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

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to Bill C-27, an act that amends part XXIV of the Criminal Code regarding the dangerous offender provisions in section 810.1 and 810.2 of the peace bonds.

I wish I could be as happy with respect to Bill C-22, in which the NDP voted against sending this to committee and not supporting the age of protection bill. I am very concerned about that, and I think Canadians will be too.

Bill C-27 is a significant step to strengthen the existing provisions of the Criminal Code that target the most dangerous and high risk offenders in the country. It follows through on our commitments to tackle the very real problem of dangerous repeat predators who are released into our communities without adequate sentencing and management. This is common sense legislation.

Canadians have told us that steps must be taken to deal with these individuals. I am standing in this House today to let Canadians know that Canada's new government agrees with them. Our government cares deeply about safe streets and security. The government is going to stand up for Canadians by making it easier for crown attorneys to get dangerous offender designations on those who deserve them.

This bill places the onus on predators who have committed two prior serious violent sexual crimes to convince the court why they should not be designated a dangerous offender and by lengthening and strengthening the terms of peace bonds made pursuant to section 810 of the Criminal Code.

Simply put, our government is going to the wall on an issue that matters most to Canadians. Getting things done for families and taxpayers means keeping our most dangerous criminals off the streets and behind bars. Canadians want, and deserve, nothing less.

These same concerns have been expressed to us by all provincial attorneys general, by police, by victims and, most important, by individual Canadians from all walks of life. However, I want to make it clear from the beginning that these reforms were very carefully tailored. This bill would achieve a proper balance between the rights of Canadians to be safe from violent and sexual crimes with the fundamental rights of individuals facing lengthy prison terms.

The bill focuses on reforms in two areas of the Criminal Code. First and foremost, we are proposing several significant amendments that would provide crown prosecutors with enhanced abilities to obtain dangerous offender designations where it is justifiable to do so.

Second, we are proposing a number of amendments to the specific peace bond provisions that target high risk sexual and violent predators, doubling their duration to two years and clarifying the extent of conditions that may be imposed by a court.

Currently, the dangerous offender designation in part XXIV of the Criminal Code is arguably the toughest sanction available in Canadian law. As the law now stands, each and every time an individual is designated as a dangerous offender under section 753, the sentence imposed is indeterminate, with no opportunity for parole for seven years.

In reality, very few of these individuals are released. Most live out the rest of their lives behind bars. Dangerous offenders, on average, are imprisoned for even longer periods than individuals serving a life sentence for murder. That is why the Supreme Court of Canada has referred to the dangerous offender application as the harshest sentence available in Canadian law, reserved for the worst of the worst.

That being said, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the indeterminate sentence that goes with the dangerous offender designation is constitutional where it is the only reasonable way that we can protect the public.

The Lyons decision was the first challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada on the dangerous offender designation after the 1982 entrenchment into the Constitution Act of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court indicated that the provision was constitutional primarily because the sentencing judge retained discretion to refuse to impose the indeterminate sentence.

In 1997, a decade after the decision in Lyons, Parliament proclaimed significant amendments to the dangerous offender provisions. Prior to 1997, where an individual was declared to be a dangerous offender, the court had the choice of sentencing the individual to an indeterminate sentence, with no parole for three years, or to a determinate sentence of any length suitable in the circumstances.

The 1997 changes removed this discretion of the court and made the indeterminate sentence automatic for every dangerous offender designation while lengthening the duration before the first parole application to seven years.

The 1997 amendments also created the option of the long term offender designation where the individual did not meet the onerous standards for dangerous offender designation. This new instrument allowed the court to impose, in addition to a regular sentence of imprisonment, a court ordered period of post-release community supervision of up to 10 years.

In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its first ruling on the constitutionality of the 1997 changes to the dangerous offender designation. The case was the Johnson decision, an appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. At stake was whether the 1997 changes requiring the indeterminate sentence with no discretion had gone too far.

While the Supreme Court of Canada in Johnson upheld the 1997 changes as constitutional, it also held that in fact the sentencing court did retain its ultimate discretion in the matter. Specifically, the court said that even where the Crown had fully discharged its burden to prove that the offender fully met all of the prerequisite criteria of a dangerous offender designation under subsection 753.(1), the sentencing judge still had a duty to exercise his discretion by determining whether the risk the offender posed to the general public could be successfully managed under a lesser sentence.

The court indicated that before a sentencing judge could impose the indeterminate sentence, it had to explicitly consider the specific issue of whether the individual's risk to society could be successfully managed under the long term offender designation or any other sentence.

While this decision was consistent with the court's previous decision in Lyons and reflected longstanding principles of sentencing, the impact of Johnson was felt across the country. There was a flurry of appeals filed by existing dangerous offenders who argued that the sentencing judge had failed to consider the long term offender sentence option as required by the Supreme Court.

In the 18 months subsequent to Johnson, over 30 such appeals were argued, resulting in 20 orders for a new dangerous offender hearing because of the error. The number of annual designations was halved from about 25 per year to about 12 designations due primarily to confusion in the sentencing courts of how to apply the principle in Johnson in practice.

Following Johnson, the Crown's success rate of applications fell well below 50% whereas the traditional rate was about 70%. Those individuals who previously would have faced dangerous offender applications simply were not subject to that any more as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

It was in this context that the new government committed to develop a policy to respond to this unacceptable situation. Throughout this process we were all encouraged by the support of provincial and territorial ministers of justice. This legislation is an effective and coherent response to the changes brought about by the court decision in Johnson.

I would like to outline the changes that are contained in this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry, but the minister will have to do that in the time that remains to him when we return to the bill at some future date.

The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

It seems to me I remember interrupting the Minister of Justice when he had 11 minutes remaining in his speech. We look forward to hearing the remainder now.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the highlights of my speech and I am glad you are back to hear the rest of it.

I was talking about the context of the development of the dangerous offender legislation in reaction to the Johnson situation, whereby many of the applications were no longer undertaken by the crown because of the difficulties created by the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to outline the changes that are contained in this bill.

First, we have addressed what we believe to be problems of consistency across jurisdictions. Specifically, we do not believe that crowns across Canada are always seeking dangerous offender designations whenever appropriate. The legislation requires crown attorneys to make a declaration to the court in certain situations of whether they have considered and intend to pursue a dangerous offender designation. This is found in the new proposed section 752.01.

This operates in reference to the offence list defined in the amended section 752 referred to as the designated offence list. I would note that the designated offence list includes all of the offences listed in the primary offence list, plus all of the other serious violent personal offences listed in the Criminal Code.

Under new section 752.01, once an individual has been sentenced for an offence, which in the opinion of the prosecutor is a serious personal injury offence as currently defined in section 752 of the code, the crown is directed to consider whether the individual has at least two prior convictions of a designated violent or sexual offence that received a sentence of at least two years.

This provision will ensure the crown will more consistently consider whether it should pursue a dangerous offender designation. While this is not intended in any way to bind either the court or the offender as to the sentence that will actually be pursued, it is nonetheless important to encourage greater diligence in sentencing repeat violent and sexual offenders.

The next proposed amendment is one that has received a great deal of attention, the new so-called reverse onus provision. The first thing to remember is that the dangerous offender hearing occurs after a conviction. We are not dealing with an innocent person. We are dealing with a convicted criminal, a criminal who has been convicted of a very serious offence.

In some contexts there are automatic prison sentences. For example, in the case of certain firearms offences and murder they are automatic. There is no hearing other than an automatic imposition of at least the minimum.

In this particular case, the offender will be presumed innocent until the trial judge makes a finding of guilt. After that the crown makes the choice whether to proceed with a dangerous offender designation. Post-Johnson, we believe that in many cases individuals who are at real risk to commit further violent sexual offences are escaping a dangerous offender designation. This amendment is designed to address this situation.

As it currently stands, the crown prosecutor must apply to the court before a dangerous offender hearing can proceed and the court will order the hearing based on whether the individual has in fact been convicted of a serious personal injury offence, that is the smaller list of serious offences which are defined in section 752, and whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the individual will be found to be a dangerous offender. We are not changing that process. The crown retains the full discretion as to whether or not a dangerous offender application should be brought forward.

The provincial attorney general must still file his or her consent in writing before the application can proceed to the next step. The judge must still order a psychiatric assessment before the hearing can proceed. The existing process continues to apply to any situation where the prosecutor is of the view that a dangerous offender application is merited.

Once the hearing is under way, the new reverse onus provision will only take effect if the following prerequisites are met: first, the crown has to satisfy the court that there are two prior convictions from a new list of 12 serious sexual or violent primary designated offences in section 752; second, each of the previous convictions must have carried at least a two year sentence; third, the court must be satisfied that the current offence for which the offender has been found guilty, the predicate offence, must also be one of the primary offences; and finally, the court must be satisfied that the predicate offence would otherwise merit at least a two year sentence.

If these prerequisite conditions are proven, then the crown is presumed to have satisfied the court that the offender meets the prerequisites of a dangerous offender designation under section 753(1). The offender is then given the opportunity to rebut this presumption on a balance of probabilities.

I note that many individuals have suggested that this provision does not respect the charter of rights. I must respond that those individuals have failed to fully consider the impact not only of this provision, but of the following amendment in proposed section 753(1.2)

In the first place, I emphasize that the list of qualifying offences that trigger the reverse onus, the primary offences, is very narrow and carefully tailored. Again, it is a list of 12 offences. I note that every one of those offences carries at least a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. These are all very serious offences.

In our analysis we have determined that all of these offences commonly arise as a predicate offence and dangerous offender designations. Of the current 360 dangerous offenders, for example, about 80% had a predicate offence of one of the seven listed sexual offences from the primary list. For the remaining dangerous offenders, the vast majority were convicted of one of the remaining five offences on the primary list. The list was deliberately tailored to effect this reality.

We constructed the list to make sure that the very nature of each offence would satisfy the threshold criteria of a serious personal injury offence. We also avoided offences such as manslaughter and impaired driving causing death that, while on their face are serious, do not by their nature require the same intent to commit serious harm. Further, I emphasize that for the reverse onus to apply, each previous conviction must have received a sentence of at least two years which signals that the offence was serious. As an additional criteria the judge must be satisfied that the current offence would also be eligible for at least a two year penitentiary sentence.

We believe that if an offender has met all of these criteria, it is reasonable to presume that the person meets the prerequisites of a dangerous offender designation. There is a clear and rational connection between the triggering criteria and a finding that the individual is a dangerous offender. This justifies the presumption contained in this legislation. Based upon this analysis, I am firmly convinced that these provisions will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Again I point out that the reverse onus is fully rebuttable by the offender. I note that in all dangerous offender proceedings the defendant has access to legal aid if counsel cannot be afforded, and this allows access to independent expert psychiatric witnesses for the defence. If such expert witnesses are unable to place evidence countering the presumption, then the offender clearly should be deemed to fully meet the criteria of the dangerous offender designation.

I must point out that this does not end the extent of the constitutional protection built into the proposal. I want to emphasize that in every single case, even if the offender fails to satisfy the court that he or she does not meet the dangerousness criteria, the court still retains full discretion to refuse the dangerous offender indeterminate sentence.

This bill enshrines the discretion of the court to refuse to make the dangerous offender designation. We are making it clear that consistent with the principle laid out in Johnson, the sentencing judge may not impose an indeterminate sentence unless the court is satisfied that there is no lesser sentence available which can adequately protect the public.

We are acknowledging and embracing the need for the courts to retain their ultimate discretion in this matter and that is fully consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the Johnson and Lyons cases.

Given the narrow tailoring of the primary offence list and given the respect, now codified--it is important to mention that this is now codified--for the discretion of the judge to impose a fit sentence, I can stand before the House today and state with full confidence that I believe the legislation will withstand constitutional challenges. The ultimate judicial discretion is not touched. It is there and is now entrenched in the legislation.

In closing, I would remind the House that there is a long list of innocent people that have fallen to individuals with lengthy violent criminal records, Christopher Stephenson, Jonathan Wamback and Frank Groves to name a few. They are names that should haunt us until we as a nation summon the courage to take action and enact tougher legislation against dangerous offenders. How many more children are we prepared to sacrifice? How many more victims are we prepared to sacrifice? When will we join with the majority of Canadians who say enough is enough.

Our choice is simple: stand by and do nothing as more people fall victim to these predators, or send a message that Canadians have had enough.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a consensus that this is an important bill for Canadians.

The minister has asked the House for prompt consideration of Bill C-27. I understand that the steering committee of the justice committee has tried to calendar its work. The steering committee has found that there is a substantial backlog within the justice committee, to the extent that it may very well take the committee until the fall of next year before it can get through all the work that is necessary on the large number of bills that have been sent to the committee after passage at second reading.

If the minister is serious about this bill going through all stages of the legislative process, what steps is he prepared to take to ensure there is sufficient time for this bill to be considered by Parliament?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with our House leader specifically on that issue. I understand there may well be discussions going on between the House leaders.

If the hon. member has any other suggestions that he would like to make in respect of how we can expedite these types of bills, I would be only too pleased to hear him on that point.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for the minister.

We had understood that what reversed the presumption of innocence and triggered the process to identify someone as a dangerous offender was the fact that that individual had been convicted three times for offences on a certain list of offences. The minister spoke of 12 offences, but we were under the impression that the list of primary offences that appears in the bill contains 22. Thus, 22 offences were on the list, although the minister spoke of 12 in his speech.

Am I to understand that if a person was convicted three times for one of the 22 offences included on the list of primary offences, we would then begin the process described in the minister's speech? Can he please explain to us the difference between the list of 12 offences and the list of 22 offences that appear in the bill?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to clarify that the issue of presumption of innocence of course deals with an individual before that individual is convicted. We are now dealing with an individual who in fact has been convicted. That individual is no longer innocent; he is a convicted criminal.

There are two lists. As I understand how the lists work is that in respect of the primary designated offences, on the third offence there is a change in the presumption. The prior two offences, though, can be taken from the designated list as opposed to the primary designated list. It is in respect of the smaller list of offences where the actual presumption changes after the individual has been convicted, not the larger list, the more general designated list.

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

Mr. Speaker, people from my riding and in fact the greater city of Hamilton are listening quite closely to this debate for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that recently an assistant crown attorney spent almost two years developing a case against a repeat offender who brazenly went into a shopping mall in Hamilton and stabbed a woman 17 times and left her for dead. Miraculously she survived.

Will this make it easier for some of the crown attorneys to be able to establish a case of credibility? Will the reverse onus portion of this stand up constitutionally?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the Johnson case in the Supreme Court of Canada, the onus was in fact lower on the Crown to try to establish this designation. The Johnson case changed that and required the onus on the Crown, in respect of this sentencing provision, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was the only appropriate disposition. That is virtually an insurmountable onus to meet in this context.

What we are saying is where an individual has been convicted of two prior serious offences, where he or she has received at least a penitentiary term on each of them, on the third one it is clear that the individual has established a pattern of conduct. The individual has been convicted now for the third time of a very serious offence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon that individual, not the Crown, to demonstrate that.

With respect to the other dangerous offenders' applications, they do not have to wait until the third conviction. They can proceed even if the individual has never been convicted of a particular offence. For example, let us say an individual had raped five women on separate occasions, but had not been convicted. They can still proceed on a dangerous offender application even if there has been no prior conviction, but in that situation the reverse onus does not kick in. We are lowering the onus to a balance of probabilities once the individual has been convicted of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We are not fooling with any of the constitutional guarantees in this respect, but we recognize that once the conviction takes place and then the sentencing phase takes over, there are different legal principles that are appropriately applied in an appropriate constitutional context.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking about public safety issues. In the justice committee last week, the Liberals teamed up with the separatists and passed an amendment to allow arsonists, car thieves and burglars to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes. They apparently think those kinds of serious criminals, who steal products worth over $5,000 and ruin lives, should be allowed to serve their sentences in our communities.

Furthermore, they are now saying that it is not acceptable for us to permanently jail those people who have committed three serious violent or sexual offences until such time as they can prove they are safe.

I do not remember the Liberals saying any of this during the last election. In fact, in the days leading up to the vote, I remember the Liberals pretending that they were tough on crime. Now they have flip-flopped and they are trying to obstruct our efforts to crack down on crime and make our streets safer.

Could the minister of Justice tell us what the reaction has been from Canadians to the decision by the Liberals to allow car thieves to serve their sentences in the comfort of their living rooms and what has been the reaction of Canadians to our plans to bring in mandatory jail time and serious sentences for hard criminals?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good opportunity to talk about the prior Bill C-9 as well because it fits right into this discussion, and I will explain why.

The Liberals, with the Bill C-9 amendments, have made it an incredibly complex sentencing hearing, which will discourage Crown attorneys from contesting whether there should be a conditional sentence or not. The process that they brought in is a bureaucratic process similar to the kind of situation that the court created as a result of the Johnson decision. It is very complex and very onerous.

Essentially the Liberals have gutted Bill C-9 by making a very complex process, which will discourage the Crown attorneys from seeking appropriate sentences, and that is my concern. I do not know why they would choose to add that kind of burden on the Crown, even after the Crown has proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am speaking as a former Crown attorney. I would look at that situation and say, “Why is Parliament doing this to us? We are just trying to get the job done”. If they have convicted an individual beyond a reasonable who, let us say, pointed a knife at someone and committed a robbery, the Crown now has to prove, beyond simply the regular proof, that a conditional sentence is not appropriate. It is totally unworkable, and I believe the Liberals know that. I believe that is why they are doing it, and it is unfortunate.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-27, which was recently introduced by the Conservative government. We will now debate the bill and I will provide a context of the current established law already existing in the Criminal Code.

Under the dangerous offenders and long term offender provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, the Crown may trigger an application where the offender is convicted of a predicate serious personal injury offence. This prerequisite is defined in section 752(b) as being a specific sexual assault offence, sections 271, 272 or 273, or alternatively as meeting the criteria in section 752(a), which requires a finding that the particular offence was essentially violent or potentially violent and which carries a potential maximum sentence of at least 10 years or more. All part XXIV Crown applications must be directly approved by the provincial attorney general in writing. The dangerous offender designation now carries an automatic indeterminate term of imprisonment with no parole application for seven years.

