Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2007

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue. When I was interrupted, I was saying that the fight against organized crime had been a Bloc Québécois issue for a long time. I was citing the example of the anti-gang bill that I tabled in 1995. I also recalled the initiatives of the member for Charlesbourg who had worked on taking $1,000 bills out of circulation and who had presented the bill to reverse the onus of proof for proceeds of crime. That bill was passed unanimously in this House.

Bill C-2 before us may be considered a compilation of all the legislative measures initiated by the government since coming to power in February 2006. It contains five measures, including former bill C-10, which caused a great deal of difficulties. In fact, that bill established mandatory minimum sentences for offences involving firearms.

It also contains the former Bill C-22, which invites us to no longer talk about the age of consent, but the age of protection. It increases that age from 14 to 16, and has close in age clauses. The Bloc was worried about this. More specifically, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie clearly expressed our view to the media. We did not want young people who attend the same school and have non-exploitative sexual relations to be subject to charges. That is why a close in age clause, with a five-year age difference was established for 13 and 14 year olds. They may have non-exploitative sexual relations with young people of a similar age, on condition that the age difference does not exceed five years.

Bill C-2 also contains a former bill that also provided for reverse onus of proof at the pre-trial hearing stage. If a person commits an offence involving a firearm, the reverse onus of proof applies and that person, who could of course be released by a justice of the peace, must show that he or she is not a threat to society.

Lastly, Bill C-2 also incorporates the former Bill C-27. I discussed this with the member for Repentigny, and we found that this is the measure we have the most difficulty with. Even so, we will support this bill, but we would have liked this measure to have been reworked. These provisions reverse the burden of proof for individuals who have committed a third offence from a designated list.

Despite all that, we believe that the bill is reasonable and that it merits our support. However, we wanted to see greater discretion for the Crown. What makes us uncomfortable is our belief that the government is addressing the wrong priorities for justice. We wanted to see a plan to fight poverty or to address the bail and parole systems, particularly the accelerated review process. We also wanted to address the issue of individuals wearing colours and logos recognized by the court as representing criminal organizations.

We cannot have a balanced vision of justice without considering the causes of delinquency and the ways to ensure that everyone in our society has a fair chance.

Right now, the Bloc Québécois is especially committed to seniors and to addressing the guaranteed income supplement and the retroactivity issue. I would like to thank the member for Repentigny for his excellent work on this file. I am sure that my colleagues will join me in thanking him for all of his hard work.

In conclusion, we will support Bill C-2, but for the record, we were hoping for some adjustments. Nevertheless, we will support this bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by my Bloc Québécois colleague. Hon. members know full well that the NDP tried to improve this bill in committee. Now we are introducing an amendment in this House that will improve the bill.

Is the Bloc Québécois supporting this bill without really trying to improve it, as the NDP is proposing to do today, because this government is imposing a motion of non-confidence in connection with the bill?

My colleague is well aware that we can improve this bill, which has many flaws. When the Conservatives look at justice issues, they do so with a lack of thoroughness and a real lack of professionalism. We can try to improve this bill. The NDP is trying to make it better. If I have understood correctly, the Bloc does not seem to be in favour of doing so.

Is it because of the non-confidence motion that goes with the bill?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Let me make something clear. Our problem with this bill has to do with mandatory minimum sentences. We have always been uncomfortable with such sentences.

The NDP members, our neo-Bolshevik friends, are introducing an amendment today when they and we defeated all the amendments to Bill C-10 in committee and kept only two provisions of that bill.

Which party was it that, in an act of complicity approaching intellectual treason, resurrected the bill?

I could not believe my ears. I asked Annie Desnoyers to pinch me. I could not understand why this party, which had defeated all the amendments to Bill C-10 in committee, was resurrecting the bill in the House of Commons.

The moral of this story is that I give my colleague A+ for courtesy, but D- for his party's consistency.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of inconsistencies, one example is the softwood lumber agreement, which caused the loss of thousands of jobs for Quebeckers, and was supported by the Bloc Québécois. That makes absolutely no sense. There is an inconsistency the Bloc Québécois needs to deal with.

