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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find there to be a curious inconsistency in the Liberal thinking.

In some of the other bills that we have been discussing, vis-à-vis mandatory minimum sentences, for example, the Liberals have been adamant that we ought not to give the judge that discretion, and yet now they are saying that they want to take away from the crown prosecutor the discretion of whether or not to bring forward the designated dangerous offender status for a convicted person.

I would like to know why they are willing to give discretion in one case but quite adamant to take it away in this case.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, he basically said that the Liberals were against mandatory minimums and asked why we should not give the judges that discretion.

If a piece of legislation has a mandatory minimum, there is no judicial discretion, which is proof positive that the member has no idea what he is talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my voice to the many voices in Canada that support this legislation. Canadians across this country want dangerous and violent offenders off the street.

Whenever we do incarcerate these people and then let them go and they reoffend, Canadians find that completely unacceptable. What we are trying to do here, and what the legislation would accomplish, concerns the fact that too many people are walking out and reoffending. Rather than having this catch and release system, Canadians want to ensure these dangerous offenders stay incarcerated.

Peter Whitmore is a good example. The Liberal Party wants people like him thrown back out on the streets and back out into the public. Peter Whitmore abducted children in the Maritimes and in Saskatchewan. If we would have had this legislation, that would never have happened.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's support for the bill because we came to this place to announce our support for the bill and to indicate very clearly that there were two areas of concern where amendments should be appropriately considered in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before the bill passes.

I hope the member will follow through and give due support to very sound amendments to Bill C-27.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member accused me of not knowing what I was talking about when I compared their stand against mandatory minimum sentences, which would take away the discretion of the judge, and their support, as they have stated several times here, for making it mandatory for the crown to make this provision, in other words, instead of having them say that it is possible to do it, it must be done. This has nothing to do with the judge.

I do know what I am talking about. This has to do with the legislation and the proposed amendment where they want to change it, and it is inconsistent.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the amendments have nothing to do with mandatory minimums. The member should read the material and listen to the speech.

The point that I made to the member was that if a piece of legislation prescribes a mandatory minimum, that is not a matter of judicial discretion, it is a fact. That is why I say that the member is contradicting himself. I would be happy to speak with him and explain it to him in a more fulsome way after the debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that all members present would be delighted to give unanimous consent that we see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.