The 1987 case of R. v. Lyons has held that the imposition of a sentence of indeterminate detention as authorized by this part does not offend sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 states, “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. Section 9 states, “everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”. Section 12 states, “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”.

Currently, before the accused can be found to be a dangerous offender, it must be established to the satisfaction of the court that the offence for which the accused has been convicted is not an isolated occurrence, but part of a pattern of behaviour, which has involved violence, aggressive or brutal conduct or failure to control sexual impulses. Further, it must be established that the pattern is very likely to continue. Even after this, the court still has discretion not to designate the offender as dangerous or to impose an indeterminate sentence. Thus the existing legislation meets the highest standard of rationality and proportionality in legal terms.

In other words, the dangerous offender section we currently have in the country, which has put behind bars 360 offenders as dangerous offenders, is charter proof and is working.

As further context, the former Liberal government in 1997 created the long term offender designation, which was targeted at sexual and violent offenders, in response to concerns that many sexual and violent offenders required specific attention even if not meeting the criteria for a dangerous offender. This change was needed as now we have, as of June 2005, 300 offenders under the long term offender designation in Canada.

This long term offender designation allows individuals convicted of a serious personal injury offence, who on the evidence are likely to reoffend but who can likely be managed through a regular sentence along with a specific term of federal supervision in the community, to be given a long term offender supervision order of up to 10 years after their release from serving their original court imposed sentence. Once released the offenders are subject to any number of supervisory conditions ordered by the National Parole Board. These can include orders to stay away from areas where children congregate, 24/7 monitoring, regular reporting to police or other agencies and include conditions which would affect their liberty, such as residing in federal halfway houses. A breach of a long term order condition itself is an indictable criminal offence punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

There has been developing case law in the areas of both dangerous offenders and long term offenders designation. In September 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a sentencing judge must consider fully the prospects of control of an offender under a long term offender designation before a dangerous offender designation could be made. That is part of R. v. Johnson. If the court has a reasonable belief that the risk that the offender poses to the general public can be controlled under a long term offender designation, then the offender must be given this lesser sentence, even if he or she otherwise meets all the criteria for a dangerous offender designation.

Currently, procedure for and criteria for finding a person to be a dangerous offender is set out in sections 753, 754 and 757 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Procedure criteria for and consequences of finding a person to be a long term offender are set out in sections 753.1 to 753.4 and 757. The rights of appeal are found in section 759 of the Criminal Code of Canada

The Liberal Party strongly supports legitimate efforts to protect Canadians and punish offenders who represent threats to the safety of our communities across Canada. When changes are made to the current working system, they should be done in a manner that would not jeopardize this working system. Changes proposed must meet the constitutional muster and not risk successful constitutional challenges, which could undermine protections that we already have in this country.

We also think it is important to codify the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Johnson. Reforms must ensure that offenders who should be designated as a dangerous or long term offender do not slip through the cracks of the judicial system, while at the same time the reforms must in no way violate the rights of fundamental justice ensured to all Canadians. To do so would have the unfortunate effect of being more messaging to a law and order imperative of the current minority Conservative government rather than responsibly governing for all Canadians. Victims themselves will not be happy when they discover a flawed law, not a strong one.

In the short term since this bill was tabled, serious concerns have already been raised by those knowledgeable in the legal community with respect to the constitutionality of some of the proposed changes in Bill C-27. These are not restricted just particularly to the provisions that shift the burden of proof from the Crown to the defendant and certain dangerous offender hearings. Justice officials have already confirmed publicly and privately that they expect the legislation will be challenged.

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the existing dangerous offender sections of the Criminal Code and has, by case law, clarified the use of the long term offender legislation. What will happen when unconstitutional elements are grafted on to those existing sections? Would it put in jeopardy the entire regime? Could anyone guarantee, even the Minister of Justice, what the court would do? We know that there will always be divergent legal opinions, but more important, we do not want to lose the ability to designate a dangerous offender for this would make Canadians less safe, not more safe. Perhaps the government hopes for unconstitutional elements of this legislation to be severed by the court, but nobody can guarantee a court's response.

This is why in the normal course of events with governments in the past, legislation was widely consulted before introduction. No change to such an important and needed part of the Criminal Code should be undertaken without both empirical evidence-based studies and broad-based consultations to help ensure that the legislation is the best it can be before bringing it to Parliament. Justice officials have confirmed to me that neither was done here.

Under the former Liberal government, I believe discussions were ongoing with respect to the Johnson decision and the needed clarification and the subject matter of peace bonds. There are ways to bring in a number of reforms to the dangerous offender and peace bond provisions to enhance the protection of all Canadians from high risk and violent offenders. Any proposed changes should take into account, in advance, the potential impact of those changes, especially in a minority Parliament. These changes should have been approached in a serious non-partisan manner. The potential for negative unintended consequences related to Bill C-27 is great and not confined to constitutional issues.

This proposed legislation, in part because of the large widening of designated offenders, could impact everything from the charges that are laid to the way Crown attorneys prosecute the cases and how defence lawyers defend their clients. I have been strongly warned by both defence lawyers and prosecutors that with Bill C-27 the end result is likely to be more costly in trials, fewer plea bargains and a greater backlog of cases in our already overburdened judicial system. That is to say nothing of the re-victimization of victims who have to go through a trial.

We should also be wary of the Askov effect where we could lose prosecutions because of court delays. This is not just because of the number of new dangerous offender and long term offender hearings. It is because whenever an artificial number is used, for example three, it will have an effect on charges one, two and three. What is the true potential cost and impact of the bill? Has it really been properly assessed with this hasty legislation? The legislation will affect the financial and time burden upon the justice systems in Canada. The expense of these changes is downloaded to the provinces that administer the system of justice for us in Canada.

The dangerous offender designation is among the most severe penalties--some say the severest--because it involves incarceration for an indeterminate period. As a result, a dangerous offender hearing is one of the most legally complex and time consuming procedures in our criminal justice system, often including not only psychiatric but other testimony that is complicated.

The system is undermined if the dangerous offenders do not have any counsel during the process. A significant number of criminal defendants rely on legal aid programs for representation. Unrepresented accused in these situations would not save costs but add them and perhaps would provide later challenges on designation.

I raise the point because legal aid is an area to which the government is not paying sufficient attention. Some provinces, including my own, are currently experiencing severe problems. There is a pattern with this minority Conservative government, that of messaging to the public before introduction of a bill. Without the benefit of the real details of the legislation, the government wants its messaging delivered to the public even if it is the incorrect message.

Here, the government desired a message of a U.S. style “three strikes and you're out” law. It wanted people to believe that this law would strengthen the ability to catch problematic situations. The Prime Minister even cited a case currently before the courts in his press conference and photo opportunity. As the bill was not even tabled at that time, the people lined up to support the announcement had not seen the details of Bill C-27.

Where are the challenges that the bill presents? Many Canadians have already started to speak out. I will share with the House some of the concerns raised with me by others who are more expert than I in this field of specialized criminal and constitutional law.

The new proposed section 752.01 in Bill C-27 reads, “If the prosecutor is of the opinion...” In essence, new section 752.01 would require prosecutors to notify courts as soon as feasible after a finding of guilt, whether the prosecutor intends to make an application for dangerous offender status.

First, existing subsections 752.1(1) and 752.1(2) already deal with timing of applications, so this new section is not needed to control notice to the courts. The more unusual and very probably unenforceable situation is the wording of this new section. How does one, in law, enforce this kind of notice provision without making findings about a prosecutor's opinion? Are we going to have hearings in which a prosecutor gives evidence as to his or her opinion? I do not think so.

Is this the federal government's clumsy attempt to direct provincial prosecutors to turn their thoughts and actions to the dangerous offender provisions and bring more frequent applications? If so, the lengthy listing of offences set out in the bill as designated offences are primarily offences prosecuted by provincial, and not federal, prosecutors.

Is the federal Minister of Justice really trying to give policy directions to provincial prosecutors about when to bring dangerous offender applications? Again, the administration of justice is provincial. If this is the intent, it is likely to be ultra vires or out of the federal government's jurisdiction, especially if the intention is to impose statutory duties on provincial prosecutors, especially in areas of prosecutorial discretion. One could ask also what the consequence is for prosecutors who fail to notify the court as soon as feasible.

So just in this section, we have issues not only of jurisdiction but of an unenforceable standard and no consequence for not doing the action.

I will now address the reverse onus situation found in new subsection 753(1.1). While some commentators have felt that the protections about presumption of innocence found in section 11(d) of the charter would apply only to persons charged with an offence and only until they have been found guilty, arguably this section could apply to a sentencing process.

However, the principles of fundamental justice in section 7 of the charter are more likely to place the burden of proof on the prosecution, even at the sentencing phase, which would include hearings on dangerous offender sentences.

The appropriate standard of proof in criminal law is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In proposed subsection 753(1.1), the standard is lowered to the balance of probabilities, at the same time--and I emphasize at the same time--as the onus is reversed in the same section. The reality is that the dangerous offender hearing is predicated on the fear of possible future offences and not on the current offence before the court. That is important to understand.

What is being essentially changed here is now a presumption that the risk posed by a three strikes offender is the equivalent in every case of the category now defined in the legislation as dangerous offending to be presumed to possess the kind of risk that a dangerous offender is to a society. In other words, do they really pose the specific kind of risk that the dangerous offender provisions require? They are different tests in law.

On the face of it, this would be a violation of the charter, but now we must examine whether there is a justifiable limitation on the presumption of innocence under section 1 of the charter. Is it demonstrably justifiable to limit or compromise the values we hold in the presumption of innocence during the situation of a dangerous offender hearing? In constitutional terms, what is the documented need for changing the onus in this way?

The justice official could not answer this question when specifically asked by me. Why taint this area unnecessarily? Obviously it was a choice of the political master. The provision requires that the courts assume a fact of future dangerousness even in cases where that might not be proven or be capable of being proven or, as one expert said to me, in fact may not be true.

Proposed subsection 753(1.1) puts the onus on the individual before the court to prove a negative: that he or she does not represent the kind of threat the dangerous offender provisions were looking to address. Under section 1 charter challenges, there must be a pressing and substantial need for a legislative provision that infringes on charter rights. Does a political need to be seen to be acting qualify for this?

As was pointed out by an early Globe and Mail editorial, most offenders that the public would be concerned with in recent newspaper stories would not have been caught under this section because the sentences of prior convictions were not federal sentences, but provincial sentences of less than two years. Thus, we have a provision inserted not because of a pressing and substantial need in law to do this, but to show political action even if it does not solve the issues.

What if the court, in examining this section, instead decides that the use of a reverse onus, based on the factors identified, does not lead to the rational inference that the absence of restraint posing a likelihood of future death or injury, substantial general indifference to foreseeable consequences or incorrigible brutality, follows? Here is where the government could have just stayed with making it easier for the Crown with the use of the lower evidentiary burden.

Instead, the government has chosen to impose a legal burden of proof on those with three strikes. What this means is that a judge will be forced to find an accused poses the kind of threat that a dangerous offender does not only when the judge has a doubt about that, but even where the judge thinks it is as likely true as when he does not pose that danger. This is vastly different from just lowering the onus on the Crown when the Crown holds the burden of proof.

I spoke to one provincial minister of justice who thought “the three strikes” adds nothing to the bill. In existing paragraph 754(1)(a), the provincial attorney general still has to consent to each application for a dangerous offender designation, and there is nothing in the bill removing this consent from the Criminal Code.

The way Bill C-27 reads, it raises the question of whether the bill is minimally impairing in the constitutional context. There are many technical constitutional aspects of the bill that would engage experts. One, Professor David Paciocco, has provided me with his analysis in relation to the bill. I have tried to capture some of his and others' ideas in my limited time. I cannot do justice to all the arguments.

However, I do need to talk about the need to insert or codify R. v. Johnson. Proposed subsection 753(1.2) is found in clause 3 of Bill C-27 beside the margin note limitation. After adding the reverse onus provision just discussed, we now have a section that would seem to effectively disregard this same reverse onus section and disregard the initial findings of threat of dangerousness that proposed subsection 753(1.1) forces in the bill, and states that the court can apply an ordinary determinant sentence, the indeterminate sentence, or the long term offender sentence if it wishes.

This, in other words, is judicial discretion. I will not have time to quote the section so I will leave it for members to read, but it states “despite subsection (1)”. Here is the least restrictive sentencing principle--and I just have a couple of paragraphs more--in the Criminal Code captured by 718 coming into play, clarified in R. v. Johnson.

Why go through the reverse onus? This is deceptive. The Minister of Justice has concentrated not on the law but on a message in the first subsection about being tough on crime and then has placed in the second subsection the findings of the court decision and the existing law. The burden of proof in this subsection is missing. This is unusual. What is the intention?

Somebody knew what they were supposed to do here, and they made it look like it would all work, but I think it is smoke and mirrors--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is a pattern whereby the Liberals try to camouflage their soft on crime policy by claiming their opposition to our agenda has more to do with legalistic interpretations and procedural disagreements. In reality, what they do not want Canadians to know is that they continue to be soft on crime. They voted just last week in a committee to allow car thieves, break and enter artists and burglars to serve their sentences in the comfort of their living rooms.

Now today we have a member rising to tell us she does not believe that after a serious sexual and violent offender has committed three crimes, and has been convicted on all three beyond a reasonable doubt, the individual should be considered dangerous. She considers that after three convictions beyond a reasonable doubt of serious violent offences a criminal might still be safe to be on our streets.

We on this side of the House believe that such criminals should have to prove they are safe, that the onus ought not to be on the Crown but on the criminal. She disagrees with that. She disagrees with our tough on crime agenda that seeks to keep serious violent and sexual criminals behind bars forever unless they can prove themselves to be safe. She disagrees with that.

She can tie us in as many legal knots as humanly possible and she can go on reading 16-sentence paragraphs to try to confuse the Canadian people about her real position, but the reality is that she and her party, after coddling criminals for 13 years while in government, continue to hold the same position in opposition. Why will she not just stand up and admit it?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address Canadians on this. Why should this concern Canadians? Because the law needs to be constitutionally valid to protect them. Bills on the order paper are not valid laws. At best, they are works in progress, and sometimes they are failures if the proper homework has not been done in advance. Protection of the public should not be dealt with in this disrespectful manner.

This bill, while it is complex, is full of unenforceable and constitutionally suspect provisions. It will have unintended and very costly implications for the justice systems administered by the provinces. It will even impact on the resources of the provincial mental health systems, in which there are delays now for mental health resources required for these assessments.

I submit that the bill should be redone properly from the start. I know that there are many inside the justice department who are very capable of doing this job and who must be very concerned with following a more ideological than legal directive. Canadians do deserve better. So do our hard-working systems of justice in this country. I would remind the Conservatives that they are in a minority government without the authority for this type of action, for changing a legal system and deceiving the public in this way, because what is important is that we have a working dangerous offender system.

Yes, there were cases and it would have been good to codify them, but it would have been better to do it in a manner that potentially does not affect the safety of Canadians by making them less safe, because we do not need a part of or the full dangerous offender provision thrown out. We have the Minister of Justice doing this, but we also have David Paciocco, who knows this stuff inside out, giving interviews to journalists and saying that this is constitutionally suspect.

I am concerned that instead of protecting victims we are setting them up for having long trials from the first offence forward. I am concerned about the impact on legal aid systems. Mostly, though, I am concerned with doing the job properly. If the Conservatives had put a proper bill in here, without some of the things they have done in this bill quite intentionally, I am sure that every party in the House would be supporting it, because there is no one party that has ownership of protection of the public.

In his messaging, we have the minister's office full of communications experts as opposed to legal experts. That is all about messaging. This House is better than that. The members in this House want to do serious work. I find it distressing that we have a Minister of Justice who would deliberately put forward provisions that he knows will be challenged.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is the legalese, the perpetual talk and conversation. If I could for a moment, I would like to add a little voice of real experience. I would suggest the hon. member's position on this is lacking a bit of reality and I would like to refer back to my history as a former police officer many years ago.

I have spoken on many occasions to criminals similar to the ones outlined in this bill and heard them say they only had a one in 10 chance of ever being caught, a one in 20 chance of ever being convicted, and if that ever happened the reality was that they would probably only serve a short sentence anyway. Then they would ask what the odds were of that ever happening again.

Quite honestly, we have all seen the statistics and the statistics do not lie. They vary from offence to offence, but every time a serious criminal offence happens we all know that 15, 20, 25 other violent offences have taken place. We are not talking about just one offence or a second offence. We are talking about multiple offences where there has been significant damage to the Canadian population.

We are only talking about a very small group of people. We are not talking about hundreds and thousands of people. We are talking about the most heinous people in Canadian society who have absolutely no regard for life and humanity. We have a duty and obligation to protect the public. That means taking each and every measure possible.

The public does not realize what it takes to get a conviction. Getting a conviction for a serious indictable offence takes in most cases years of attention to a file. It is a long judicial process, as the hon. member has mentioned, and yet to get a conviction registered is very difficult, but once that has happened, what are the odds of that happening again? When it happens again, how many other people have been victimized in the meantime by that same individual: 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 people?

We have an obligation to go over, above and beyond. We cannot infringe on the rights of criminals any more than we can a victim, I recognize that reality. However, we must step forward and say enough is enough. They have done it once, they have done it twice, but after the third conviction, for God's sake, how many offences have occurred then? We must draw the line somewhere. We must raise the bar. We must draw the attention of the House to some action and this bill does it.

I have a question for the member. Does she not feel that the future of victims is as important as the need for protection of the individual involved?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have respect for this member and the work he did in his past life, as I hope he has for me. I served for six years on the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board dealing with murderers, rapists and some of the worst situations for not criminally responsible. I understand that we are all concerned. It is not a question of feeling more or doing more. We all care about this.