Let me get back to the question, which he did not answer. He knows very well that the provisions of this bill are actually unconstitutional. He knows very well that the NDP is introducing an amendment here today that will make it possible to prevent certain people being labelled as dangerous and subjected to an evaluation later on, when they are serving their sentence. The NDP is promoting this amendment precisely because the bill and this aspect of the bill do not work. He knows this very well. I would therefore like to repeat my question.

Is it because the Conservative government is calling this a non-confidence motion that the Bloc Québécois seems to want to support this bill, without thinking about the repercussions, knowing that there are some aspects of the bill that are unconstitutional?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hochelaga has one minute to reply.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House what happened. We fought Bill C-10 in committee. The NDP, with its inflated egos and puffed up chests, says it is against mandatory minimum sentences. The Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois fought the government and defeated those provisions of Bill C-10, a bill that would have imposed mandatory minimum sentences.

We are witnessing a contradiction on a scale I have never before seen in this House, since I arrived in 1993, and there is nothing we can do. The neo-Bolsheviks are resuscitating Bill C-10 with such a complete lack of consistency that I will never forget.

In closing, on the topic of softwood lumber, the Bloc Québécois aligned itself with the FTQ, the CSN and all those who defend the workers. This is why we are the strongest political party in Quebec, while the NDP remains at only 13% in the polls.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the so-called tackling violent crime bill, something which our party has been working on for some time. I am quite proud of the work that we have already done on this very issue. It is critically important that Canada have safe communities and that we do everything possible to ensure that.

Canada has long been and continues to be one of the safest countries in the world. Although firearm homicides decreased between 1975 and 2003, even one death, or one violent episode involving guns, is one too many. When our communities challenge that it is decreasing, I am sure the reason is that statistics do not matter if people feel unsafe in their communities. People in my riding are very concerned about this issue, as are people in other ridings. It is important that we do everything we possibly can to ensure the laws are there to protect Canadians.

The Liberal government implemented a wide variety of measures in order to make our streets safer. We had a very successful crime prevention strategy that involved more than imprisonment. There is much more required than just imprisonment, which is why the former Liberal government took a more proactive role with a wide range of measures to stem gun violence and crack down on organized crime.

Since 2002 our anti-gang legislation has meant new offences and tougher sentences, including life in prison for involvement with criminal organizations. It is currently being used in cities like mine, Toronto, where it has been used numerous times. It is a tool the police are very pleased to have and they use it to its maximum amount.

We also broadened powers to seize the proceeds and property of criminal organizations. As well, we increased funding for the national crime prevention strategy, which is something again, we cared very much about and it was very effective. The decrease in crime clearly is because the Liberal government's crime strategy was effective and it continues to be effective.

Since it was launched in 1998 the national crime prevention strategy has helped numerous communities across Canada by giving them the tools, the knowledge, and the support that they need to deal with the root causes of crime at the local level, which is where it has to start. It has supported more than 5,000 projects nation-wide dealing with serious issues like family violence, school problems, and drug abuse.

These are just some of the measures that my party, while in government, undertook. Our campaign was working, hence, the reason there has been a decrease in crime, especially in violent crime. Whether funding programs to prevent crime or ensuring that violent criminals are brought to justice, the Liberal Party while in government was and now continues to be committed to protecting our communities.

Even though we are now in opposition, we, the Liberals, have been dealing seriously with crime legislation for the past year and a half while the Conservatives have been playing partisan games and doing everything they can to prevent those bills from being passed. We actually put more effort into passing the government's crime bills in the last session than the Conservatives did. So, we will not take any lectures from them on how we should be proceeding. Had they not blocked it, the legislation would have been passed and enacted already.

People will remember that on October 26, 2006 the Liberals made the very first offer to fast track a package of justice bills through this House. In spite of the government saying something different, we made every effort to work with the Conservatives to ensure the passage of anything that would make our country safer. This included Bill C-9, as amended; Bill C-18, on DNA identification; Bill C-19, on street racing; Bill C-22, on the age of consent; Bill C-23, on criminal procedures; and Bill C-26, on payday loans. All were important legislation.

