful.

Bill C-2 merges five pieces of legislation. Of those pieces of legislation, the Bloc Québécois supported four of them, with amendments. In committee, of course, we will not ask to repeat the work that has already been done.

However, we have a problem with Bill C-27, concerning dangerous offenders. As we all know, the Criminal Code has included provisions on this matter since 1947. In the past, we did not use the term dangerous offender, but rather habitual criminal. I wonder whether certain members, those who have been practising law for some time, remember that expression. The Liberals already changed those provisions by creating a new category of dangerous offenders—long-term offenders—in Bill C-55.

What is our line of questioning? I would like to be clear. I am telling the government that the Bloc Québécois would like to see three main groups of witnesses. First, we would like to hear constitutional experts on the constitutionality of the reverse onus principle, in the same terms in which this bill was presented.

We would then like to see a second group of witnesses. I would remind the House that when the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, he was unable to tell us what it is about the administrative and judicial process for dangerous offenders that is not working.

Currently, a person can be labelled a dangerous offender after committing a first serious offence. Section 753 of the Criminal Code is very clear. If there is any reason to believe that that an individual is likely to cause a death, is out of control, or is likely to reoffend, that person can be declared a dangerous offender after a first offence. I am not saying that this is what usually happens. We are not talking about a large number of people here. About 350 people have been declared dangerous offenders, and some of them have been released under mandatory supervision. Of course, most of them are inside federal prisons.

We will run this by constitutional experts. It is our responsibility to ensure that this bill is not unconstitutional. We will ask people who make their living dealing with this issue before the courts to explain to us which parts of the current legislation are not working.

We will also ask a third group of witnesses about the list of offences. In the bill before us today, five types of offences would result in an individual being declared a dangerous offender. Naturally, most of them are serious crimes, such as attempted murder, murder, homicide and serious sexual crimes.

The government wants to expand this list to include 42 offences. The preliminary list includes 22 offences, one of which is assault. I do not wish to downplay the importance of assault. However, should an individual who has been convicted of assault three times be put on a list of dangerous offenders, with all of the consequences that entails?

There is a list of designated offences, which, I agree, are offences generally punishable by a sentence of more than five years. The question is, do we need to take this further? Is it important to have these two lists of offences?

Why ask this question? We are not questioning the fact that we need provisions in the Criminal Code for people who are so dangerous and present such a risk of recidivism that they need to be designated long term offenders, or dangerous offenders. A dangerous offender is someone who can be imprisoned for an indefinite period. Obviously, they are denied their freedom and denied eligibility for parole. Certainly—and I am not afraid to say so—this is justified in some situations. We understand that for some individuals there is no chance for rehabilitation and they have to be imprisoned for an indeterminate period.

Nonetheless, it is our responsibility to ensure that if we are going to pass legislation that considerably broadens the scope of this rule—which is in fact an exception to the general rule—then we have to be able to verify the facts in committee in order to make sure there is no risk of abuse or excess.

As hon. members know, the Conservatives are driven by partisan political considerations. That is “partisan” with a capital “P”.

As it stands, the crime rate has gone down in Canada. In any event, the homicide rate has gone down. The incidence of violent crime has gone down. I am not saying there has not been a worrisome increase in property crime in certain communities. However, generally speaking, we know full well that for a number of years now, major crime, such as homicide—crimes involving violence—has gone down year after year.

Criminologists who have studied these issues are saying that there is no correlation between a reliance on imprisonment and lower crime rates in a society. We do not live in a safer society and the communities are not safer because of widespread prison sentencing.

We know that the United States has an incarceration rate seven times greater than Canada's. In Canada, there are 132 or 134 prisoners for every 100,000 people.

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

Mr. Speaker, anybody who has been in the House for any length of time knows the government controls the order paper. The order in which bills are brought forward is entirely in the hands of the government, and there is nothing the opposition parties can do in that regard. I sometimes think that is a mistake in our system. On the basis of democracy and in a minority government situation, that rule should not be there. Opposition parties should have more control over what comes before the House, but this is not the case. The government completely controls this.

The member is right in terms of bills sitting on the order paper, and I will use Bill C-27, the dangerous offender bill, as an example. It sat on the order paper for almost six months. The bill was introduced in the House in the fall of 2006 and did not get to a vote for second reading and go to committee until well into the spring of 2007. For a good six months, it just sat on the order paper. That is a good example of how backlogged the justice committee was at that point.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, a more efficient approach would have moved the bills along much faster. Let me just emphasize that point and explain what happens.

When bills get to justice committee, there is a tendency to call the same witnesses on specific points. I have been saying in the House that the bills should have been bunched together. The government should have done that originally. It cannot be done now because these bills would be delayed again.

The Canadian Bar Association was forced to appear before the justice committee eight or ten times. Representatives could probably have come once or maybe twice, spoken on all the points and given us their input.

This goes back to consultation in terms of the member's question. The Conservative government has refused to consult with a number of groups because I think it sees them as ideologically unfriendly. Conservatives talk to members of police associations, but do they talk Canadian Bar Association? Maybe some. Do they talk to criminal defence lawyers, who have some significant input to provide on these bills? Hardly at all.

I could go down the list of some of the groups that deal with people who have been charged and convicted of crimes. For women, there is the Elizabeth Fry Society. For men, there is John Howard Society. The government does not talk too much to these people.

That delays the process at committee. These groups come forward at committee to tell us what they think the problems are with the legislation, and that is the first time we hear about it. Perhaps it could have been taken care of by consultation before it ever arrived at committee.

I have already mentioned the issue of street car racing. All parties in the House supported that and we put it through as quickly as we could.

With respect to the age of consent legislation, I fought with the former Conservative justice minister, my colleague from Manitoba, and convinced him that we should put it in. We tried to put it into the child pornography bill in 2005. It resurrected itself in the age of consent bill, Bill C-22, that finally came before the House. The bill went all the way to the Senate. Now it is back before the House and we have to go over it all again.