To put that message that someone is soft, no. We all want a smart system that works. The member has touched on that reverse onus section and I will quote him the subsection right below that. The member has probably not read the bill as I have and most people do not read the bills. They get the messaging as opposed to reading the bills. What the bill says after the reverse onus is:

Despite subsection (1),--

And that is the reverse onus section:

the court shall not find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of an application under that subsection that a lesser sentence — either a finding that the offender is a long-term offender or a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted — would adequately protect the public. Neither the prosecutor nor the offender has the onus of proof in this matter.

What we find here is the least restrictive sentencing principle in the Criminal Code captured by section 718 coming into play and adding to that the case result of Regina v. Johnson.

Why go through the reverse onus? That is the deceptive part of this bill. It is not about the law. One section is actually put up there and then it is reversed with this section. It is messaging to a public while doing something totally different. The something totally different is actually what I think will be the saving part because that is what would be codified as a result of Regina v. Johnson.

We have it in case law right now. It is very important to understand here that there are people who have drafted this who obviously knew the constitutional tests to be made.

I do not like standing here talking constitutional law any more than anyone else, but others in this chamber will give the evidence about longer terms not being deterrents. What we need here and what absolutely happens many times is that the reverse only section only talks about a certain list of designated offences. What really happens in real life, as this member would know, is that there might be a crime committed down at the provincial level that is part of and should be going for a dangerous offender hearing, and should not be waiting for this--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, but the time allotted for questions and comments has run out.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on a bill on dangerous offenders that seeks to create a different emphasis and direction from the approach we already have.

Before presenting the Bloc’s basic arguments and position on dangerous offenders, I would first like to emphasize just how seriously the Bloc takes community safety.

No member of Parliament would want to live in communities where there is a threat to public safety. Whether in Quebec or in any other province, no one would want older people, single parents, children, working people or our parents to find themselves in harm’s way as they go about their regular lives in the community.

I must say that I am a little tired of hearing the demagogic, simplistic rhetoric coming from the Conservatives. Their rhetoric implies that anyone who does not support their position is unscrupulous, lax and not very concerned about public safety. I hope this kind of talk will end. This subject is far too serious for them to indulge in such simple-mindedness.

The Bloc Québécois does not support this bill as worded. Does this mean that the Bloc feels that there is no need for the Criminal Code to contain provisions on dangerous offenders and long-term offenders? Of course not.

The Bloc is perfectly aware of the fact that there are some people who commit criminal acts and, unfortunately, have no self-control nor any control of their impulses and have certain personalities with a very high risk that they will re-offend. Is this genetic or acquired? Is it a question of the environment or their upbringing? Is it a matter of values? Is it a question of their families? I do not know. What I do know, though, is that it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to protect people against this kind of behaviour and these kinds of personalities.

The government’s rhetoric seems peculiar because it tends to imply that these provisions have not been used in the past and do not exist, or that crown attorneys are reluctant to use them.

I would have liked to see the Minister of Justice rise in this House and tell us that his government is introducing a bill on dangerous offenders because prosecutors and the justice system—under his administration—are not using these provisions.

We would then have asked ourselves what procedure must be followed to ensure that in cases where it has to be proved that a person presents a risk, that person must be found to be a dangerous offender, with everything that implies. A dangerous offender can be imprisoned for an indeterminate period.

Under sections 752 and 753 of the Criminal Code, certain individuals are considered dangerous offenders. We do not need the minister’s current bill; the courts and the prosecutors have done their jobs. There are, right now, people who are considered to be dangerous offenders and in some cases, they have been in prison for 20 years.

What is dangerous in the bill and in the approach taken by the Minister of Justice is the idea that we should do things automatically.

If an individual commits—in three instances—an offence on the list of primary offences, the burden of proof will automatically be reversed, and the person will have to prove that he or she is not a dangerous offender. Unfortunately, things cannot work this way in criminal law.

Perhaps this is something we need to complain about; perhaps there should be no Charter; perhaps there should be no trials; perhaps there should be no courts; perhaps we should send everyone to prison once they have committed a serious offence against a person.

Perhaps some people support that kind of justice system, but let them have the courage to say so clearly. Once again, the dividing line is not between people who care about the safety of victims and communities and the people who do not care about it. I am even tempted to say that it is not even the question of reverse onus that defines that line. Reversing the burden of proof is a benchmark, an important cornerstone of the justice system. It is an important principle, as is the presumption of innocence. The courts have offered guidance on what the presumption of innocence means, but that is not the gospel truth. We can agree that, in some circumstances, the burden of proof has to be reversed.

My former colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, a man who was respected by all parties in this House, once introduced a bill concerning property acquired through crime. It was directed particularly at organized crime. In 1997, I was in this House when we added sections 465, 466 and 467 to the Criminal Code to create what is called a criminal organization offence. New law had to be made. The Hell's Angels, the Rock Machine and the Bandidos presented a real danger to the community because they were engaging in open warfare within the community for control of the drug market. They plainly held the ordinary people in contempt.

I even recall having conversations with senior officials in the Department of Justice who said they wanted to break up organized crime using the conspiracy provisions. In the Bloc Québécois, we were convinced that we had to make new law and that what we needed was a new offence. When my colleague, the former member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, introduced that bill, we were convinced that this was what had to be done.

The difference with dangerous offenders is that the Crown has access to existing provisions. There are guidelines: a psychiatrist's report is required. Quebec, for example, has an arrangement with the Philippe Pinel Institute, which evaluates offender profiles. Why specify “after three times”? This is not about the number of times or the quantity. If an individual presents such a profile—if, after the first offence it is determined that the individual lacks self-control, is a risk to re-offend and a danger to society—nothing prevents the Crown from using sections 751, 752 and 753. The section is very clear, so clear that the courts have used it over 300 times.

Of course, there are exceptional circumstances. When an individual goes into a convenience store and commits robbery, that is unfortunate and deserves to be punished. It is reprehensible, and the justice system must act. Nobody has said otherwise. However, such a crime does not mean we are dealing with a dangerous offender who should spend 20 years in prison with no eligibility for parole and be jailed indeterminately. The government's approach is disappointing because it lacks nuance and perspective.

Earlier, I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. Apparently he is the youngest member of the House. The parliamentary secretary rose twice in this House to call the opposition member irresponsible. How did we suddenly become not responsible? Because in the committee, which included all of the opposition parties, we voted to amend Bill C-9. The opposition member said that we wanted to allow thieves to serve their sentences in the community.

He is a little young to be such a demagogue and to make such an argument, which is extremely simplistic.

The reality is the following: in 1996, we added something to the Criminal Code on the nearly unanimous recommendations of the justice ministers. I was in this House at the time and we realized that the prisons were populated, but that a third of the incarcerations had to do with unpaid fines. People were imprisoned for failing to pay a fine.

Of course, we are not encouraging people not to pay their fine, but should they be incarcerated for that? When Bill C-41 was passed, Canada had the third highest incarceration rate in the world. Only Russia and the United States had more prisoners than Canada.

I want to remind hon. members that the minister was unable to show a single scientific study to prove that there is a link between the harshness of the sentences and the rate of recidivism. We know full well that it is not by having stricter sentences or putting more people in prison that we will make our communities safer to live in.

Sometimes imprisonment cannot be avoided. But if the minister were right, the reality in the United States would certainly deserve a second look: they send seven times as many people to prison as Canada does. However, the homicide rate is four times lower in Canada—and I will mention just one type of offence. In a society that sends more people to prison, we would expect there to be less crime and recidivism, but that is not the case.

Could it be that it is not so much the harshness of the sentences but the real fear of the prospect of ending up behind bars that is the real deterrent preventing an individual from committing a crime?

We therefore agree on the need to include provisions concerning dangerous offenders in the Criminal Code. We agree on the crown prosecutor's responsibility, based on a psychiatrist's or psychologist's report. When an assessment shows that, after an initial offence, a person represents a threat to public safety, we agree that the Criminal Code provisions regarding sections 751, 752 and 753 must apply. We are not saying that the court has to wait for two to five offences, but we cannot support the idea of a list of 22 offences, even though we agree that they are serious. The proposed primary designated offences include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, exploitation, incest, attempted murder, sexual assault, attempted rape and indecent assault on female. These are serious offences, but we cannot support a legal system that operates automatically.

This is the main difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. We in the Bloc are concerned about public safety. It was the Bloc that first fought for a real anti-gang law. It was the Bloc that brought about the reversal of the burden of proof in cases of proceeds of crime, by introducing a bill that was passed unanimously.

We approve prison terms when necessary, because sometimes they are necessary. Sometimes prison can have a deterrent effect, but the main principle of the administration of justice is individualized sentencing. I repeat, this is the main difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. Every situation should be dealt with in light of what led to the crime, the crime that was committed, and the offender's profile.

Sentencing can never be automatic, because when we go in that direction we do not appreciate the facts. That is what justice is all about. Who wants to live in a society where we are on automatic pilot?

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is going in the wrong direction. It did so on the issue of conditional sentencing. The Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board have been talking about conditional sentencing. I repeat, the Bloc Québécois agrees—of course— that the right of the individual to serve the sentence in the community is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege. However, the Supreme Court also stated in the Proulx decision that it remained a sanction. The conditional sentence is a type of imprisonment. Of course we agree that all types of offences do not have the same degree of seriousness.

An 18 year old who draws graffitis on a wall three times is guilty of public mischief. It is reprehensible, sad and unacceptable. However, in the list proposed by the minister, this youth, whose graffiti caused $5,000 in damages in total, would not have been eligible for conditional sentencing. We believe that there are cases where an automatic approach—which precludes a conditional sentence—is not indicated.

We can—of course— understand that it may be less appropriate for individuals who have committed sexual assaults, rape, abuse— especially in the case of sexual offences—to serve their sentences in the community. We want to denounce these acts; we want to send a message about these types of offences.

We should remember that conditional sentences represent 5% of sentences, but the minister was unable to make this fine distinction.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois believes that dangerous offenders must be dealt with in a particular way, that dangerous offenders should not be released if they represent a risk to the community. However, we do not accept the logic of automatic process, a logic by which we are unable to assess a situation according to the offender's profile, his record, or the circumstances that led him to commit the crime.

That is the price to be paid for living in a society where the symbol of justice is a balance among rights; but also a balance among responsibilities. Yes, crown prosecutors must evaluate the situation. Yes, a judge must evaluate the situation. Yes, there are constitutional freedoms that must be protected. Yes, there are situations that call for imprisonment and enforcement.

The danger arises when the response becomes automatic. Every time the Conservative government wants to propose simple solutions to complex problems, we cannot accept that. However, we will never be soft on crime. We will never unconditionally defend criminals. We will certainly be able to say that there are situations where people deserve to be locked up; that they cannot be rehabilitated and deserve a firm sentence of 20 or 25 years in prison. We are able to make distinctions between cases. Once again, we do not accept the logic of an automatic response and we do not accept the contempt in which this government holds the work of the judiciary.

When we see the way in which the courts have interpreted conditional sentencing; when we see the way in which provisions for dangerous offenders have been used, we have no reason not to have confidence in the justice system. Does that mean to say that there are no judges who have gone astray? Yes, indeed it is possible.

This is a Conservative tactic.

In 2003, out of 257,000 cases where there was a conviction, 13,000 cases resulted in a conditional sentence. In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice, the minister gave five examples of cases where, a priori, without having studied the file in greater detail, it would seem that there was little reason for a conditional sentence. Does that mean to say that the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute? Does that mean that we should be thinking in terms of automatic responses? Certainly not.

That is why we are very uneasy about this government in connection with justice. Not to mention the blackmail it employs. We began this session in September; tomorrow we will be into November. The Standing Committee on Justice adopted two bills, reviewed budgetary allocations and is beginning review of a third bill. Members have had a respectable workload. However, it is clear that when bills are being examined, witnesses must be heard. Our work of legislative review; our work as members of parliament, which consists in considering the consequences of a bill, must always be done with the greatest attention.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments. I know that, as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice, he is working very hard on these issues.

From his speeches as a member of the House, I also imagine that he was very confident and very pleased with the former Liberal government's record on the issue of dangerous offenders. I would also like to thank the member for his comments.

I nevertheless have a few small questions concerning the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his speech he did not mention challenges of this bill before the court. This is obvious if it becomes law.

What does he think of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically sections 11(d) and 7 of the Charter? Section 7 of the Charter concerns me a lot. As the member knows, it deals with our system and our principle of fundamental justice. Does he have any comments to make on these matters? I am all ears.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions.

It may be safely assumed that the previous government was closer to our philosophy in terms of justice, with the exception of course of the blot of the Young Offenders Act. The Bloc Québécois was obviously far removed from the objectives put forward in the Young Offenders Act. We all recall the excellent work done by former MP Michel Bellehumeur, who today has risen to the rank of judge in the Court of Quebec, Criminal Division.

We of course have some questions concerning the compatibility of this bill with the two major sections of the Charter concerning judicial guarantees. Section 7 and the reversal of onus of proof are going to pose some problems concerning the presumption of innocence. I think that the member will recall the three or four decisions on the reversal of onus of proof. The court clearly said that the onus of proof is never transferred, it is always incumbent on the Crown.

So we will see what the various courts have to say to any challenges. Still, as far as the substance is concerned, I repeat, we do not want the most dangerous, the most criminalized people to be released. The Criminal Code already has provisions that can be used after a first offence. Nor do we wish to take the automatic route. Law and justice are never automatic.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga for his clear and enthusiastic presentation.

The current government seems unwilling to correct deficiencies in the Criminal Code. Rather, it is trying to determine exactly what all judges should do and how everything should be organized so that no person who commits a major offence will ever be allowed out of prison.

My question for my colleague is this: Does he think that, in a case like this one, the government—the legislative branch—should replace the judicial branch? It wants to replace judges. It wants to codify everything and render judges obsolete.

If this is so, I would like my hon. colleague to explain whether this is because this government does not trust judges it did not appoint.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, the various bills that have been introduced reflect a climate of suspicion about the judiciary.

I do not know the exact cause of this. Is it a question of appointment? Is it a systemic problem? Is it a question of aversion? I do not know.

The Bloc Québécois has always held the opinion that in criminal law, individualized sentencing is the rule. There is no evidence that judges have not done their work properly in handing down conditional sentences or in cases where the dangerousness of prisoners and accused persons had to be assessed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Bloc member shares the soft on crime policies of his Liberal colleagues. He joined with the Liberals in the justice committee last week in voting to allow those convicted of car theft, burglary and break and enter to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes. We disagree. We believe in mandatory jail time for serious thieves, along with serious violent and sexual offenders.

This law would guarantee that if people commit three violent or sexual offences and they cannot prove that they have been rehabilitated, then they will serve a life sentence and go away forever. Frankly, that is exactly what the Canadian people voted for in the last election.

The Liberals promised that they would be tough on crime and that they had changed their ways in the lead-up to the last election. They have now broken that promise by voting to allow car thieves and burglars to serve their sentences in their living rooms.

The question that remains is whether the Liberal opposition will continue to break its word. Will it block the passage of this tough on crime legislation which would take dozens of the most violent predators off of our streets, or will they revert back to the position that they had in the election and support the government in its tough on crime initiatives?

Maybe the member could shed some light on that because certainly his Liberal colleagues have not shed any so far.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must ask my colleague to refrain from the ridiculous rhetoric he is increasingly prone to.

A case in point would be his reference to breaking and entering. What is the sentence for residential break and enter under the Criminal Code? In theory, it is life in prison. This is not the example to give when we are talking about conditional sentencing.

Conditional sentences are handed down in 5% of cases that end in conviction. In 95% of cases, justice is not meted out with a conditional sentence. Three times out of four, conditional sentencing is not used when an offence against people has been committed. Perhaps my colleague has not read the statistics we had at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

There is a limit to right-wing rhetoric that is meant to scare people and that is far from accurate. If there had been evidence that the judiciary had improperly used conditional sentencing, everyone in this House would have wanted to correct the situation. This is not the case, however. Bill C-9 is nothing but an ideological construct of the Conservative Party, and God willing, this government will never have a majority.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member lives in the real world. He seems to think that criminals are single dimensional. Criminals can be arsonists or thieves. They can commit break and enter or they can assault. I assure the hon. member that criminals do not operate on a single plain.

I would give him an example. Many years ago I was working with a gentleman who was one of the most vicious drug dealers we had in our region. He knew no bounds. He had two daughters, aged 11 and 12 years old, and for many years he pimped for them. I think the hon. member gets an understanding of where we are going. This was a very serious criminal offence. This gentleman was finally put away after many years of multiple offences around the entire region. He was charged with arson, which was a crime against property. In the meantime, he was guilty, as we all knew, of countless crimes against humanity,

For the member to suggest that a poor criminal is straitjacketed into one little pigeonhole area and, therefore, we do not want to bring forth a more serious penalty because that would not pertain to them, I think you are out of touch with reality, my good sir.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I just remind the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings to address his comments through the Chair.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member came up with that, but I have never thought of criminals as one dimensional. Some criminals are very dangerous. There are people who commit a single crime and can be rehabilitated. There are other criminals who should be kept behind bars.

What I said is that conditional sentencing was not as widespread as the Minister of Justice suggested. In his example, the member himself mentioned a person in his community who had committed several crimes and who was not given a conditional sentence, from what we know, but was incarcerated.

If a person burned down a house, trafficked in drugs, and made his children prostitute themselves, that individual should receive a firm sentence of many years of imprisonment and should be incarcerated in an institution.

That is what happened in the example given by my hon. colleague, which is understandable. It is perhaps proof that, contrary to the Conservatives' remarks and the definitions put forward by the ministers, our justice system is much more discerning and our judges more even-handed than they would have us believe.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the federal New Democrat caucus on second reading of Bill C-27.