The Conservatives like to claim, as I said earlier, that the Liberals held up their justice bills, but anyone who has been paying any attention knows that simply is not true. We are doing our job as a responsible opposition party. We are certainly not going to play partisan politics with the Criminal Code. I would ask the government to keep that in mind so that we can work together in a positive way to ensure the safety of Canadians and our country.

The Liberal Party, while in government, made great progress on making our communities safer. As I mentioned earlier, we increased funding for the national crime prevention strategy. We took steps to prevent gun violence by cracking down on organized crime in a very concentrated effort across the country. We focused on attacking the root causes of why people get involved in organized crime. We worked together with all of the crime prevention people across the country and with all of the officials in the various policing jurisdictions, because it certainly takes a coordinated effort in order to tackle organized crime.

When we are back in government, and we look forward to and expect to be the government after the next election, we have our own plans.

A new Liberal government would immediately provide additional funds to the provinces so they could hire more police officers. We would give the RCMP money for 400 additional officers to help local police departments deal with guns and gang activity, organized crime and drug trafficking.

We would also ensure that more money was made available to the provinces to hire more crown attorneys, which continues to be a problem and clogs the courts. It is one thing to arrest people but it is another thing to get them through the system.

We would continue to support reverse onus bail hearings for those arrested for gun crimes. We would establish a fund that would help at-risk communities cover the cost of security in their places of worship, which was started by the previous Liberal government, but which unfortunately was abandoned by the Conservatives.

A new Liberal government would make sure that children in vulnerable neighbourhoods got the very best start in life. We hear that all the time. It costs approximately $120,000 a year for each person who is kept in prison. We would reverse that and invest right at the very beginning. We are talking about early learning programs and high risk communities.

I represent a high risk community and I talk to many of the kids and their parents. Those parents are struggling to keep their kids on the straight and narrow. They truly need a variety of programs and help at that point. I realize that the Conservatives understand that as well. It is important to be investing early so that we can keep kids out of the justice system and make sure they know they have options and alternatives in life so that they are not dragged into the drug and gang culture, which is clearly happening now.

Many of the parents I talk to, the single mothers, are frantic with worry. They are looking for other places to live where it will be safer, where their kids will not be drawn into the gang activity that is very prevalent in my own riding.

By ensuring that children get the best possible start in life, we will be encouraging them to become positive contributing members of society and do not fall victims to poverty and crime. From providing resources for young mothers to interact and to learn about nutrition, to supplying early learning opportunities for their precious children, our communities need our support and we must provide it.

We invested in many worthwhile crime prevention initiatives. A few of those programs are the gun violence and gang prevention fund, support for community based youth justice programs and partnerships to promote fair and effective processes, community investments through the youth employment strategy, and the justice department's programming and partnerships to provide hope and opportunities.

We also committed another $2 million to the city of Toronto in support of programming under the Liberal government's youth employment strategy. This was all part of the $122 million that was dedicated to the youth employment strategy programming to help youth across the country.

Conflict Mediation Services of Downsview was a not for profit organization that helped people and families, workplaces, schools and neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, its restorative justice program was not funded because priorities have changed of course with the new government, and that no longer fits into that grouping.

In closing, I would like to say that this legislation is important. We look forward to it getting through the House and being enacted as we all move forward in a joint effort to ensure safety. Our communities will appreciate it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about priorities and the truth.

Is it not the truth that when Bill C-9, the bill that would limit conditional or house arrest, was before Parliament, it was the Liberal Party that gutted it and made it possible for arsonists who burn down people's houses to still be eligible to go back to their own houses after sentencing? Those members made sure that clause was in there. Was that not part of it?

Is it not the truth that when the Conservatives brought in a bill for mandatory jail terms for people who commit serious firearms offences and the Liberal Party voted against it in the House of Commons, five Liberals could not stomach the official Liberal position on it and voted against their own party?

