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.

Criminal Code

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague made a very strong case for the bill.

I was quite disturbed by the comments made by the Liberal member who spoke a few moments ago about how a bill like this might apply to a certain mentality. I find that very degrading to Canadians who look for a government to strengthen the justice system. The bill does that and does it very emphatically.

We just heard a member across the way ask how the bill would help rehabilitate. In my view rehabilitation is a good outcome, but it is not why we send people to prison in the first place. We do that to keep our communities safer. Prisons were created for that reason.

Does my hon. colleague think the safety of the public should trump the rehabilitation of criminals?

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have to answer the question?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member has one minute and fifteen seconds.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

What precision, Mr. Speaker.

I sincerely believe that what is being proposed here today is an act to protect the people who are often the victims of criminals.

The days when criminals were protected by the justice system are over. People will now be able to walk freely and in peace in every Canadian city, and everywhere in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to salute my father, who is currently in the intensive care unit at the hospital, for cancer treatment.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace). The bill would amend the dangerous offender and long term provisions of the Criminal Code on a number of counts.

I suggest we look at the current situation in our country. When we discuss justice issues, the discussion tends to be fraught with opinion as opposed to fact. It is wise for us to take a look at the facts of the situation right now.

Over the last 10 to 15 years, violence has declined in most of the country with the exception of a recent blip in a couple of large centres, particularly Toronto. Most criminal behaviour has declined with a couple of exceptions, which I will get to in a little while. That is important to note. There are many theories as to why that is the case.

Ultimately one of the most important responsibilities of Parliament is to protect innocent civilians. It is our duty to ensure that we have provisions in the Criminal Code to prevent individuals from committing acts against innocent civilians. If these individuals persist, then we must ensure that they are put in jail. We also have a responsibility to prevent individuals from moving in that direction. We also have a responsibility to look at the antecedents to crime. All of these things are our responsibility.

I want to roll back the clock and look at the earliest aspects of criminal behaviour. I also want to look at what is taking place in our jails. I used to be a correctional officer many years ago. We know that 40% to 50% of people incarcerated suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a leading cause of brain damage at birth. What a tragedy it is that we as a Parliament have been unable to work with our provincial counterparts and other individuals to implement solutions that would prevent this from occurring.

When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol or takes certain drugs, particularly during the first three to six months, it does irreversible brain damage to the fetus. When these individuals grow up, they have IQs running around 60 to 70. We know there is a much greater proclivity for these individuals to fall into criminal behaviour. The tragedy of it all is that it is entirely preventable.

I encourage the government to look at best practises not only in our country, but in other parts of the world, and work with its provincial counterparts to implement solutions that would reduce this situation, which is a quiet tragedy within communities across our country.

If I were to say there is a program that reduces youth crime by 60%, saves the taxpayer $7 for every $1 invested, has a 25-plus years track record and has been retrospectively analyzed, would members not say it was a good thing? Of course they would. Such a program exists and it is the head start program for children. This program has been used in places like New Brunswick, Ypsilanti, Michigan, Hawaii and other centres, and has been proven to have a profound impact on youth crime, a 60% reduction. Why do we not work with our provincial counterparts to implement such a program?

My province of British Columbia has had a tragic decrease in support for children. This is in part due to the federal government's cuts to the provinces for the early learning and child care program. I encourage the government to look at the early learning aspect. A lot of this could be implemented quite simply and not expensively. The key to this is bringing parents into the schools. The program does not work if just the children or just the parents participate. If both are brought together, it works. Here are a few areas upon which the government could do this and how it could accomplish this goal.

If we encourage teachers to bring parents into the school for two hours every second week where they would talk about proper nutrition. A can of Coke and a bag of potato chips for breakfast is not an appropriate breakfast. Second, is talk about literacy. Third, is physical education. Fourth, is appropriate discipline and child care. If we bring that into the system we will be able to—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating Bill C-27 today and I encourage the member to focus on that. I know it is tough over there in the Liberal Party these days to be focused and talk about the issues at hand. Today, we are talking about Bill C-27, reverse onus, dangerous offenders. Going into detail about crime prevention, although it is interesting and it is something on which I agree with him, it is not the bill that we are discussing right now. I ask him to address the debate that is taking place in the House today.

[The Acting Speaker, Ken Epp]

Indeed, the member for Selkirk—Interlake makes a valid point and I would urge the member to speak as specifically to the bill as he could.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing a part of it. I will take the member's words under advisement and get to other aspects of the bill. However, I feel compelled, because we are discussing dangerous offenders, to offer some solutions upon which we can prevent these problems from occurring.