First, I would like to pay tribute to the very able justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who has given the NDP caucus incredible guidance, information and led the debate within the caucus on this bill as well as close to a dozen bills that have been thrown at the justice committee from the Conservative government. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh has earned respect from all sides of the House for his intelligence and wisdom and how he has approached these matters. I certainly speak today based on the wisdom and guidance that he has provided to the NDP caucus.

We are at a very interesting and critical juncture in this debate. Being the fourth party to speak, it has been clear to anyone watching the debate and if it was not clear to the government previously it would be clear to it now, that this bill is going down. Three parties are opposed to this bill at second reading, which as we know is a debate in principle. It looks like the bill will not go forward to committee. That is a very serious situation.

I listened, sometimes with a smile on my face, to the political rhetoric that has spewed forth time and time again from the government on this bill and many of the others. The government's mantra is that members who do not support these bills are soft on crime, that if they do not support Bill C-27, they are soft on crime; they are giving a free ride to criminals, they do not care about the public, they do not care about victims, they do not care about anything. We have heard it over and over again. Government members must dream about it and repeat in their sleep.

One of the members said we should look at reality. Let us look at reality. There are three opposition parties basically saying no to this bill because it is a very fundamentally flawed bill. The parties that have spoken thus far have given very strong both philosophical and intellectual reasons but also legal and practical reasons why this bill just does not cut it. That needs to be said.

We have heard from the Prime Minister that the opposition is delaying the crime bills. Bill C-22, the age of consent bill, was introduced in June but the government itself did not call it until yesterday. So much for the delay. The same goes for this bill. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to debate it.

Let us put aside all the political bunk and rhetoric and focus on the merits of this bill and whether or not it is a good, sound piece of legislation. Presumably that is what we come to this place to do, to represent our constituents, to represent sound public policy, public interest and to decide whether or not legislation that comes from the government is good. We make our judgment on that and decide whether the legislation should continue. That is what we are debating here today, not all the political rhetoric.

In terms of Bill C-27, as I said, the NDP caucus is opposed to it. I note that in the information put out by the justice minister's office we are told that this particular bill will make it easier for crown prosecutors to obtain dangerous offender designations. It goes on to point out that a cornerstone of the reforms in this bill is that an offender found guilty and convicted of a third designated violent or sexual offence must prove that he or she does not qualify as a dangerous offender. This is what is referred to as the reverse onus. This is one of the major reasons that certainly the NDP and other parties we have heard from today are opposed to this bill. Why is that so?

I would like to quote a very good article written by Paula Simons which appeared in the Edmonton Journal in October, as well as in the Regina Leader-Post, and maybe other publications. In that article the author pointed out:

It's a rule of law as old as the Magna Carta, a golden thread that runs through almost 800 years of British legal tradition. And it's enshrined in Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I begin with this first argument and fundamental point because it is very much the underpinning of the concerns that we have about the bill. The bill brings forward a provision that will bring in reverse onus and will remove from the system the state's responsibility to bring forward evidence to show that someone is a dangerous offender. The onus will be put on the offender to show why he or she is not a dangerous offender.

I point out that in basically eliminating these hundreds of years of tradition, we did have sections in the Criminal Code that did have reverse onus clauses. This is something that was actually contained in our Criminal Code before the charter, but since 1982 when the charter came in, those provisions have been either struck down by the courts or voluntarily removed through successive Criminal Code reviews and amendments.

We really need to understand that within our judicial system we have had a long-standing practice of assuming someone's innocence until he or she is proven guilty and looking at each case on its merit. We are not talking about a cookie cutter system where one checks off a little box and it is either black or white, yes or no. We are dealing with individual offences. We are dealing with individual victims. The basis of our justice system is that we have the capacity and the ability to make judgments based on applying the law as it exists to determine each of those cases.

Bill C-27 will be a massive reversal of that very important democratic and just tradition within our judicial system. For that reason alone, we are opposed to the bill.

In the current environment in our judicial system, 85% of current dangerous offenders are still in custody. They do not get out. We are talking about longer than a life sentence if someone is convicted as a dangerous offender.

I would argue, and I know our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, would argue that there is no doubt the provisions and the system we have require improvements, but the basic provisions that are there actually are working. Basically completely eliminating that provision and bringing in the reverse onus we see as something that one, will be struck down and will be subject to a charter challenge, and two, will not necessarily improve the safety of Canadians. We have heard that today throughout the debate.

The second problem I can identify is that the bill crosses a boundary whereby it will allow a federal jurisdiction, the federal government, to move into a provincial jurisdiction and tell prosecutors, who are under provincial jurisdiction under the administration of the law, what they should be doing. This is very problematic and is likely to be challenged and struck down.

It makes one think why a bill would be brought forward when two of its basic tenets are things that are legally very open to challenge. As we have heard today, there have been many expert opinions that these particular provisions would be struck down.

There is of course an enormous amount of concern in Canadian society about crime, safety and making sure that people who are dangerous are not on our streets. These are very legitimate things. As New Democrats, we want to ensure that we have the best criminal justice system which ensures that when a dangerous offence has taken place, someone is convicted and the appropriate sentence is given.

It seems surprising to us that under this proposed bill, we would wait until someone had been convicted a second and third time before this kind of provision would apply. The most efficient, intelligent and practical thing to do would be to make sure that the system is working as early as possible, in terms of earlier intervention, by providing crown prosecutors with the resources they need to get the convictions they need, when they can see that there is information and evidence before them.

Right now if a prosecutor is of a mind that there may be information that leads him or her to believe that someone should be prosecuted as a dangerous offender, it is expensive and it takes time to do that. It takes a lot of resources to do the investigation. The reality is that in some instances, prosecutors may back away from that because they are simply overwhelmed by the system as it is and what they can deal with in terms of managing the cases that they have.

The point I am trying to make is that if we are truly interested in making sure that dangerous offenders are locked up and that the public and our communities are safe, then surely we would want to ensure that the system is responding in a way that the prosecutors can actually do their jobs.

Rather than waiting for the second or the third conviction and then placing the onus on the offender to show why he or she would not be a dangerous offender or a risk to society, why not give the prosecutors the tools and the resources to actually do the job they need to do, so that we do not even get into those other situations? We believe that would be a much better scenario, a much better set of rules under which to operate.

What kind of message are we sending out to the public with this bill? We have heard the rhetoric from the government that it is all about getting tough on crime, but actually what we are saying is that it is okay to wait for the second or third time. Do we want to give offenders that third time?

From our point of view, it is much better to have a system that provides the resources and the tools to make the system work as it should and to make sure that the prosecutors are actually able to deal with these cases, and where they can see that the dangerous offender designation is required through prosecution, that they are actually able to follow that up. That is a very important point.

A fourth argument I would like to raise is that if there were a seriousness about this bill and dealing with dangerous offenders, then we should be looking at what we can change that would actually improve the work that takes place. One example would be changes to the evidentiary burden on the prosecutors. Right now they have to line up three psychiatrists when they are trying to prove their case for a dangerous offender. Maybe we should be looking at that. Maybe we should be saying that only two psychiatrists are necessary in order for the prosecutor to bring forward the required expert information.

There are a number of things that could be done within the system to actually improve the resources of the prosecutors to do their jobs, but this is being completely overlooked by the government. Instead we have this very heavy-handed approach that has been brought in by the government where there is absolutely no confidence whatsoever from anybody in the justice system and the law profession that this law will actually be upheld.

In fact earlier I heard the member from the Bloc say that this is why they are afraid of the government. It was a very interesting remark. I think it echoes a sentiment in the public that we see the government loading in these crime bills and there seems to be very little thought to some of them.

The opposition parties have worked together very closely at the justice committee and have tried to convince the government why some of these bills are so seriously flawed. Yet the government does not seem willing to engage in that debate. Therefore, one is left with the conclusion that it is about political spin. It is about the politics of fear. It is about playing on people's fear about crime and safety, which people have, without really ever addressing it.

One of the fears Canadians have is that we are moving closer and closer to the U.S. style of justice system where it has the “three strikes and you're out” laws in effect. The evidence shows us that it has not worked. Again, from this very good article in the Edmonton Journal, it quotes from a 2004 report by the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. It cited FBI crime statistics that showed violent crime and homicide rates between 1993 and 2002 dropped faster in states without the three strikes law. This is very interesting and we should learn from the very real evidence available in the United States.

I know members of the Conservative government will argue that this is not exactly the same law, but it is based on the same kinds of principles and it is moving us closer and closer to the kind of system we see in the United States. We have heard its kind of mantra on getting tough on crime.

The report also compared California to New York. California has the toughest three strikes law. It sent people to jail for life even if their third crime was stealing a piece of pizza. New York has no such legislation, yet its overall crime index fell 50% from 1993 to 2002. California's overall crime index fell only 39%.

Despite the fall in crime rate between 1994 and 2004, in the 10 years experience of the California three strikes policy, its prison population rose by almost 23%. The Justice Policy Institute study estimated that building and staffing the extra prisons to house all those prisoners cost the state an extra $8 billion U.S. over 10 years.

I bring forward these points of information because they are very pertinent to this debate, not only in terms of this bill but also other bills that are before the House. As a Bloc member said, this is why we are so afraid of the government. It is embarking on a radical departure. It seems hell-bent on radical changes whether they are shown to work or not. This should be of very grave concern to all of us.

I totally reject the arguments, which will come forward now, that the NDP is soft on crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to be intelligent about our response to crime and justice in our country. We want to ensure that there is sound public policy development. We want to ensure that we do not adopt legislation that has been shown not to work, that may create incredible havoc within the judicial system and that will undermine very fundamental principles established over many hundreds of years.

The government needs to take note. This is a minority Parliament. We have a majority of members in the House who say, with a united voice, that this is not good legislation and that it will be defeated. Therefore, the government members can squawk all they want about that. They can try to put out their political line that nobody on this side cares about crime, which we know is absolute nonsense, or they can get serious and engage in a real debate about what changes need to be made to the justice system. I have offered a few today, so have the other parties.

The Conservatives can choose if they so wish. If they are serious about putting public policy first and protecting the Canadian public, they can look at changes that will work within our judicial system. It is their decision. I do not know what they will decide, but they should take note of the fact that three parties now oppose the bill.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments and a question with respect to what the member said, speaking on behalf of the New Democratic caucus. I have the impression, when I hear her arguments, that she is asking the government to stop picking on the dangerous and high risk offenders. I do not understand that.

If we listen to what the member said, she gave four or five of what appeared to be reasonable arguments, and that seemed to be the thesis of what she was trying to present. I will not comment on all of them, but I will comment on the reverse onus clause, which she suggests is unconstitutional.

She is right. When people are charged, the long-time principle in our court systems, going back to the English system and in fact most systems around this world, they are innocent until proven guilty. This is not about that. This is about sentencing. We are talking about dangerous and high risk offenders, bad people, people who have done bad things three times. It is all about that. This legislation is saying if that happens then the onus is on them. There is a certain discretion to the prosecutor to bring this forward and there is also a discretion on the court system as to whether it will deem that person a dangerous offender.

The member seems to be giving the impression that when a person is charged, it is a reverse onus clause. That is not fair because the bill does not say that.

Could the member comment on that and perhaps rethink her position on this one position?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from our point of view in the NDP, we think that to wait until someone has had a third conviction and then as part of the sentencing use this reverse onus is kind of a false premise. As I said in my remarks earlier, we would much prefer to see the development of agreement from the government and other parties about how we can better support the prosecutors when they seek dangerous offender status in even the first go around. Why are we waiting for the third conviction?

I stand by my comments about the reverse onus. It is not only me saying that. We have heard from all kinds of experts who understand the Constitution and the charter and what challenges there may be. When we are told that this law will create all kinds of problems in terms of challenges, then we ought to heed those words. It seems a bit silly to bring in a bill when there is the likelihood that it will be struck down and challenged. I think it leads to scepticism as to the government's real agenda.

We have to look at this bill in the context of a number of the other bills where we see the same problem. They seem to be more about creating the image and the public perception about what they are going to do without actually delivering the legal goods that will make it happen. That is why it is being met with a great deal of opposition and scepticism from members of Parliament.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible to hear the member suggest that her party does not believe it should cooperate in getting tougher on crime by suggesting that after the third conviction for a serious criminal indictable offence a person might have an obligation to provide the reticence. Instead, the member has suggested that her party would entertain the possibility of this happening after the first conviction. Talk about a crock. They say they will not do it after three convictions, but they might do it after one. There is no balance to that argument whatsoever.

Those members have to face the facts. They are soft on crime. They are against the age of consent. They are against minimum mandatories. They are certainly against holding criminals to a standard, criminals who have been charged with serious indictable offences where there have been serious injuries to people. It suggests to me that public safety is not first and foremost of importance to the Canadian public.

Our first priority as members of Parliament should be the protection and safety of the public. I really believe that. Should we not take each and every opportunity to provide the public with that safety? We have to strike a balance. We have to balance the rights of the victims with the rights of criminals. That is fair ball. However, after three convictions and countless other offences, for which there may not have been convictions registered, the public deserves safety. For the member to suggest that she and her party would be willing to try to find other options maybe after the first conviction is ludicrous. The member is dishonest in her statements.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could almost see the piece of paper with all the little message boxes written on it telling the member what to say.

I am very proud to say that the NDP was founded on the principle of cooperation and that remains one of our founding values. The idea that we do not come here to cooperate is nonsense. We take our role in this Parliament very seriously and constructively. In my comments today I indicated that the government has a choice to seek cooperation with the other parties. That point has been made very clear.

We believe the earlier an intervention is made the better. We start with healthy communities. We start by providing people with decent housing and good jobs. We start by providing young people with good and accessible education. We would not cut out literacy programs and force kids on to the streets where they have a future with no hope. Let us look at the foundations of a good judicial system in terms of helping develop citizens with a sense of what needs to be done as part of the community. These are very important things, but they never get addressed by the government.

Early intervention in the judicial system and in crime prevention, community health and community support are very important. The system might work a whole lot better if Crown prosecutors were not so overburdened and could do their work and get a dangerous offender designation. The government does not seem to be interested in doing that. It seems to be interested in these very radical laws, which have never been shown to work, based on its public relations exercise of fooling the public that things will get a whole lot better with the Conservatives in government. I think there is growing suspicion from the Canadians. They know that is not true. They know these laws are dangerous and that they are likely to be struck down. This bill in particular I believe will probably be struck down in the House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver East represents a riding not unlike mine. Her riding is in downtown Vancouver and mine is in downtown Winnipeg where crime and safety issues are top of mind in the areas that we represent. She should be complimented for bringing such a balanced approach to this debate, rather than some of the knee-jerk reactions that we have heard from some of our colleagues' interventions.

I think it is difficult to have any debate about crime and justice issues without recognizing and acknowledging the appalling overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our prison population. It strikes me, and I have heard others comment, that many of the bills introduced by the government side in terms of getting tougher on crime and longer prison sentences will only exacerbate that problem. What is already a national shame and a national tragedy will be compounded.

Could the hon. member comment on that please?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised an important issue. Would it not be a much better scenario if we were actually debating in the House not this bill but legislation that would actually assist aboriginal people with their appalling conditions and actually look at the recent report that just came out that showed us that there is a massive overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our judicial system? We could then look at the systemic discrimination and oppression that takes place.

If we had that kind of debate, we would be doing more to help our judicial system than we will ever do with a bill like this.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Centre-North to address criminal justice legislation that I view as extremely important to, in particular, the safety of women and children in my community.

I am astounded to be in the House and hear the NDP in particular talking about this as an issue of cooperation and healthy communities. This bill is directed at punitive measures toward the most dangerous sexual predators in our society. That is what we are talking about. I have no idea what they are talking about at that end of the House with respect to healthy communities. These are individuals who are sexual predators and who are incorrigible and this bill attempts to deal with them in a way that will make our streets safe for women and children.

What in heaven's name the NDP is talking about, I do not know.

I would like to say at the outset that we should all be proud of the work that the Minister of Justice has done with respect to this bill. These are sentencing reforms that are long overdue in our country. Our Minister of Justice has taken the initiative and has brought forward sound legislation that reflects the appropriate balance, and I commend it to the House.

I feel strongly about this legislation. It is necessary because there is a lack of balance in the existing law in Canada, which is not acceptable to the people of Canada as represented by their elected representatives in the House of Commons, as it relates to the sentencing of dangerous offenders.

I think it would be useful for members of that party to realize that the genesis of this legislation is in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Johnson decision. Frankly, that decision is one of the more controversial decisions in recent times by the Supreme Court of Canada. It reflects a tension between the legislative branch and the judicial branch relative to sentencing provisions.

Now this is not the first time this tension has existed. Previous parliaments attempted to reform the dangerous offender provisions in 1995 and 1997. The Johnson case is a complex case and much has been said about what it may say and what it does not say. However, the way in which that decision has been interpreted by the lower courts is to impose upon the Crown a burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a dangerous sexual predator cannot be successfully managed in the community. That is a burden which is very difficult to overcome and, frankly, some would argue that it is a burden which is impossible to meet.

I think the opposition parties need to be aware, and the NDP in particular, that the consequence of that decision has been a precipitous drop in terms of both dangerous offender applications in our country and also dangerous offender convictions. That is unacceptable.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The minister will have 17 minutes after question period to finish off his remarks.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the House was last considering this matter, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had the floor. There are 17 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

I therefore call on the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who I believe will want to resume his remarks.

We will have a little order, please.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I did not appreciate how unruly the House is after question period. I am sure it is a continuing challenge.

Before I adjourned in preparation for question period, we were discussing this particular legislation, the dangerous offender legislation, Bill C-27. I had taken some exception to the comments of members from the New Democratic Party that had referred in their speeches to this being a matter of cooperation or a matter of the health of communities.

The NDP takes umbrage with Bill C-27. I was simply saying before we adjourned that the purpose of this legislation is to deal with the safety of our streets, the safety of women and children in our society, and the treatment of people who are dangerous sexual predators. For the life of me, I am not sure what the NDP is talking about with respect to this.