Is it not also the truth that when Liberals came forward with their so-called fast tracking they knew it needed the unanimous consent of the House, they already knew that the NDP and the Bloc did not support it, and they also knew that it was procedurally out of order, which was confirmed by the Speaker on two different occasions? Is that not the truth?

Finally, I would like to know from the hon. member how surprised she is that every single time the Leader of the Opposition has been asked about his priorities since June, he has never once mentioned criminal justice, fighting crime in this country or making our streets safer. When he put out his pseudo speech from the throne, there was not one single word about fighting crime. How surprised was she about that?

I bet none of those members were surprised, because it is not a priority for the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. minister that keeping our country and communities safe has always been a priority. It does not have to be something new. We do not have to bring it up as if we have never talked about it before.

Social justice, investing in our communities,and investing in our children and providing opportunities to ensure they get an education are the things that we ought to be focusing on. We have always focused on them so we are not going to have to make it a huge priority because it is an ongoing priority that we are going to continue to have.

It takes all of us in the House to work together. We tried. We made a legitimate offer to fast track this several times. The fact was that the government refused because it was playing games, nothing else. The Conservatives can stand there and accuse us of all kinds of things, but let me assure the House and any Canadians watching today that community safety is critically important to this party, as I would expect it to be for everybody in the House.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the debate we are having right now is on the NDP amendment, which would essentially allow for sentencing provisions later in sentences for dangerous offenders.

When the Conservatives came at this bill, the reason why the former justice minister was essentially fired was that a lot of the bills they put forward were not bills that would actually hold water. They were sort of done on the back of a napkin. They would not stand up to a charter challenge. As a result, it is the members in the other three corners of the House who have had to work to try to improve legislation that in so many cases was very poorly drafted. They just did not do their homework.

The NDP amendment would actually correct a big mistake that was made by the Conservatives in the drafting of this bill. Is the member supporting the NDP amendment? If not, why not?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say on that particular issue that it is our intention to support the things that are in the best interests of our country. We always have to make sure they are constitutionally sound.

However, I certainly share the comments he made in regard to legislation that was being put forward being written on the back of an envelope. Thank goodness we can send these bills off to committee where there can be some serious work done.

It is one thing to get a lot of great press because a party introduces tough on crime bills and all the rest of it. We did the process of being tough on crime and we did it in a way that still had a compassionate side to all of it.

As for suggesting that everything the Conservatives put forward was perfect, heaven help us if they had passed some of what they originally put forward. I am sure it would have been struck down by the courts at the very first opportunity.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to second the amendment to this legislation made by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. Essentially what the NDP amendment is doing is looking to provide provision for sentencing of dangerous offenders later in their sentence. There is no doubt that this is an improvement to the bill.

I mentioned earlier that a lot of the Conservative justice legislation was written very hastily and very poorly. That is why the former justice minister was fired. Then, in a number of cases when legislation was in a more advanced state and actually was going through the House and the Senate, the Conservatives pulled all that legislation back. They have been playing a lot of political games with legislation around crime and justice issues.

This is a case where clearly they are playing games. The NDP amendment would allow for provision of “dangerous offender” later in the sentence. The Conservatives' approach will surely not withstand a charter challenge, so their provisions for dangerous offender legislation simply will not hold water. It seems to be more of a cosmetic operation than anything that is going to have a practical application.

This amendment resolves that. It is not cosmetic. It has a very practical effect. I will explain why.

I live in a riding that was one of the residences of the balcony rapist, Mr. Paul Callow, who was released in the spring of 2007. A number of constituents approached me about this issue and asked why he was not designated a dangerous offender during the course of his incarceration.

As we know, the Criminal Code does not allow for that. The provision of dangerous offender can only take place in the first six months of a sentence. In Mr. Callow's case, even though he was sentenced for a number of horrendous crimes, it was not until later in his sentence that it turned out he had not gone through the appropriate treatment programs and that he had allegedly committed another offence while in prison.