If the government were to listen to solutions from members across the House and indeed from their constituents, it would find some solutions that would allow us to, hopefully, have fewer and fewer people under the designation of dangerous offenders. The head start program works very well and is very useful at reducing the incidence of youth crime in general, including the aspect of dangerous offenders.

On the bill, one of the key obligations of the government is to ensure that repeat dangerous offenders are put in jail so they cannot harm others. When dealing with the judicial system, and this is a problem we have had in British Columbia and I dare say in all provinces, there has to be a better integration between the justice system, social services and the health care system. In dealing with individuals who have committed these crimes, it is a complex situation. No two are the same. We need to have an integrated system in order to differentiate among those individuals who primarily have a psychiatric problem, those who are mentally competent and have committed heinous crimes and those who have committed heinous crimes on an ongoing basis. We have to weigh all of those.

One of the problems with this bill is that the implementation of it will put pressure on the penitentiary system, particularly the provincial and federal systems. I would encourage the government, if it is going to go through with this, which it will, to work with the provinces and the people in the federal penitentiary system to ensure that the resources are available to do the job.

The federal government has announced recently that it will cut 300 correctional officers. That does not square with this bill. I encourage the government to please look at the downward pressure the bill, when implemented, will have our federal and provincial penal systems and ensure that they have the individuals to do the job.

For our federal correctional officers, the government promised a number of changes that were welcome, and many of us fought a long time for them, but they have not come to pass. I strongly encourage the federal government to implement the solutions that it announced early last year. Implement them for our correctional officers and do it now.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments about crime prevention.

One of the reasons I became a parliamentarian was I wanted to make sure that our communities were safer. I wanted to make sure that my own family could wander the streets and be in a safe and secure setting. What I hear from my constituents across my riding of Selkirk--Interlake is that they want crime dealt with.

They are concerned that in the past dozen years or so it has been a catch and release system with so many criminals. Essentially we want to make sure that dangerous offenders have to prove they are worthy to go back onto the streets with the reverse onus protocol that we are bringing forward in Bill C-27.

I am hearing accolades across my riding and across the province of Manitoba. We are hearing from provincial and territorial governments across the country that they want Bill C-27 brought into force.

There is talk that this is going to cost us too much money. Currently there are only 360 dangerous offenders registered in Canada. The reverse onus protocol that we are bringing in might increase that number by 50%. We are not talking about a huge cost. We are talking about a corrections service that can handle this increased uptake. I am confident that this will bring about the results that Canadians want.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I take the member's comments very well. All of our constituents share the same concerns.

There are questions of whether or not the reverse onus is actually constitutional, so I would encourage him to ask the justice officials to explain that.

He is right in terms of being able to ensure that prosecutors can more easily designate somebody as a dangerous offender. Right now the situation is too complicated and difficult. We need to ensure there is an easier way to designate those individuals who have shown a pattern of repeat dangerous offences against individuals.

It has to be confined to violent offences, sexual offences and pedophilia. I think if he would speak to Crown prosecutors, they could give us a way to enable them to do that without adopting the reverse onus provision, which provision may be unconstitutional and may prevent this bill from going forward.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. He gave a lot of statistics. I would say about 95% of his statistics were about 90% wrong, but anyway, it is easy enough to stand up and throw statistics around. I would encourage him to table the statistics and the basis for which he gave them.

I would like to know what the hon. member says about a unanimous resolution of provincial justice deputy ministers, unanimous of all the provinces in Canada, asking that we pass this bill expeditiously.

It is an entirely reasonable bill. The reverse onus provisions in other areas of our Criminal Code have been held to be constitutional. In fact, this bill is entirely in line with what Canadians are saying we have to do as a government.

We have to remember that the reverse onus provision only kicks in after someone has committed a serious designated offence three times and has been convicted for them. We are not saying the third time the offender is locked up, as the opposition likes to say. What we are saying is that on the third time, the onus is on the offender to prove that he or she is not a danger and should not be designated a dangerous offender.

Across the country it is unanimous. The provinces are saying to pass this bill. Why is the member's party dragging its feet?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca should know there is half a minute to reply.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you are a hard taskmaster.

I will deal with the statistics aspect, because it deals with a broad range of issues. I would encourage the member to refer to Statistics Canada, because the statistics came from Statistics Canada. They are his own statistics, in fact, as a member of the government. I would encourage him to look at them because they actually deal with facts as opposed to opinion.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Canadian Wheat Board.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.

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

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-27, which is before us for debate and has been for a bit of time now, there are two essentially different issues that are being addressed. Almost all the debate up to this point has been with regard to the dangerous offender portion. As we have heard from the three opposition parties, including the NDP, none of us intends to support this legislation at the vote on second reading.