This legislation is extremely important. It results from a need to follow up upon a previous decision of the Supreme Court, Regina v. Johnson. That case made it very difficult in the minds of some, almost impossible for the police and crown prosecutors to actually secure dangerous offender designations against dangerous sexual predators. The consequences were very clear and the empirical evidence supports the fact that there were fewer prosecutions and fewer convictions. I do not think it is difficult to extrapolate to say, as a result more sexual predators left on the streets.

Certainly, it is an issue in Calgary that I have talked with city police about. I am well aware of the issues that they have undertaken to use scarce policing resources to manage people on the streets who are incorrigible sexual predators and dangerous offenders.

The legislation itself follows up as an amendment to section 753 of the Criminal Code. Canadians need to appreciate, as other parties in the House seek to protect dangerous offenders, the kinds of individuals that we are talking about. If individuals were to make a passing reference to section 753 of the Criminal Code, they would see that we are talking about people who constitute a threat to the life, the safety or the physical or mental well-being of other Canadians.

We are talking about people who show a failure to restrain their behaviour with a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons or inflict severe psychological damage on other persons. We are speaking about individuals who show a substantial degree of indifference on their part in respect of the foreseeable consequences of their action and the effect of that action on other people.

Frankly, we are speaking about people whose conduct is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender's behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.

Simply stated, we are dealing with dangerous offenders, with the most dangerous criminal predatory elements in our society. What the Minister of Justice is attempting to do with this bill is to escape from the logic of the previous court decision which essentially said that the only way these people could be incarcerated as dangerous offenders was if the Crown and the police were able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that these people could not be on the streets.

That is an unfair test. We have heard much in the House about the necessity for balance. Clearly, that kind of a situation lacks any sort of balance at all. I speak on this because I feel very strongly about it. The existing law in this country does not provide the degree of protection that is required for women and children on the streets of our cities and communities.

It is high time that Parliament did something about it. This is not the first attempt either. In 1995 and 1997 there were unsuccessful attempts to tighten up the dangerous offender provisions of the legislation.

One of the issues is whether or not this particular legislation, and in particular the provision that relates to offenders who have two previous convictions, is balanced and whether it respects the Constitution.

I would like to refer the House to the actual legislation, Bill C-27, which is before us and specifically the amendment to section 753, which states:

If the court is satisfied that the offence for which the offender is convicted is a primary designated offence for which it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more...the conditions in [section 753]...are presumed to have been met unless the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.

Therefore, the discretion on the part of the judiciary remains. It still has to assess the evidence. It still has to examine the circumstances of the case and it still has to decide on the balance of probabilities. However, the constitutional jurisdiction or discretion on the part of the court remains. This legislation therefore has the necessary balance between these presumptive provisions and the ability of the court to make its determination based on the evidence.

It carries on and specifically defines a limitation in proposed subsection (1.2), where it says:

Despite subsection (1), the court shall not find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of an application...would adequately protect the public.

So there is a limitation in this legislation that allows for the court to assess the evidence, weigh the evidence, and make the determination which the court is required to do.

In the time available, I will not speak about Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board, and the power they have to extend an offender's stay in custody past a conditional and, in certain circumstances, past the statutory release date. For certain groups of offenders, typically those with two or more violent offences, a dangerous or a long term offender designation may be imposed during the sentencing process.

Dangerous and long term offender designations are set by the court after an application by a crown attorney at the time of sentencing. A designation can be given as a result of a single act of brutality or a number of offences. This legislation allows for such applications to be conducted in a reasonable way, based on the evidence that is before the court.

The nature of the offence that we are speaking of would be a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code. I would implore other members of the House from other parties who have not yet decided whether they support this legislation, and who should, to look at section 752 and look at the list of criminal offences of which we are speaking.

I reiterate my point that these are the most dangerous offenders in our society. They include indictable offences such as first degree murder involving the use or attempted use of violence, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person.

These offenders represent a continuing serious threat to life in our society, to the safety, physical and mental well-being of other individuals. Surely, the first obligation of Parliament, the first obligation of this hallowed chamber, is to ensure that we have sufficient protection for women and children from these kinds of people who are on our streets, sadly, in our cities.

The amendments in Bill C-27 would strengthen the dangerous and long term offender provisions to ensure that violent and/or sexual criminals would receive some of the toughest sanctions in the Criminal Code.

There are those in this House who say that this is unwarranted. I ask them to stand in this House, to face the Canadian public who are justifiably concerned about this, whether we be parents, whether we be husbands who are very concerned about this, and say that they are prepared to mollycoddle violent and sexual criminals who are a threat to vulnerable people in our society. That is essentially what they are proposing.

Designation as a dangerous offender means that the offender must serve an indeterminate sentence with no entitlement to statutory release. It also means that offenders can be detained in a correctional facility for an indefinite period if they have a history of serious or violent offences and pose a safety threat to the public. That is the way it should be.

The legislation will ensure that the judicial responsibility to weigh the evidence carries on, that we have a balanced and fair trial process with respect to these people, and that the designation of a person as a dangerous offender will be conducted in a way that accords with the Canadian charter. However, at the end of the day, those who are the most serious risks to the health and the safety of women and children in our society will be incarcerated in circumstances where they should be.

Like other offenders, dangerous offenders may apply for conditional release. However, they may only do so after serving seven years of their sentence. A conditional release will be granted only if it is determined by the National Parole Board that the offenders can be safely reintegrated into the community and if released, these offenders are monitored in the same way as other parolees who are under supervision for life.

Again, the chances of a dangerous offender achieving conditional release are very low because of the nature of the individuals about whom we are speaking and the fact that this type of behaviour is incorrigible and is not readily changed. It is fair to say that many of these individuals who are dangerous offenders end up spending much of the rest of their lives behind bars.

The reason that this legislation is warranted goes back to a previous court case and to previous attempts to remedy this defect in the Criminal Code. It is quite clear that over time, if one looks at the evidence, the dangerous offender applications and the convictions have decreased as a result of previous judicial decisions. That makes it difficult to secure prosecutions successfully. If one talks to crown prosecutors and the police, they will say this.

The effect of this legislation, which is put forward by the Minister of Justice, including the third strike presumption, is reasonable. If one has been previously convicted of two such incidents that are dangerous offender designations, there is no reason why there should not be a presumption and a shift of an onus in terms of the third such conviction that is brought before the court. Surely, that is a minimum requirement that Parliament should impose to keep our streets safe and the security of our women and children tight.

Those are the submissions I would make with respect to Bill C-27. I am pleased to answer any questions.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin today by talking a bit about the theory of criminal justice and how we get tough on crime, which is the slogan often used by those across the way.

We cannot get tough on crime without being smart on crime and that means not just descending into slogans, such as “getting tough on crime”, “war on crime” and “three strikes you're out”. We know where that rhetoric comes from and we know that it is based on false analysis. It is based on ideology and sloganism, not on criminological research, social research or demographics which all gives serious concern to knee-jerk, superficial stoking of the fears in society about a situation that may not exist. That is done for purposes that are ideological and polemical and they carry a real danger of being self-fulfilling.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak about how being tough on crime means being smart on crime first.

Let us just take the 12 bills dealing with criminal justice that are before this House and the one that is before the other place. The official opposition has offered this week to cooperate and fast track eight out of the eleven of those bills, and I will speak to the other two in a moment, but that is in no way doing anything but making this place work with sensible dialogue and debate over how to, without holding up any of these bills, ensure they are not more dangerous than what we are to believe they are to protect us against.

We have offered to fast track Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing bill. It has had serious debate and an appropriate amendment was moved by opposition parties so it can now go ahead. We will give it all the speed it needs.

We will fast track Bill C-18, the DNA identification act; Bill C-19, street racing; Bill C-23, criminal procedure improvements; and Bill C-26, payday loans. I would pause to say that five out of the six bills that I have just mentioned were actually initiated under the previous Liberal government. They will go forward with our support and with sensible amendments where necessary. We will fast track two other bills.

We opposed the judicial salaries bill because we opposed the suggestion by the government that it disregard the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which recommended appropriate increases for judges' salaries over the last four year period. While we opposed that, we allowed it to pass on division so there would be no slowing up of that process.

The 13th bill is Bill S-3, the military sex offender act, which is now before the other place. We will be supporting that bill and are willing to fast track it in every way we can.

In the context of discussing the dangerous offender legislation, it is important to underline the cooperation that is going on in the House to identify what is important, to carry on work that was done by the previous government and to get some of these things moved ahead.

However, Bill C-27 is of a different order. The dangerous offender legislation before us has some major flaws that I will speak about but I would first say that we need a reality check. Let us take a reality check first on the criminal conviction statistics in Canada which have been steadily coming down over the last 10 to 15 years. That is what the research tells us. The demographics themselves in society are leading through analysis to that decline in the crime rate. While we may raise the fears of the public to justify simplistic solutions through sloganeering and superficial claims to put fear in the hearts of Canadians, the crime rate comes down.

Let us take another reality check on the situation in the U.S. where these slogans come from and much of this legislation seems to be patterned after. The United States has the highest crime rates and incarceration rates. It also has the most dangerous communities and the most expensive criminal justice system.

If we are to follow any model in the world when we amend our criminal justice statutes, we certainly do not want to follow the so-called war on crime in the United States.

Let me pause to mention that the state of California spends more on criminal justice and corrections than it spends on education. That should be very edifying to all of us.

Let me give another example about the folly of pretending that just by putting people in jail on very restrictive terms without any adjustment for the context of a particular case can be more dangerous for society. Most convicted people, dangerous or not, will get out. We have the Bernardos and some of the most horrid criminals in our country's history who will be behind bars, blessedly, forever, but most criminals will get out.

Let us think of those people who go into a prison situation, which members opposite would like to see everyone go into. It is a bit of an irony to consider that prison life, if that is what we can call it, prison for life, is the place in society which should be the most protected but is in fact the place where one is most likely to be assaulted, raped, infected and injected, and these people will come out.

Therefore, we need to take particular care for the correctional services, the proper services within them and who we put behind bars and for how long.

Let me speak about the fact that 25% of the prison population in this country is made up of aboriginal people. This is a stunning statistic of despair. Can this be the result of a fair criminal justice system or is this a result of despair in aboriginal communities? Is it part of the despair of our prevention system and our criminal justice system of preventative crime? Is it a matter of racism in society? What is happening?

These are the underpinning questions that we must be asking ourselves in the House as we respond to the reality of the criminal justice system. This is 1% of the population and 25% of the prison population.

Let us ensure that when people do come out of prison, if they are going to be spending time there, that they have been rehabilitated and they are safe to society because the vast majority will come out.

We will not ensure that the context of the situation is properly taken into account in peculiar circumstances unless police officers, prosecutors, judges, correctional officers and parole officers have the discretion to identify where the dangers are and where someone may have a better response to a criminal justice sanction than simply putting someone in jail for an indefinite period.

Turning to Bill C-27, the dangerous offender legislation, the member opposite has mentioned that there is dangerous offender legislation on the books now and it is operating. It operates as a companion with long term offender legislation which can kick in. Prosecutors have the discretion to bring forward at sentencing applications before a judge for a long term offender or a dangerous offender designation. That works. It has been covered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lyons and Johnson cases in 1997 and 2002. It has been found to be constitutionally appropriate. I would suggest that it is working because it allows for all the proper discretions to be exercised.

The problem with what is being suggested in Bill C-27, and it has been referred to by numerous members of the House, is the reverse onus provision at sentencing after a third conviction of a certain type of very serious crime.

We have heard some people say that this offends the presumption of innocence, which is an historical criminal law principle in our legal system. However, the trouble is not with the presumption of innocence, which is subsection 11(d) of the charter. The question is about the reverse onus of the burden. This is not a conviction matter. It is not a presumption of innocence because the person has already been convicted for the third time.

What we are talking about is whether fundamental justice, in reversing the onus on such an extraordinary punishment, can meet the tests under section 7 of the charter for fundamental justice. There is strong authority that this simply cannot be done. This does not meet the tests of fundamental justice. It involves, for instance, the convicted person proving a negative into the future. Yes, it is on the balance of probabilities and, yes, as the member opposite said, there is judicial discretion to determine whether that onus is met or not, but there is still a reverse onus and, in many cases, it is an impossible burden to attempt to prove a negative into the future.

It is also a problem because it offends section 7 as being against the principles of fundamental justice and it is a problem under section 1 as to whether this is a justifiable limit on the rights under the charter. Is it a substantive need? Is it a rational connection? Is there minimal impairment? I would say that under all those cases this reverse onus does not meet the test. This is highly constitutionally suspect. Why, when we have a provision that is working well, would we want to throw ourselves into very likely years of constitutional charter litigation when we have charter compliant provisions now for dangerous and long term offenders?

We also have a problem that this will not be enforceable. This is ultra vires of the federal government to tell the provincial governments, which are responsible for the administration of criminal justice, who they should prosecute and what sentences they should ask for. That simply cannot be supported in our constitutional division of powers and, therefore, it is inappropriate for the government to put this forward.

There are also dangerous unintended consequences that could come to the fore here. We have long delays in our criminal justice system today. A report in the paper last week showed that in the province of Ontario 100,000 charges have gone beyond the nine months before they actually go to trial. This is bouncing very perilously close up against the Supreme Court of Canada Askov decision where all members will remember with regret that 30,000 criminal cases were dismissed because it took too long for people to get to trial.

If people are facing this so-called simplistic, superficial three strikes and they are out law, which has been so disastrously unsuccessful and dangerous in the United States, they will insist on going to trial more often. There will be less guilty pleas which will cause further delays in the courts and perhaps more cases will be thrown out because of charter violations.

The one side of it is that there will be more trials, longer delays and more costs to the prison system. I have not even begun to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs that will be required to build the prisons that will hold these long term offenders.

Costs will be going up, delays will be longer and cases will be thrown out for charter violations because of delay. The other dynamic that may happen and where prosecutors, with long dockets and not wanting to have further delays in trials, may charge people with lesser offences than would otherwise justify a conviction for a more serious case that may give them a longer prison term, or the convicted person may plea bargain to a lesser offence.

Both of those dynamics are more likely to put dangerous people on the streets and put in danger the men and women the member opposite was just speaking about. We have to be very careful when we tinker with these laws, especially if we are doing it superficially and against the evidence of criminologists and social scientists as to what is effective and what is not.

Let us turn for a moment to what being tough on crime by being smart on crime really means. It means a national crime prevention strategy, such as the one the previous government put into place across this country over a period of 13 years, funded in a very targeted way, to help kids have things to do after school. If I may indulge myself in a short phrase, it is about shooting hoops, not drugs. There are sports programs across this country in the evening and even far into the night where kids who otherwise would have been getting in trouble are involved in healthy activity.

We have to watch for issues of poverty and cultural exclusion.

We have to look at the issue of legal aid, which is in underfunded disrepair across this country, thus involving people in perhaps building up criminal records when they should have been having trials and pleading not guilty. They are pleading guilty because they cannot defend themselves in the courts without assistance.

We have to look at issues of homelessness. We have to look at issues of mental illness. The Kirby-Keon Senate report was an extraordinary statement of sound thinking about how to deal with those with mental illnesses, who unfortunately fall into the ranks of the homeless as well as the ranks of the criminal justice system, which is the worst place for them to be. We have to rethink this and meet our social contract around the concept of deinstitutionalization, whereby governments emptied the mental hospitals but then did not provide services in the community to support people.

We have to look at drug courts. They are operating in Toronto and Vancouver and in numerous American states. That is one example of where the American criminal justice system has actually been a stunning success at diverting people out of the criminal system if they will go into detox and treatment.

We have to look at issues of harm reduction. Drugs, addiction and substance abuse are great parts of the despair that leads people into the criminal justice system. Harm reduction, of course, involves needle exchanges and safe injection sites, which the government has failed to guarantee would be extended in Vancouver, when it has been an example for literally the world to consider the effectiveness of harm reduction in that situation, to help motivate people into detox.

We need shelters for them. We need transitional housing. We need skills training. We need affordable housing. We need jobs. In fact, the social enterprise initiatives of the last Liberal government, which were ready to go across this country, certainly in my province of British Columbia, were cancelled by the current government in its last budget. Those are the things that can assist people to not fall into crime and into despair, which leads them to become dangerous for other members of society.

What are we going to do instead? We are going to dismantle the gun registry. It is amazing that any thought could be given to that at this stage after the tragedy at Dawson College in Montreal.

We have a Prime Minister who will not go to an international AIDS conference in Toronto. We have a Prime Minister who did not go to a world conference on harm reduction in Vancouver last April.

We are simply looking in the wrong direction. We have to be tough on crime, I agree with all members opposite, but we are going to be tough on crime by being smart on crime and not by being simply superficial and using slogans.

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

Mr. Speaker, a member opposite has mentioned that I am a little slow getting out of my chair--

[An hon. member]

He's old.

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

Yes, I am getting old, Mr. Speaker. There are only five MPs in this House who are older than I am, so I will take my time getting up.

The member opposite, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, misses a whole bunch of points. One thing he said, to which I took great offence, was that he mentioned that our party just wants all of them to go to jail. This is not accurate. It is a downright misrepresentation. I will tell him personally and all who are in the House and anybody else who will listen that I think the saddest thing in the world is for people to get into in crime and end up wasting their lives in jail. That is absolutely true.

There is a maximum security institution in my riding. I visited it a number of times even before the boundary changes put it in my riding. It is incredibly sad in there. No one knows how I wish that every one of those people, mostly young people, although some are older, would have had a decent, moral education when they were growing up so that the type of activity they were involved in was just so wrong they would not contemplate doing it.

Where do we get the idea that it is all right to bludgeon a person to death? We get that in our society. Where does that come from? That would be impossible for me. I venture to guess that it would be impossible for my children because of what we have taught them about what is right and what is wrong.