As a result, he was kept for the entire duration of his sentence and then was unceremoniously dumped into New Westminster, British Columbia. No programs and no supports were provided to him. He was put into a homeless shelter that simply pushed him out every day, so he was walking the streets of New Westminster.

Does any of that make any sense? Of course not, but that is how the Conservatives approach these justice issues. They simply do not do the fundamental things that actually will make a difference in reducing the crime rate.

That is why the NDP amendment is here. In Mr. Callow's case, given the NDP amendment that is before the House, a judge would be able to, later in his sentence, look at the evidence, at the fact that he had not successfully gone through the treatment programs and at the fact of the alleged offence in prison, and would be able to designate that individual as a dangerous offender. It withstands a charter challenge.

The NDP amendment simply makes sense. It actually accomplishes the end that the Conservatives say they want to accomplish. Their proposed legislation, because it was hastily and poorly drafted, as are so many of the justice bills that have come from the government, simply will not withstand a charter challenge, which leaves us with the status quo. It leaves us with the same situation. If an individual like Mr. Callow is going through the same situation in the next couple of years, there is no legislation that will actually deal with that individual.

This cannot be a surprise to any of us. The Republican approach in the United States has been very similar. Rather than the Republicans doing the concrete fundamentals and getting things right in the justice system, many have accused the Republicans of actually trying to provoke an increased crime rate because somehow in the end that allows them to campaign politically on justice issues. They are not trying to get the substance done. They are trying to do political spin.

As for this government, we know that the Conservatives have gutted the same crime prevention programs that actually reduce the crime rate. As we know, one dollar invested in crime prevention programs saves six dollars in policing costs, justice costs and penal costs later on, and it means there are no victims.

If the government were really serious about justice issues, it would be investing heavily in crime prevention. Why? Because there are no victims as the crime never occurs. Why? Because it actually reduces the crime rate. Why? Because it is extremely cost effective. A buck there saves six dollars later on, so from the taxpayers' point of view as well it makes more sense.

Instead of investing heavily in crime prevention, the Conservatives have cut back in crime prevention. Instead of investing in alcohol and drug treatment programs, they have cut back. Instead of investing in youth at risk programs to reduce those youths at risk and turn them away from a potential life of crime, they have cut back. Instead of investing in building safer communities programs and providing safety audits for buildings and communities, they have cut back. Instead of investing in community policing, they have cut back.

Where have the Conservatives put their money? Into billions and billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts. We saw $16 billion in corporate tax cuts in the autumn financial statement. They are essentially shovelling money at the corporate sector when these fundamentals of community policing and crime prevention are simply not being taken care of.

We have to ask why the Conservatives are refusing the NDP amendment, which effectively would make absolutely certain that there are no future cases like that of the balcony rapist, Mr. Paul Callow. Why would the Conservatives resist putting in place a common sense solution that actually can be in place as soon as we adopt the legislation? Why would they rather go with a poorly drafted version of the bill that simply will be thrown out? It simply will not resist charter scrutiny.

We have to ask these questions about to what degree the Conservatives are serious. I raised the issue around the Republican style of actually provoking a higher crime rate because I have seen how quickly the Conservatives react on issues such as that. We have seen them use political spin. We have certainly not seen them approach this with the type of seriousness and responsibility that is required by these issues.

We have seen the government of Manitoba, for example, an NDP government, taking very effective measures on crime prevention. We do not see this from the Conservative government.

I implore my colleagues in the Conservative Party to not just blindly vote the party line, but rather, since they know there are problems with this bill, I urge them to support and vote for the NDP amendment that will allow for the provision of dangerous offender later in sentencing, thus making sure that these kinds of cases never occur again. I ask them to vote for Canada. I ask them to not just vote blindly the way the Conservative whip tells them to vote.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about a subject that is very important to Canadians.

First of all, I am happy to congratulate the member for having some convictions. Although I disagree with his convictions, at least he has some. That is in stark contrast to our Liberal colleagues, who oppose this bill 100% but are pretending to support it in order to avoid the electoral wrath that would go along with standing in the way of the tackling violent crime act.