I think that is the part that is missing in our society. In regard to anything moral, we have decided that we cannot impose our morals on anybody. However, we impose morals on people when somebody comes up to a member of my family and kills them. That has happened. It is not acceptable. That is an imposition of morality. Teaching of a morality and having them make their own choices because they have been taught correctly is valid and good.

I take great umbrage at that remark of the member.

I went to a youth incarceration centre and saw 13 year olds and 14 year olds who were there because they knifed somebody. Where did they get that idea?

This is not the venue in which we can contemplate this, but I absolutely believe that we need to do more to prevent people from going to jail.

When they do go to jail, we give them a sentence and we say, “Yes, they have another chance”. They go out and do it again and we say, “Okay, one more chance”. We are talking about serious crimes here, not just petty theft or things like that, as bad as that is. We are talking about attacks on human beings, brutal attacks. We are saying to them that obviously after someone has been convicted the third time, that person is a dangerous offender. Unfortunately, as much as we regret it, we tell criminals that for the good of society and the protection of law-abiding citizens, they are going to find some way to spend their lives usefully behind bars because we cannot trust them.

To me that is dreadful, but it is a valid choice we have to make if we are going to have a society in which our citizens feel safe.

The member is just wrong in his approaches and some of his statements.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I think the member set up a straw person to burn down. I do not think I said or suggested in any way that the Conservative government wants everyone in jail. I do not believe that and I did not say that.

However, the member makes a very good point in terms of the life chances of young people and the tragedy that occurs when, because of a lack of life chances, they get into criminal activity and end up in jail. I cannot think of anything that could possibly be worse for a child of mine or any other children.

When I hear comments like this that make perfect sense to me, I wonder how that could equate to the decision to cut literacy programs, which actually give people life chances so that they do not end up in poverty or despair. I wonder how the court challenges program could be cut when over the years it has championed charter rights for people who sometimes are in the greatest despair in our society and in the most marginalized groups. It is those people, of course, who are most at risk, through despair, poverty and exclusion, of ending up involved in criminal activity.

I agree partially with the member opposite. We need to improve and we need to do do everything we can for real early childhood education and development, for instance, to ensure that the life chances of our young people steer them away from crime, not toward crime.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the hon. member's distinction between being smart and being tough. I do not think there is any argument about being tough on crime. The question is whether we are smart at the same time. Any fool can be tough. It is much more difficult to be smart.

It seems to me that there is a pattern here. I want my hon. colleague to comment on it. The pattern is that we create a fear, which the party opposite seems to be particularly skilled at, we propose a solution to a fear, and then we pat ourselves on the back and walk away, having created a whole bunch of unintended consequences.

I want the member to comment on why he thinks this is a stupid bill. It is tough, but it is stupid. Why does it not make Canadians any safer? What are the unintended consequences? What is it really like, if one has three convictions, to try to prove, either on the balance of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt, that one will not likely commit the fourth crime?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may correct the hon. member at the outset, I did not call this stupid. I called it superficial. I think that is the danger. I do not attribute this intention to the government, but I do warn of the consequences. When we raise fears beyond reality in order to justify, for whatever reason, having tougher laws in terms of putting people in jail for a longer time, and having more people in jail, which is a hateful and depressing situation for anyone to be in and a very poor place for people to actually recover balance in their lives and become responsible citizens, then we waste money. In fact, we cause more dangerous people to get out of those prisons sometimes.

As I say, the vast majority of them get out eventually. They are not all Clifford Olsons. If these people are not treated in the context of their lives and measured against their contribution and their determination to improve their lives with the prison correctional programs that are available, if they are treated improperly because they do not have proper legal representation due to legal aid funding cuts and do not get a balanced trial and feel as if they have been stuck in a place where they are being improperly punished, they perhaps in the end will come out being more dangerous. That is one of the unintended consequences.

The other, which we see in minimum sentences as well, is that the prosecutors simply do not charge at the appropriate level sometimes when they do not believe that the minimum punishment, or in this case the dangerous offender designation, is appropriate. They will undercharge and the person may get away with an inappropriate sentence because it is a lesser charge, so then the streets are more dangerous as well.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat dismayed and rather surprised and shocked to hear the comment made that this side of the House is creating fear. With all due respect, there is fear all across our nation because victims of crime are just afraid to come out onto the streets.

What do we tell the family of the woman in Winnipeg who was swarmed the other day by children 12 years of age and under who kicked and beat her until she died? What about her rights?

What about Mr. McLaughlin? What do we tell him when his son is murdered behind a hotel in Fort Garry because he was beaten up and the offender gets out in a very short time?

What about the rights of the victims of crimes, the rights of Canadian citizens who want to live and work in their communities and walk on their streets at night? What about their rights?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, a short response, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite raises an excellent point. I thank her for doing it. There are dangerous people in our society and there are horrible crimes committed, but what we as legislators have to be very careful of is not to take those horrid examples where people are terribly victimized and spread the idea that this is a general situation in society, because then we get public pressure to overreact and we create the more dangerous situations that I have already described.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for St. Catharines.

I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend part XXIV of the Criminal Code, dangerous offenders, and sections 810.1 and 810.2, peace bonds.

Few issues trigger more emotion than how the government treats our most dangerous criminals, especially when it comes to sex offences against children. While it is one thing to be convicted of such a crime, it is quite another to see someone commit a child sexual offence who has been convicted three, four, five times or more and is back out reoffending.

As such, I support this legislation. I urge every member of this chamber to do the same. It is time to move forward with tougher legislation that protects Canadians and their families.

Quite simply, the current provisions are not working as well as they should. It saddens me to think of the Canadians whose lives have been changed forever because of a hardened repeat offender. We can and we should do something about this now.

I have looked over the bill and I wonder how anyone can stand against these reforms. I look at the requirement for a crown to stand in open court and declare whether, on a third serious violent conviction where the prior offences received a two year sentence, a dangerous offender designation would be sought, and I ask “why not?” Why we should not require a crown to specifically consider this issue and declare his intention?

I see the proposal to reverse the burden of proof onto the offender convicted for a third time of a third serious sexual offence in a dangerous offender hearing. I look at the reform of the peace bond provisions that seek to extend the duration from 12 months to 24 months for convicted offenders in the community. I note that judges will be called upon to consider more vigorous conditions to ensure the public safety. Again, the question should not be why, but why not.

So far the only real reason given by members opposite as to why the bill should not be supported has been that the rights of the offender have been compromised. I find myself greatly disturbed by the claims of the opposition. In my opinion, the opposition members, who cite the rights of offenders being that more important than the rights of victims and survivors, should be ashamed of themselves.

I listened to the comments of the Minister of Justice. He indicated that these provisions were carefully crafted to ensure constitutionality. He has indicated, for example, that the provision imposing a reverse onus on the offender where there has been a third violent or sexual offence conviction is constitutional.

He indicated it was constitutional because it was narrowly designed, that it reflected the types of convictions that commonly led to a dangerous offender designation. He said that these offences were violent and harmful by their very nature and that they all required intent to harm another person. He spoke of how these qualifying offences were restricted to instances that carried a two year or more sentence. It appears to me, therefore, that the criteria to trigger the reverse onus were not simply drawn from a hat. These were not randomly chosen offences, nor should they be.

As I understand it, the inclusion of any offence on the primary list of offences is based on the following criteria: that there is at least a 10 year maximum sentence allowed; the nature of the offence is such that there is a sufficient element of brutality and harm intended; there is a common occurrence of the offence in the historical application of dangerous offender applications: and, the offence is not so overly broad by its nature so as to possibly allow an absurd result by its inclusion in the primary list of offences.

I looked closely at these offences. I wanted to know what would justify triggering the reverse elements. After checking, I completely support the Minister of Justice.

In the first place, I note that of the 12 primary designated offences that trigger reverse onus, 7 are sexual offences, divided between sexual offences committed against adults and offences against children.

It was 15 years ago that I entered into the rape crisis centre and received training in crisis intervention. I volunteered there for seven and a half years. I want every member of the House to know that the statistics, which were so alarming back then, have not changed. I suggest to the opposition parties that are so opposed to the bill that what we have been doing for the past decade has done nothing. It has not worked. It is time to change the strategy.

I note that according to analysis from Correctional Services Canada, over 80% of all dangerous offenders were designated as a result of a predicate conviction for one or more of the seven listed primary offences. About half of these offenders committed their offences against adults and half against children. Of the remaining 15% to 20% of offenders who were designated as dangerous offenders for other offences, about three-quarters of them were so designated as the result of a conviction for one of the five remaining listed primary offences. The remaining handful of offenders were convicted of a wide variety of offences including, for example, arson and fraud.

This seems to illustrate that there is a clear and precise logic behind the design of the primary offence list. For example, I look at the kidnapping offence. Interestingly, a quick look at existing case law indicates that a large number of non-sexual dangerous offender designations had one or more kidnapping convictions, but also many of them had sexual assault offence histories prior to the dangerous offender application.

A review of case law indicated that a total of 15 individuals were subject to a dangerous offender application since 1997 based on a kidnapping offence. Fourteen were designated as dangerous offenders and one was a long term offender. Again, this illustrates that kidnapping belongs on the list.

Then I looked at the same period for the offence of forcible confinement. I could see only five incidents of a dangerous offender application being sought in those cases. In four of those cases there were one or more of the other primary offences also listed. In addition to the low incidence of such an offence triggering a dangerous offender application, I noted that in half of these cases the dangerous offender designation was denied.

Finally, I note that while there are typically about 1,500 convictions each year for forcible confinement according to Statistics Canada, there are less than 100 per year on average for kidnapping. While forcible confinement offenders receive an average sentence of about six months, the average conviction for kidnapping is about three years. What this tells me is that the offence of kidnapping should be a triggering offence for the reverse onus, but forceable confinement should not. Kidnapping meets the criteria; forceable confinement does not.

The bottom line is the list of triggering offences makes sense. While I am sure there will be much discussion in the chamber and at committee about which offences should be in or out, at least it is clear to me that there has been some consideration in the development of the list.

I have the utmost confidence that these reforms will accomplish what the Minister of Justice has set out to do. A lot of concerns have been expressed by police, by victims, by many volunteers in crisis centres and by provincial ministers of justice that in too many cases individuals were being set loose in the community even though they were clearly uncontrollable.

There was a broad consensus that since 2003 the dangerous offender provisions had become difficult to use even as the shield of last resort against predators who were bound to reoffend if released. I believe these reforms address those problems, but I also belive they do so in a very measured and balanced way that fully respects fundamental principles of justice and human rights.

As such, I fully support these measures that seek to restore to a reasonable level the protection that Canadians want and need against the very worst sexual and violent offenders in the country.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of the efforts to protect Canadians and punish repeat offenders. My riding of Newton—North Delta used to be called the capital of car thieves.

The legal community has come to me and raised some issues. In Canada an individual is considered to be not guilty until proven guilty. In this bill the people would be considered guilty until they prove they were not. How would we handle this situation?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the hon. member and I sense some support for what we are attempting to do here. However, he is in fact incorrect. I think he is referring more to the “three strikes you're out” law in the United States. With this legislation, it is not an automatic sentence on a third conviction. People need to have the convictions before a crown can go forward to seek dangerous offender status. Once they have been convicted of a third crime, afterwards a crown can seek the dangerous offender status.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague's remarks and I note her experience in the rape crisis centre. As the father of a daughter, who is long grown now, one of the things I always feared was a sexual offence against my daughter.

We talk about the rights of victims as well and the things that victims carry for years and years. Has the hon. member any personal experiences in dealing with victims, which I am sure she has, which might illustrate that point?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after seven and a half years, I have a great deal of experience, some things I wish perhaps I had not had the opportunity to experience. Nonetheless I value the experience and the education I gained from my volunteer work at the rape crisis centre.

It was very much a learning experience for me. I will explain one specific situation to try to get my point across as to why I am specifically supporting this legislation from my personal experiences, unlike listening to the Liberals who are suggesting we are doing this based on slogans or trying to create fear that goes beyond reality.

I have seen too much of the reality. Part of my responsibility as a rape crisis volunteer was to provide support in the courtroom for victims who were survivors. All the volunteers in the centre became very close and very supportive of each other.

I remember a volunteer who was working with one of the survivors in court. She was a survivor herself. She sat there for two weeks, listening to testimony and supporting the survivor. She listened to what the victim had to say about what happened to her. Then this woman, who became a good friend of mine, broke into a cold sweat. It was at that very moment during the trial when she saw the accused that she realized the person was the exact same person who committed the crime on her. It was a very violent crime.

It is for those reasons that I support this legislation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a low income inner city riding of downtown Winnipeg Centre where 47% of all families live below the poverty line and 52% of all children. While there is no direct connection, it is statistically proven that low income people are more likely to be exposed to or victims of something to do with crime, violence or the criminal justice system. That relative connection cannot be denied. I can say without any fear of contradiction that crime and safety are the number one top of mind issue for the people I represent.

I have been listening to this debate all through the day as we try and get our minds around the reverse onus concept. I would ask my colleague perhaps to consider one thing. Overwhelmingly, the face of poverty in my riding is North American Indian, aboriginal. We cannot discuss crime and justice without at least recognizing the appalling overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our criminal justice system and in our prisons.

Does she not agree that the bill will exacerbate and even compound that social inequity, which exists in our prison system today, that overrepresentation of poor aboriginal people from places like the inner city of Winnipeg?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, if the hon. member had been listening to my remarks today, most of my focus was on the sexual offences. He is absolutely wrong if he was trying to explain to the House that perhaps an economic situation of someone would perhaps be more inclined to be sexually offended. One of the biggest myths out there, with respect to sexual assault and sexual violence, it is geared to only one person in society or one group. It actually happens to anyone and everyone and it is very unreported, so we also need to address that.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, among the many duties of government perhaps none is more important than the protection of our citizens from crime. Not only is it our duty, it is also part of the commitment the Conservatives made to the citizens of this country. It also flows from what was learned in my community earlier this summer when the Minister of Justice participated in a round table discussion with people involved in or affected by our justice system. This bill is a crucial part of our justice package aimed directly at that goal.

Those of us who live in St. Catharines understand all too well the absolute necessity of effective dangerous offender legislation. It was 15 years ago that our city was gripped by fear, sparked by the horrific crimes of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. The brutal murders of Kristin French, Leslie Mahaffy and Tammy Homolka have not been forgotten in St. Catharines, and I doubt that they ever will be.

Arising out of this horrific situation was the fact that Paul Bernardo was determined to be a dangerous offender and will remain in prison indefinitely. The people of St. Catharines breathed a huge sigh of relief when that decision was made. We know that some people, like Bernardo, are not capable of being rehabilitated. We know that for some criminals reoffending is not just a statistical probability, it is a certainty.

Many Canadian communities have been victimized by repeat sexual or violent offenders who have somehow slipped through the cracks of the justice system and have been allowed to repeat their crimes again and again. This cannot stand. Catch and release is a great way to spend an afternoon fishing. It is not the way to protect Canadians.

An article in last Thursday's Edmonton Journal underlines the glaring hole in our justice system that Bill C-27 is needed to fill. The article is entitled “Notorious rapist deserves prison forever, 1969 victim says”. It details a lengthy criminal record of Stephen Ewanchuk. His 1969 victim was choked, beaten and raped. He was later convicted for that rape and sentenced to three years in prison. Between that rape and the later conviction, he was again convicted in 1969 for a different rape.

In 1972 he was sentenced to 10 years for yet another rape. In 1986 he was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 15 months in prison. In 1994 he was convicted of another sexual assault and sentenced to two years. I am not done. In 2005 he was convicted of sexually assaulting an eight year old girl. There is an old saying that says once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is a pattern.

With Ewanchuk it has been six times and that is a farce and a mockery of justice. Now, after six sexual offences, it is the Crown that must prove that Stephen Ewanchuk is a dangerous offender. After six offences, this should not be a question. Under our legislation it would be Mr. Ewanchuk who would face the burden of proving that he is not a dangerous offender. Justice demands no less.

In addition to this reverse onus provision, this legislation will strengthen sections 810.1 and 810.2, high risk peace bonds, by doubling the duration to 24 months and clarifying that a broad range of conditions may be imposed in order to protect the public. It should be obvious that no one's rights are more grievously violated than the victims of violent sexual offences, but for 13 years the rights of victims were ignored. Today we are taking an important step toward rebalancing the scales of justice. Canadians want these laws in place. They know that the coddling of violent criminals must end.

A couple of weeks ago I received an email from a constituent named Les Hulls. He was forwarding me a message that he had sent to the member for Mount Royal. Mr. Hulls was upset that the Liberal member had criticized Bill C-27. He wrote, “If you look to the United States for the 'three strikes you're out parallel', you'll find that they've been moving away from it...”

In his email to the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Hulls also said, “Canadians want tougher laws when dealing with repeat offenders of violent and sexual crimes. I am a voter and I do not care what the Americans are doing”.

I could not put it better myself. Canadians are fed up reading stories about crimes committed by five, six and seven time violent offenders, and rightly so. Canadian streets belong to hard-working and law abiding citizens. This legislation is a big step toward winning those streets back. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

Of course, not everyone agrees that the legislation is the right thing to do. A Toronto defence attorney, Clayton Ruby, had this to say about our bill: “The Tories get votes from bashing criminals and Canadians simply seem stupid enough to bite on this again, and again and again.” Judging by the slipshod logic of some of the criticisms I have heard of the bill, Mr. Ruby is not the only one who thinks Canadians are stupid.

At this point I would like to discuss two criticisms. In particular, that Canadians are far too smart for them. One criticism made by a number of people, including the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, is that the reverse onus provision will be struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the charter guarantee of the presumption of innocence.

I would note first of all that this is a peculiar position for my friend from Windsor—Tecumseh to take when one considers his party's platform from the last January election. That platform claimed that the NDP would introduce an omnibus safe communities act. It went on to list a number of measures, one of which was, “Support a reverse onus on bail for all gun related crimes”.

We believe that was a good idea, so you can understand my confusion, Mr. Speaker, upon hearing that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the NDP justice critic, now believes reverse onus provisions are unconstitutional.