The Liberal Party voted against mandatory jail time for gun criminals. The Liberal Senate blocked passage of the bill to raise the age of sexual protection. I am working hard to raise the age of sexual consent in this country because it is necessary to protect our youngsters against the threats that Internet predators pose. The Liberals opposed such a move in the Senate.

The Liberals are opposed to this bill, but they are flip-flopping because their constituents are forcing them to pass this bill, and that is a good thing. We need the tackling violent crime act in order to keep our streets safe. That is why I am a proud supporter of this bill and proud to stand four-square with our justice minister and our Prime Minister to tackle violent crime.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was no question there, of course. Unfortunately, that seemed to be the just the platitudes that we get from the Conservative government. I am just astounded by the Conservatives' inability to deal fundamentally with issues of crime and justice in a serious and responsible way.

It now has been seven months since the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, the member for Surrey North and I called on the government to allow for sentencing provisions later in sentence for dangerous offenders to avoid the kind of case that we have seen with the balcony rapist, to stop it from ever occurring again, and also to allow that safety measure for a judge to then judge, based on the evidence, whether or not someone should be designated as a dangerous offender later in sentence. At that time, the Conservatives refused.

We had the member for Windsor—Tecumseh present motions at the justice committee. The Conservatives refused again.

Now we have the NDP amendment and it seems that the Conservatives are resisting again. It just does not make sense. When they know their bill does not work, why do they not accept the NDP improvement?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an excellent overview of this legislation, including the amendment that my colleague from Windsor put forward. I want to thank my colleague from Windsor for the excellent work he has done. He has provided common sense and insight to this because that is what has been lacking in the debate.

When I hear those who say that we will tackle violent crime and get tough on crime, that is fine, but when we are talking about legislation, we have to be smart on crime and what we are doing. If we do not think through what we are doing and how we write legislation, then we waste a lot of time and we are not as effective as we can be.

If this is to be a charter challenge, it requires some reflection. I did not hear from the Minister of Justice today a clear answer on what other opinions he has as a minister on whether or not this will be charter proof.

I have a question for my colleague. Was he aware that one of the most eminent experts, who is a prosecutor on this dangerous offenders designation, Mr. Cooper, had tried to provide the Minister of Justice with some common sense solutions? Was he aware of the fact that the committee did not hear from him, the minister obviously did not hear from him, but that our colleague from Windsor had heard from him and that Mr. Cooper provided some common sense solutions like our friend from Windsor.

What does he think of this lack of oversight, lack of analysis and lack of common sense?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre ignored the signals I was giving him that he was running out of time. There is now 30 seconds left for the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question so I am glad additional time was given.

The hon. member is absolutely right. Not just Mr. Cooper, but a wide variety of experts have said very clearly that this legislation will be thrown out under a charter challenge, which is why the NDP brought forward this amendment. We are simply saying that we have to be smart on crime. We see the Conservatives taking the republican playbook, which is simply--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Paul's.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we should not even be here debating this bill, which should have received royal assent last spring. The government has been playing games with Parliament. It is not governing and it uses Parliament as a political playground. It has shown a complete lack of respect towards Parliament.

The government refused the fast tracking offer of our party and it actively delayed these important initiatives while hoping for an election last spring in which they could run on their crime and punishment agenda.

As was mentioned by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, I too would like to remind this House of the scenario from last spring. Bill C-10 received first reading on May 6 and was delayed 38 days before second reading, 146 days before it was sent to committee. The committee met 105 days and then from the committee report to report stage it took another 75 days. From report stage to third reading, it took 22 days.

Bill C-22 received first reading on June 22, 2006 and was delayed 130 days before second reading, 142 days before it was sent to committee. The bill was 29 days in committee, four days until the committee reported, 11 days to report stage, and then to third reading on the following day.

Bill C-27 received first reading on October 17, 2006 and was delayed 199 days before second reading on May 4, 2007, four days to committee, and then 36 days to report stage.

Bill C-32 received first reading on November 21, 2006 and was delayed 77 days before second reading, 113 days until it was sent to committee, and then 20 days in committee and the committee reported the following day.

Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code, received first reading November 23, 2006 and was delayed 123 days before second reading, two days before it went to the committee where it was studied for 61 days, and then one day until it was reported in the House. It took five days to report stage and one day until third reading.

This is no way to tackle violent crime. In fact, again the government is simply posturing and using the Parliament of this country as a little electoral toy, instead of actually taking this seriously. The Conservatives are only posturing. I have never been so disappointed, from the committees to the behaviour here, to see that these parliamentarians have not been allowed to act like parliamentarians because of this appetite for an election and a majority.

Last evening, at the End Exclusion 2007 conference, one of the members of the disability community said to me that social policy and social justice was homeless in the government. In terms of tackling violent crime, women with disabilities, who are the most abused, most often the victims of violent crime, want to see some policies that will affect them.

The seniors that we met with the member for London North Centre are very upset in terms of the people looking after them. Elder abuse no longer has automatic charges and the poor, vulnerable seniors are still asked as to whether or not they want to press charges.

From early learning and child care where we know we can help effect the behaviour of young children, to bullying programs, literacy programs, to cutting women's programs that affect the Interval houses, to the summer jobs program where kids can finally maybe find out that they are good at something, the government has consistently cut the prevention and the causes of violent crime.

I remember in 1995 when I ran provincially. We knew then what premier Harris was about to do. He cut the arts programs, the music programs, the sports programs, the homework clubs and the family counselling, and 10 years later we ended up with terrible trouble with guns and gangs.

At the Tumivut shelter in my riding, when I meet with some of the members of the black community, it has been absolutely horrifying to hear that the results of those cuts were really to people who did not feel included. The first time this young man said that he had ever felt included was when he joined a gang. The first time he was told that he was good at anything was when he was shoplifting.

It is very upsetting to see that the government just does not understand that investing in programs allows kids to find talents in art and music and find summer jobs. It is absolutely horrifying to think that this idea of just locking up people and throwing away the key will be the way to get a safer society.

Canada used to boast the lowest recidivism rate in the world because of what happened to people in prisons. That meant an education. They might even get a bachelor's degree. Some of them have even obtained law degrees. With anger management and drug rehabilitation programs, they have been able to come out with new talents, meet new friends, and never reoffend again.

We do not want our prisons to become schools for criminality, where people are trained for a life of crime. It is hugely important, as we look forward to the real challenge of tackling violent crime in the long term, that the government address the causes of crimes and the kinds of programs that are so important in our prison system.

I feel that I cannot stand in the House without commenting that the government has rendered this place and the committees of the House to an all time low in my 10 years as a parliamentarian. Members of Parliament are not allowed to speak freely in committee, they are scripted and rehearsed in the Prime Minister's Office. There is this unbelievable inability of cabinet ministers to even speak or show up at events they had booked themselves. As the Clerk of the House of Commons so often reminds us, this building is to be something more than to hang Christmas lights on.

It is appalling that we do not understand that the job of chairs of committees is not to dictate. Their job is to find the will of the committee and put it forward. They are not to have, like what happened yesterday in the health committee, the minister whispering in the chair's ear in the middle of the meeting. It is not up to the chair of a committee to decide, with 15 minutes to go, that the minister gets 15 minutes to sum up.

There seems to be an absolute lack of understanding of the role of the House and the role of committees in terms of really calling the government to account. Government reports to Parliament. It is not the other way around. No amendments mean no democracy. This is a travesty of the role of citizens.

I hope that in the next election people will see that the ballot box question will be whether citizens have a role at all after the next election because citizens have been silenced, members of Parliament have been silenced, and ministers are being instructed what to do. I worry for the democracy of this country should these people be allowed to govern any longer.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I wanted to ask the hon. member.