More generally, I think anyone who claims the bill violates the principle of innocent before proven guilty is being disingenuous. Unlike Mr. Ruby I recognize that the Canadian people are anything but stupid. They cannot help but see, therefore, that the provisions of the bill apply only to those offenders who have already been proven guilty. Again, for those who have already been proven guilty for a third time no less of designated sexual or violent offences, the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with sentencing. Sentencing is the only area that the bill will affect.

I know this is clear enough for Canadian voters because a number of them have contacted me to express their strong support for the bill. I hope I have made this clear enough for my friends across the aisle.

There is a second criticism that has been levelled at the bill. I know that Canadians are too smart to buy this one as well. That criticism is that California's three strikes has not worked, so therefore our legislation will not work. The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that our bill barely even resembles the California law.

Under California legislation, any third felony conviction automatically results in a life sentence. Our bill however significantly improves on that legislation in two crucial aspects. First, it is not automatic. Offenders will still have the opportunity to prove to the judge why they should not be labelled dangerous offenders.

Second, and unlike California law, our legislation will only apply to violent or sexual offenders. It is true that we will not declare anyone a dangerous offender for stealing a slice of pizza, not even three slices of pizza.

According to the justice policy institute, an American think tank, approximately two-thirds of convictions under California law were for non-violent offenders. By avoiding that defect, our bill would avoid all of the associated problems while still acting as an effective deterrent against violent and sexual offenders.

Again, unlike Clayton Ruby, I do not believe that Canadians are stupid. I know that Canadians understand the points I have just made, but I hope the members opposite do as well. Our job is to protect Canadians. I stand here in my place and say that we will fulfill that duty by passing this important piece of legislation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a statement earlier by the member's colleague that the only opposition to this bill by the other parties was the argument that they were in need of protecting the rights of the offender. If the members would look at the record, the member for Vancouver Quadra laid out some interesting possibilities which would be a bad outcome for all Canadians, and that is with regard to the constitutionality issues.

The member will know that should this bill pass and get royal assent and be proclaimed to become law, it can be subject to a charter challenge. That could hang up the law for years of very protracted constitutional hearings, which is a problem. The second is the ultra vires argument or the problem whether the federal government can tell the provincial government who to charge and with what to charge the individuals. This was also another constitutional matter.

I raise it for the hon. member that the arguments are not so much about what about the offender, but it could very well turn out that the legislation would never be operable until charter questions were dealt with in the courts, which maybe is an issue we can deal with now before we have the risk of falling into that protracted delay and having good legislation.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I take them, certainly, at face value. In terms of weighing this whole issue of whether it actually is constitutional, there are dozens of reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. I will provide a few for the member: bail provision, sex offender registry applications and, also, not criminally responsible. These certainly indicate that there is clear evidence that the reverse onus clause, certainly from a constitutional perspective, is open and possible.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. Catharines is showing a level of optimism here that is not warranted when he says that he is looking forward to working hard to implement this bill. I have been listening to the opposition parties here and all three of them are opposed. This might be the first bill that I have ever seen that goes down at second reading, that does not even make it to committee.

I have a question for my colleague. What kind of flexibility are the Conservatives going to show that would garner some level of support from the other opposition parties? Without some generosity of spirit or some accommodating of the legitimate points of view that have been raised by all three of the other opposition parties, and put forward very respectfully, I might add, where are the Conservatives going to give and where are they going to move to ensure this bill does not die right at second reading?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the fascinating pieces of information that I picked up while researching this legislation, in terms of how it is going to move forward, how we are going to work with each other, and how we are going to understand it, was indeed that part of the NDP platform. The member's party was in fact implicit and spoke directly to reverse onus. I would simply say to the member that in that context this bill addresses some of what his party was trying to get at during the election in order to form government, that is, to implement some form of a justice strategy. This reaches out to the exact area he and his party were trying to reach in terms of reducing crime in our country.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues opposite to listen to what I have to say. I hope you will forgive me at once, Mr. Speaker, if, in the course of making my argument, I refer to you as “your honour” because my 25 years of practising criminal law will have shown through and caused me to err in that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would be showing you respect because if I were to call you “your honour”, your salary would increase by nearly $100,000. This is why we have judges who, as a matter of conscience and in the work they do every day, are able to decide the appropriate sentence for any individual appearing before them. There is a fundamental flaw in the bill before us; Bill C-27 is making a big mistake and the party in power must realize that. If we have to, we will defeat it before it even reaches second reading because this bill seeks to punish crimes, not individuals. Allow me to explain.

When an accused person appears before the court, he is accused of an offence and must answer for his actions and, of course, his offence. Let us take, for example, one of the offences this bill seeks to punish: attempt to commit murder or invitation to sexual touching. Actually, take any one of the offences mentioned in the bill. If we take attempt to commit murder, the individual who appears before the court must be sentenced.

The party opposite is forgetting one of the fundamental principles: the sentence must be individualized. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it must be individualized. This means that the judge addresses the individual and hands down a sentence that takes into account the sentencing criteria established by the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. For the information of my colleagues opposite, these are called “sentencing principles”.

We humbly believe that this bill is contrary to all those principles, because what the Supreme Court has said over and over, and will say again if this bill has to end up before the Supreme Court, is that a sentence is unique. It must be addressed to the individual who is before the judge. That is not what this bill is trying to do. What this bill is trying to do is make it so that if an individual is convicted of a serious crime for the third time, he or she is then “out” for life. The person is in prison.

That is not what must be done. It is unacceptable to think like this. Yes, there really are dangerous criminals in society. But saying that is not a solution to all our problems. We have to make it so that people who do not deserve to live in society are excluded from society, for as long as possible, when they exhibit such little respect for the laws of this country and continually reoffend.

We have before us a bill that goes even farther, in that it reverses the burden of proof. I am going to provide some further explanation for my colleagues opposite. One of the most important principles, as stated by the Supreme Court and by the Privy Council in London, a principle that is the backbone of the legal system, the criminal justice system, in Canada, is that the Crown has the burden not only of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is guilty, but also of showing what sentence must be imposed on the individual.

What this bill is trying to do is to reverse the burden of proof. I can tell this House, from experience, that it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will give this bill its approval, for more than one reason. First, and particularly, because of section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which our good Prime Minister prides himself on his respect for. He is not respecting it with this bill. He is placing the burden of proof on the accused.

It seems to me that we did a good job. In fact, the Bloc Québécois was not always opposed to this bill. The evidence of that is that as recently as yesterday I was saying to this House that Bill C-22 was a good bill. The people on the other side of the House can get things right. I will keep saying it: unfortunately, they are trying to punish the crime rather than the individual who committed the crime. That is unfortunate, and it is unacceptable. The Barreau du Québec, the Law Society of Ontario and the Canadian Bar Association have said so repeatedly and will say so again when they appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, of which I am a member.

Members will realize from this introduction that the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. I hope that is quite clear. The Bloc is against it for a number of reasons. This bill proposes a harmful and ineffective approach that will not improve public safety. Worse yet, it would allow for automatic sentencing, which is dangerous and irresponsible. I rise in this House to say that reversing the burden of proof is not justified.

If my colleagues opposite had had good lawyers, they would have turned to section 753 of the Criminal Code. Section 753 of the Criminal Code is clear, or at least I think it is. I have relied on it a number of times in court. This is what that section says:

753. (1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied—

The court may find the offender to be a dangerous offender if all the conditions are met. The Criminal Code has all the arguments, all the elements and all the clauses to control dangerous individuals.

Section 753 asks that the following conditions be met:

753. (1)(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752—

I will spare you all these details and focus on the essential point. When arguing before the court, the Crown must show:

753. (1)(a)(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour—

I did not make this up. It is in the Criminal Code. I repeat, it is in the Criminal Code. We do not need Bill C-27. Paragraph 753(1)(a)(ii) adds:

753. (1)(a)(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour—

I will spare the House the rest but will translate it into plain language for my hon. colleagues across the aisle.

This is what is happening now, this very day, before a court somewhere in Canada. I have had to argue cases and can tell the House how it works.

It can happen as early as the first offence or the first charge. An individual is brought before the court accused of attempted murder. He shows no signs of remorse. He even says and repeats that if he is freed, he will take care of a few other people too. That has already happened.

Here is another example. A serial rapist says, “If I get out, don’t get all worked up, but all women are going to get it”. That is totally unacceptable.

So what do we do? What does the crown attorney do? He asks the court to declare the person a “long-term offender”. That is done now. There is no need for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Legal precedents and the testimony of people who know the accused are submitted and the court hands down a decision. It is true that this decision can be appealed, but it certainly is not easy. Once a court has handed down a judgment and supported it well, it is virtually unassailable. That is how it is. We have already been through it. This procedure exists and can be implemented as early as the first offence.

So why Bill C-27? In the Bloc Québécois—I am one of those who say it along with my hon. colleague from Hochelaga—we say that justice must be based on a personalized process that is geared to each case and based on the principle of rehabilitation.

I will put that into plain language for my hon. colleagues across the aisle. One of the most important principles established by courts of appeal and supreme courts is that punishments must be just and proportional to the offence but also aimed at rehabilitating the accused. With this bill, the government wants to get rid of rehabilitation. There is no place for rehabilitation in a country with a bill like this, and it does not look as if the government wants reconsider its position.

Let us take this even further. As if that were not enough, we have section 761 of the Criminal Code, which is also clear. It exists. It is still there, just as it was there yesterday when I looked at the Criminal Code. It has not disappeared. Section 761 states, and I quote:

—where a person is in custody under a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period, the National Parole Board shall, as soon as possible after the expiration of seven years from the day on which that person was taken into custody and not later than every two years after the previous review, review the condition, history and circumstances of that person—

What does that section mean? It means that if we have a dangerous, long-term offender as identified by the court, the court sends that offender to an institution where he is held in custody. After seven years, the National Parole Board will again carefully review that individual's case to determine if that individual can possibly, I repeat possibly, be rehabilitated or if that individual has begun a rehabilitation process. If that is not the case, the National Parole Board must justify its decision.

We already have all the tools we need. We do not need Bill C-27. Neither Quebec nor Canada needs it. I hope this is clear enough. We already have all the tools we need to put away individuals who do not deserve to be and should not be in society.

Only after a fair and equitable trial, after the court has declared an individual to be a dangerous, long-term offender, can this apply. Then, the sentence will be individualized. That is what this bill does not do. We must not forget that this is extremely dangerous.

This bill would make changes to the process of declaring someone a dangerous offender. An accused person would be presumed to meet the criteria for designation as a dangerous offender as soon as he is convicted of a third serious offence. There is no middle ground, it is all or nothing. Rehabilitation is no longer an option.

Even worse, that presumption would shift the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused, who would then have to prove to the judge that he should not be declared a dangerous offender.

With respect, I must say that the Canadian judicial system will never tolerate that. In my opinion, reversing the burden of proof is unfair and would violate section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which entitles us to a full defence. In Canada, it is not up to the accused to defend himself—we will have to explain this again to our colleagues opposite—it is up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

If the Conservatives want to change that, if they want to reverse the burden of proof and take a new approach, let them table a bill, but not one like Bill C-27. This new bill would probably be unacceptable as well because the Bloc Québécois does not believe that Canadian and Quebec societies would accept the reversal of the burden of proof.

If the colleagues opposite, in government, believe that this bill will fight crime, then I have good and bad news for them. The goods news is that is false. The bad news is that it will completely choke the justice system. Before a case is closed, what will happen when an accused discovers that he may be declared a dangerous offender with the reversal of the burden of proof? It is not difficult to see that all proceedings will be taken as far as possible and the court rooms will be overflowing.

We already have this problem. In Quebec City, Toronto, here in Ottawa, Kingston and Vancouver the court rooms are full. It is not this kind of bill that will solve the problem of crime in Quebec and in Canada.

As I only have one more minute I will conclude my speech. Time goes so quickly that I will allow myself to answer the questions.

Based on my 25 years of experience in criminal law, this reversal of the burden of proof is wrong and unacceptable, and I believe that we would be going in a very dangerous direction, to the far right, were we to accept even considering this bill and having it adopted by Parliament. I therefore urge all members of this House to vote against the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Labour; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Minister of Public Works and Government Services; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Homelessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the 20-minute speech by the member from Quebec. I think he may be missing the point, and perhaps his whole party is missing a very serious aspect to this bill.

We are not talking here about a reverse onus in terms of the conviction for the offence. Indeed, what we are doing is giving the perpetrator yet another chance. All the member has to do is read the bill. I noticed in several sections, but it is in proposed section 752.01 where it says:

If the prosecutor is of the opinion that an offence for which an 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--

We are talking about an individual who was charged and convicted. In other words, the crown prosecutor was able to prove that the individual was guilty, otherwise he would not have been convicted. The onus was on the crown to prove the conviction. The second time the individual appears, after he has served his two years or more, on a similar type of crime, again the crown proves that he is guilty and hence he is sentenced. He then comes before the judge a third time. The whole trial has to do with whether the person is guilty, and the onus is on the crown to prove it. The conclusion will be, if this bill is enacted, that that person just is not learning his lesson and he is a continued danger to society.

I would urge the member to read the offences that are being included here. We are talking of crimes as heinous as committing murder, discharging a firearm with intent; in other words, an individual fires a gun at someone and has the misfortune of missing, but still the individual is firing a gun at a person with the intent to murder. We are saying that for a person who has three of these offences, for the protection of society we are going to put that person in jail, but notwithstanding that, we will give that person yet another chance. If that person can prove to us that he or she is not a danger, we will listen.

I do not know how any member in this House can say that that is really tough, that we are getting too tough on crime. The NDP and the Liberals ran on a crime ticket last time just to try to gain a few more seats, and now that the election is over, they are arguing against a bill that is as soft as this one. I cannot believe it.

This legislation is reasonable. It is not a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution says clearly that the causes here can be given as pertaining to a just society. I would just urge the member and all members to think carefully before they vote against this bill. It is not nearly as onerous as they claim it is.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will respond with two points.

First, I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois worked very hard to have the Criminal Code amended with respect to the proceeds of crime. It is possible to seize the house—or mansion—of someone who has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug trafficking. It is up to that individual to prove that their mansion was not purchased using the proceeds of crime. The Bloc Québécois achieved this.

I would have liked my hon. colleague to come to a court of law. Consider, for example, an 18 year old who discharges a firearm. That is one of the crimes. That young man is incarcerated for one year. At 22, that same youth is a member of a street gang and again discharges a firearm. He is imprisoned again and released at age 25. If he commits a third offence, any offence at all, his name will automatically be put on the list of dangerous offenders.

I have tremendous respect for my hon. colleagues across from me. However, their problem stems from the fact that, with this bill, they are sentencing the crime and not the individual who commits it. That is what the Bar reminds us and what judges will remember if this bill is enacted, which I hope does not happen. The crime must be dealt with based on the individual before the court, and nothing else.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by my hon. colleague and to the questions from my colleagues opposite. In my opinion, it is important to put certain people in prison to protect the Canadian public and to punish offenders who repeat various offences. That is why Canada has some of the toughest laws in the world on dangerous offenders.

In my opinion, we need to have intelligent laws and intelligent approaches to criminals and criminal law.

As my hon. colleague said, many members of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian legal community have shared their concerns about this bill, especially when it comes to the issue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many of them have argued that this bill would be dismissed in court because of this concern.

In my opinion, it is not smart to create a risk whereby the part of the legislation on dangerous offenders may be completely dismissed. Does the hon. member agree?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and I would refer my colleague—not to avoid the question—to two Supreme Court rulings.

I invite my colleagues opposite to go read them. In 2003, there were Supreme Court rulings in the Johnson and Mitchell cases. These rulings reminded us that the underlying principles of sentencing require that the sentence fit the offender's situation. In other words—this is at least the fifth time I have said this—we sincerely think that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if by some misfortune Bill C-27 became law, constitutionally, it would not pass the test of the Constitution of Canada, with all due respect, given the recent Supreme Court rulings.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is talking about convictions for very serious, horrible crimes, and not one conviction, not two convictions, but three convictions.

My colleague from the Bloc Québécois talked about how he has been in practice for 25 years. God bless him, I expect most of the time it has been in defending these terrible people and naturally his whole knowledge is with respect to the criminal.

I listened to his speech very carefully. It was a good speech. I did not agree very much with it, but I listened to it very carefully. He never mentioned the word “victim” once. It was all about the rights of the criminal; it was all about whether these people are receiving a fair deal. These are after the convictions. We are talking about sentencing.

My question for the member and all the Bloc Québécois members if they are all going to take this position is, do they not care about the victim? The people whom I speak to in my riding care a lot about the victim. They are fed up.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has 30 seconds to reply.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to quickly answer in 30 seconds.

In Quebec, we have the crime victims compensation act. I would like to remind my hon. colleague opposite that the Criminal Code, as indicated by its name, is there to punish a crime committed by an individual. Nowhere in the Criminal Code is there any mention of the fact that we have to protect the victims. The Criminal Code does not state in any section that the priority is to defend the victims. However, in the Criminal Code—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The hon. member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this being Halloween, it is with some sadness that I rise in the House. It is the first Halloween in the history of my fathering three children, Maeve who is 10 years old, Megan who is 8 years old, and Bronwyn who is 7 years old, that I will not be with them to go door to door. However, I do hope that their costumes, which I had a preview of, are effective. I hope they are nice little girls who go door to door and give a lot of joy on this joyous evening.

I also hope their costumes are more effective than what I would call the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice dressed up as sheriffs through their justice rubric, which is really disguised as effective and, to the point of Bill C-27, masquerading as good law. On all of those three counts, the Conservatives, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and this bill fail. Their disguise is thin and their masquerade is not working.

I am pleased to address the House today on the matter of Bill C-27. This bill amends the Criminal Code with respect to dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace.

I will not comment on recognizance to keep the peace. We on this side of the House, myself included, agree with the provisions of this bill.