Some years ago there was a very tragic circumstance in downtown Hamilton. An offender who had been charged and convicted, charged and convicted, and charged and convicted walked across the road from what was purportedly a safe federal release site into Jackson Square Mall and repeatedly stabbed a young woman, who amazingly survived. The assistant crown attorney in Hamilton spent 18 months of his career trying to make sure that the dangerous offender label was put on this man, so that he could not do this again.

I would like to ask the member whether she is for our crown attorneys spending a year and a half to two years trying to get dangerous offenders off the street before they harm women, children or men again? Or whether she is for the Conservative provision that would allow crown attorneys to put the onus on defence attorneys when someone is repeatedly charged and convicted with violent, terrible crimes, so that they can prove to the public that the accused people are worthy of release?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of dangerous offenders has been a very difficult one for all of us. I think even my profession probably has not done what it should have to have proper assessments in terms of true psychopathy and the people who really do not know the difference between right and wrong. The people who think that what is right is what they get away with and what is wrong is what they get caught doing are a danger to our communities. We need ways in which we can determine the people who will not benefit from years and years of treatment and therapy and who really need to be off our streets.

We need to provide the courts the capacity to identify these people and to deal with them in a very serious way so kids who make a mistake once can really turn their lives around like the amazingly inspirational Matt Geigen-Miller, who appeared before the justice committee a number of years ago. He showed that getting into trouble can be turned around. Kids can come out to an absolutely amazing life of contributing to other kids, as he did.

This is a very important differentiation and I hope the government will put the resources necessary to this so we can deal with and diagnose dangerous offenders in an effective way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating is the amendment put forward by the NDP. It would delete the clause with respect to declaring a person a dangerous offender and putting a reverse onus on it.

While the member spoke, she was all over the map. She did not really direct much of her comment to that specific amendment. However, it is true the whole issue of justice is a large issue, and she covered a lot more than just the motion before the House.

If she looks at the amendment to delete the clause on reverse onus, she must agree that this is not a lightly thought motion or concept. First, the list of items under which one is charged is very serious. We are talking about rape and murder, not once, not twice but three times. By then surely people will say that all these things the Liberals put in place to help prevent them from becoming a criminal did not work. All the things they have put in place to help them while in prison to learn not to be criminals have not worked. For the safety of others, we need to keep these people restrained on a more permanent basis for the protection of society. Surely this is not something she would be against.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in all conscience we cannot support the NDP motion. We believe it is our obligation as a society to make this diagnosis as early as possible and to then put the accused in the proper place that will keep society safe.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, protecting citizens against violent crime is very important in my community as it is to all of us. However, crime rates have actually gone down over the past 10 years, as we all know, but there much more to be done. I think we could all agree with that as well.

We must tackle the problem of violent crime, but we must also do it responsibly. We cannot simply lock people up and throw away the keys, as the government obviously wants to do.

We have worked hard to improve on these bills from the last session, despite the Conservative government's attempt to obstruct its own legislation by not calling the bills forward for debate in the House of Commons.

We proposed to fast track the legislation we supported in order to protect Canadians, but the Conservatives refused to pass their own legislation. I think they are still focused on being in opposition where all they did was obstruct government bills. They continue to do the same with their own government.

I want to talk about how violent crime affects women in the country and also try to get the government to see that we can do more to prevent crime, rather than increase penalties and lock people away forever.

We see that even in U.S., where mandatory minimum sentences are in place, the government is moving away from this method because it simply does not work. It fills up prisons and does not help in rehabilitating the offender.

I believe it is better to prevent the crime in the first place. That way we do not have a criminal and we do not have a victim. It is so much better not to have victim. When prevention fails to stop an individual from committing a crime, we must ensure that the rehabilitation process is in place and is effective.

I want to give an example of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and how it is applied because that is a major area of discussion these days as well. Quebec, for instance, has a much lower recidivism problem with respect to young offenders than other parts of the country. Why? It is because its prevention program is much better, but also the supportive program, the rehabilitation program, is much stronger and much more effective.

In fact a few years back Chile signed an agreement with Quebec to use their model—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on a point of order.