Although the main goal of Bill C-27 is to make it easier for crown prosecutors to obtain dangerous offender designations, it touches upon an important concept in our entire justice system. It is not just the justice system that prevails in Moncton, New Brunswick or, indeed, in Canada. The aspect that is being reviewed, which must be given the spotlight and the microscope, is a fundamental principle of justice in the common law world and that is the presumption of innocence.

This bill reverses the burden of proof from the crown to the defendant. If Bill C-27 were to be adopted in its entirety as it is, an offender found guilty of a third conviction of a designated violent or sexual offence would need to prove that he or she does not qualify as a dangerous offender. That in summary is the issue to be debated.

I might, by way of introduction, suggest that every criminal was a child at one time, and what night could be more fitting to speak about children than Halloween, and every child, as he or she goes down the road of life, makes steps, some wrong, some right and some in the middle.

Not every child has the privilege of coming from a home with two parents, from a home that is affluent enough to afford the necessities of life, from a home that advocates literacy or from a home full of love and caring. There are many homes where this is not the case. Many homes and families are broken either by economic ravages or social blight.

However, in the Conservatives' Leave it to Beaver world, everyone has this perfect home and everyone must grow up like Wally and Beaver to be productive citizens of society. Although we do not really know how Beaver and Wally ended up, I suspect some of them may have ended up on the other side. The social policies of the government are destroying the fabric of the community and they will lead to more crime.

When certain individuals have gone down the wrong side of the justice road toward the dangerous offender designation, things have gone terribly wrong for them. Let us leave aside the issue of mental health and the fact that the only option for some people is treatment for the long term. Let us talk about the people left behind on the social strata from leaving the field that the government has posited on social programs in the community. Those people could end up on the dangerous offender road.

The combination of these laws and this policy regarding social re-engineering, à la George Bush, will leave us with more criminal justice issues. It is an important context to remember.

We on all sides of the House agree that dangerous criminals should be kept locked up for our own safety and the safety of society but that is not the issue. We must do all we can to ensure dangerous criminals do not take advantage of legal loopholes to fall through the cracks of our judicial system. Most important, we, as members of Parliament, have the duty to ensure that the bills and changes we adopt meet constitutional standards and rigorous test and that they do not jeopardize the protections we have in place.

The theme of my speech and my point is that this bad law would actually put the victims of crime in greater jeopardy. If this law is, in any way, struck down, the people who perpetrate crimes, who might be designated dangerous or long term offenders, might go free. That does not help victims. We want laws that work.

Locking up dangerous criminals is not a new or Conservative idea. In 1997 the Liberal government created new legislation addressing long term offenders and ensuring sexual and violent offenders received the special supervision they deserved from our judicial system.

It is important to understand that in the long term offender and dangerous offender categories we are not talking about millions of people or thousands of people. We are hardly talking about hundreds of people. In the province of New Brunswick right now there is one application for a dangerous offender designation. In the briefing that members of the justice committee received from the justice department, the number of applications per year is about 24. This vacillates somewhere from a low of 12 to a high of 48. These people we are talking about are dangerous. They are bad apples and they need to be locked away.

That is why the long term offender legislation is also at play here. If someone does not meet the dangerous offender plateau, then a judge must consider the long term offender designation, which is less onerous and does not involve indefinite sentencing without parole for seven years at least.

The problem with this legislation, as justice officials indicated to us, is that it was well on the way to being introduced whether the Conservatives, the Liberals or, God forbid, the NDP or the Bloc formed government, and it was to close a loophole that had been created by the well-spoken upon decision of R. v. Johnson. The loophole had to be closed so that it was very clear that a judge must consider whether the accused met the long term definition before the dangerous offender designation took effect.

As of 2005, a total of 300 offenders across Canada have been designated long term offenders, not dangerous offenders.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minority government across the way would like Canadians to believe, the current system with respect to dangerous offenders and long term offenders does work well.

Unfortunately, Bill C-27 seems to me to be more motivated by the Conservatives' partisan political agenda than by a real desire to better protect Canadians. It is unfortunate that this minority government thinks its partisan agenda is more important than the greater good of its citizens.

Even more importantly, Bill C-27 is a direct attack on a key concept in the Canadian justice system: the presumption of innocence.

In Canada, the presumption of innocence is guaranteed by section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that any person charged with an offence has the right “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”.

One wonders in that last term, with the spate of Conservative appointments to the judiciary, whether we could find an independent and impartial judge of recent appointment who has not been a major contributor to the Conservative Party or has fundamental Christian beliefs. All of the appointments have not been filled and I would not make that comment until they are. One hopes for impartiality and independence in the tribunals.

The real point in this legislation is whether the person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent. There are two parts to this: the part of the trial and the part of the mini-trial with respect to the designation of dangerous offender.

The reversal of the burden of proof set out in Bill C-27 is questionable.

Many legal experts have already said that the legislation could be challenged in court. Their arguments seem to me to be serious enough to warrant taking the time to examine this seriously.

In light of the provisions of the charter, Bill C-27 creates a problematic situation with regard to the reversal of onus. The burden shifts. In the past the Supreme Court of Canada has said that the presumption of innocence will be violated whenever a trier of fact may be led to convict an accused person, even though there is reasonable doubt as to some essential element of the offence. I think all parties are on the same page with respect to the conviction of the accused and the burden of proof.

Although the proposed legislation does reverse the onus, we must keep in mind that this reversal only comes into play once the offender has been found guilty of the designated, serious violent or sexual offence three times. Each time the offender is accused, he would have benefited already from the presumption of innocence. Thank God that has not been taken away. This essential principle will not be changed by Bill C-27 as it relates to the finding of guilt, but what about the effect of this guilt?

Under the proposed legislation, the offender who has been found guilty already three times of one of the listed offences in Bill C-27 will no longer be presumed innocent. As a matter of sentencing law and not constitutional law, the Supreme Court has previously held that on sentencing, any aggravating fact that is not admitted by the offender, must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. Let us keep that clear. On sentencing, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that we still have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt when it comes to the aggravating circumstances in that conviction. I would say it again if I thought the other side was listening or could understand.

This rule has since been codified under section 724(3)(e) of the Criminal Code, that big book the criminal law is in. In the context of dangerous offender applications, section 753 (1.1) would undo this long standing judicial principle and rule.

Furthermore, some could argue that not only does Bill C-27 deprive offenders of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as stated in section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is more telling and more appropriate to the argument before us today, it also allows for deprivation of liberty as stated in section 7 of the same charter. This creates the right not to be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, a key term.

It is not clear that transferring the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused, as set out in Bill C-27, respects the principles of fundamental justice. It is not at all clear. For a long time now, the concept of fundamental justice has been one of our justice system's guiding principles. This applies to the legal system in Moncton, in New Brunswick and in Canada, as well as to all countries whose legal system is based on British common law—the root of our own common law—including the United States.

I would even go so far as to say that the Crown's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of aggravating factors when determining the sentence is now a widely accepted concept. It is so widely accepted in our justice system that it can now be called a principle of fundamental justice, as it is written in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.

Under the current provision of the dangerous offender section of the Criminal Code, which is charter proof, 360 offenders have been designated as dangerous offenders and are currently behind bars. The system works.

Once again the minority government is all about sentences and law and order. My colleagues on the other side of the House might argue that these measures will protect innocent Canadians. As I have just said, section 7, the reasonable demands of having fundamental justice at any stage in the judicial determinations, puts in question whether this law, as presented and not yet amended at committee albeit, is in danger of falling like a house of cards on the dangerous offender designation system that already exists. It was put in place and monitored by Liberal governments. It was in the process of being improved because of the R. v. Johnson decision until the wrench was thrown in the problem.

The Conservatives have become the architects of disaster in suggesting we put in the reverse onus and the “three strikes you're out” because Arnold Schwarzenegger and those guys like it. What they are doing is possibly putting in jeopardy the whole system and that is not going to be good for victims.

Most of the justice legislation currently before the House will do little to protect Canadians and do very little for the victims. In fact, by cutting conditional sentences, sending more convicted individuals to the criminal schools of higher education, our jails, by building more jails and cramping the budget room for other needed programs, by putting longer sentences in place that will surely bring out a whole new round of graduated criminals determined to do more harm to victims and by cutting preventive and rehabilitation programs, we have no reason to think the crime rate is going to go down in Canada.

Furthermore, many studies, which is not germane to this discussion but very much germane to the discussions we have had at the justice committee, clearly indicate there is absolutely no link between harsher sentences and a lower crime rate.

It is quite telling at the committee level. When the proponents of the Conservative agenda on law and order are asked to bring witnesses who will prove empirically and objectively how these programs will work, they have very few names to present. On the other side, the people who suggest that harsher sentences do not lower crime rates have a plethora of witnesses available. That comes down to a determination by the Conservative minority government that most of those are criminal lawyers, professors and people who believe the criminal.

We have to ask ourselves this. If it is a truism that more sentences, harsher sentences and more people in jail will result in lower crime rates and a safer society, where is the proof? Canadians want the proof. Liberals want the proof. Liberals have been determined, with a justice program of over 13 years, to continually work with the outdated Criminal Code to modify the laws, as Canada grows, to protect society and victims.

In a non-partisan half second I say that is the same goal for the Bloc Québécois as well as the NDP. I know it is the same goal for the Conservatives because they keep saying it. However, they do not act in furtherance of that objective. They in fact act against that objective. They are not making the communities safer by locking everyone up. We ought to really take a non-partisan moment and say that if there is proof that these things work, show us. We are open to it.

In summary, Bill C-27 is no different than most justice bills recently tabled. It puts the political agenda of the Conservatives before the greater good of Canadians. The proof of that is they have overloaded the committee with so much work. Probably all the justice bills they keep tabling have no real intention of coming back to Parliament before what we perceive will be the next election.

Canadians have to ask, what was the objective in that? What was the objective in putting forward Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 separately? We now know that the list of witnesses is the very same and the hearings will take double the time. Why not propose them as one bill? The reason is simple. The Conservatives want to scare people into thinking we do not have a safe society. We do have a safe society. We support law and order. We support the victims in the community. We support the average Canadian who wants to be safe in his or her home.

Average Canadians are safe in their homes, even on Halloween when we have politicians masquerading as the proponents of law and order and when we have policy written on the back of a napkin dressed up as the law of the country.

We should take our duties more seriously. We should be earnest parliamentarians and pass good laws, not laws that are destined to be broken down by the loopholes contained in them by Conservative writers.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what I have heard from members opposite. In the last election a lot of the parties ran on tougher on crime and the protection of citizens. As a result of what happens in the House, every member of Parliament will have to wear how they vote on this bill.

We are talking about a dangerous and high-risk offender. That is not the first-time offender. Nor is it the second-time offender. That is the third-time offender.

In status of women meeting this morning many witnesses said over and over again to get tougher on the laws. They are sick of lawyers getting criminals off without any ramifications. The officers are sick of judges letting people out on the streets before the paperwork is even done to incarcerate them.

On this side of the House we have tried to address the concerns of Canadians. Dangerous offenders are high-risk, most dangerous, violent, sexual predators on innocent populations. We are not talking about someone who has made a mistake the first time. We are talking about serious offences.

Is that member prepared in the next election to give the same kind of speech he just gave? Is he prepared to say that Canadians have not told him the message, that he knows better? Is the member ready to do that?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, many of the members comments are very well-founded and from the heart. I appreciate that.

She asked a very personal question. My uncle was a former member of this chamber and he was a provincial court judge for 35 years. I am not worried about getting re-elected on a law and order platform in Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

However, if she had perhaps listened to the pith of the speech, this law may be struck down, particularly under section 7 of the charter. The existing dangerous offender legislation is working. Well over 400 people are behind bars with indefinite terms because of the that legislation. I hope the member knows this.

However, this bill is perhaps putting that in jeopardy. If section 7 is to be read clearly as to what fundamental justice, or the principles thereof mean, smart lawyers, who the other side seem to loathe so much, may well attack their legislation and dangerous offenders could be back on the street because of this weak legislation.

Who cares about citizens and who cares about the crime rate more? Is it the people who say that this legislation will not work and that there will be more dangerous offenders on the streets of Moncton, or wherever, or the people opposite who cannot accept that the law, as it exists, works?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his erudite and considered remarks, and I mean this quite sincerely.

My question has to do with the ideological conflict that surrounds this issue. I will get beyond the technicalities and ask the hon. member this. Why does he believe that those who do not accept the Conservative Party's view of law and order are somehow vilified and seen to be soft on crime? Over and over again today, members from the government have stood and said that Liberals and members of other parties who did not support them were soft on crime.

What is it that would make some parliamentarians soft on crime and put other parliamentarians on the side of virtue? Are we not all concerned about violence? Do we not all want to live in safe communities? Do we not all want our families to be safe? What is the ideological basis for this seemingly irreconcilable difference of opinion?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's insight is very germane to the question. There is no ideological difference. There is a political difference. This whole Conservative justice policy is a policy by innuendo, a policy of fear, of creating fear where it did not exist, and third, because there are three prongs to it, it is a policy of having drive-by legislation that is poorly written and will not stand the test of law. In the long run, it will actually make the citizens of this country less safe in their communities.

What I said during my discourse, which I believe and I will give credit to the opposing party as well, is that every member in the chamber believes in law, order and safety in our communities. It should be a matter of rudimentary self-respect and mutual respect. No one is soft on crime. Some people want laws that make sense and will be effective and some people want to have 20 announcements on the six o'clock news across the country, putting fear where fear does not belong and promising security where security will never be.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key issues discussed in the debate today is the aspect of constitutionality.

Indeed, there is some concern that should this bill pass and become law there will inevitably be court challenges to its constitutionality, which could be tied up in the courts for a very long period of time and in fact leave us with no law whatsoever.

The other aspect in terms of the legalities or the constitutionality has to do with the principle of ultra vires and whether the federal government in fact can instruct the provincial government as to who it should charge and for what. I wonder if the member could provide some input to the House.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for London West addressed the issue of mandatory orders to provincial prosecutors, which may well be constitutionally ultra vires. She laid it out in a most articulate fashion. I will not repeat that.

The key issue of our position is that subsection 11(d) and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are very much at play. Any lawyer could actually make the application to strike this legislation as being unconstitutional. On this side, if this law were to pass, as the majority of Parliament may wish it to, we have obligations to stand by the law. One would hope that section 11 would be read as not being about denying the presumption of innocence because it is after a conviction. One would hope that we could read section 7 of the charter not to include the fundamental principles of justice with respect to liberty under seven years. That would be a stretch and I think it is the strongest argument.

One would hope as well that we would not have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada five years from now to see in the end that the Conservatives brought in legislation which was hasty and designed for the six o'clock news and really left citizens vulnerable to more dangerous offenders and long term offenders being on their doorsteps.

I think that on Halloween evening it is a pretty important point to make. Five years from now on Halloween, do you, Mr. Speaker, want more dangerous offenders on your doorstep because of a bad law struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada? I do not. Canadians do not either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to get into that guy's head a little. He is saying that this bill is going to be subject to a charter challenge and the Supreme Court may shut it down. Is that not exactly where we are right now? If the bill is ultra vires, then we would have no act proclaimed. I do not understand how we should not, as members of Parliament, try to put a stop to these dangerous repeat offenders. I do not understand that. We need to try. If the court rules that it is not legal, then we will try again. Meanwhile, this is a good shot at it.

The member is expressing some opinions that some lawyers will take this to court. I think there are just as many lawyers who will say we will win it, that it is legal. I think he is just fearmongering.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one really has to question who is fearmongering with the public. It is not this side. What we are trying to do is suggest that the responsible course, and perhaps it will get there in committee, is to tone it down, to put some water in the wine and suggest that the government does not have to mimic the United States in everything it does. The “three strikes and you're out” American concept imported here for the six o'clock news is not the way to go.

Sound law, agreed upon with the constitutional imprimatur of the Attorney General's department, which was not forthcoming at committee, would be the way to go: make it constitutional and we are with that side of the House. We are with every aspect of the bill that not against the law. One would think that the Minister of Justice and the government in power would want to have legal laws. It is what they are supposed to do.

I will send the hon. member all of the information I have from the justice committee. He can put it in his third office, because it is quite voluminous. It might take him a while to read it.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

This bill, which was introduced on October 15, 2006, by the Minister of Justice, has provoked many reactions among Quebeckers and Canadians, because it brings important changes to the process of designating dangerous offenders.

Some people in my riding asked me if this bill will improve the Criminal Code. Will it make families and children safer in the community? Will it help reduce crime?

After looking at this bill, after being asked questions by a few members of my community, after discussing it with my Bloc Québécois colleagues and other members of this House, my answer is no. This bill will do nothing to improve the Criminal Code or to improve safety for the citizens of my riding or for other Quebeckers or Canadians.

Bill C-27 amends the Criminal Code to provide that the courts declare someone a dangerous offender if that individual is convicted of three serious crimes, unless that person can prove that he or she does not meet that definition.

As members of Parliament, we are concerned about public safety. We can be concerned about public safety and the well-being of our fellow citizens and yet still be opposed to this bill. In our opinion, it does not improve public safety.

Obviously, we want an improved, effective justice system that will protect everyone's safety. After analyzing this bill, my first reaction is that, once again, the Conservative government is trying to impose a “made in the U.S.A.” approach to justice.

Having expressed its intention to eliminate the gun registry and stated that imprisoning young offenders from the age of 12 and giving them longer sentences would help fight youth crime, the Conservative government is now proposing to introduce the “Three strikes and you're out” approach, as some American states have done. I will come back to this later.

This approach has not been found to reduce the crime rate in the United States. Studies have shown that this measure has no impact on the crime rate. On the contrary, as we know, the crime rate in the United States is often higher.

We feel that constantly following the model used in the United States, where the incarceration rate is much higher and sentences are longer, is a bad strategy, because there are three times as many homicides in the United States as in Canada and four times as many as in Quebec.

Instead, the Bloc Québécois suggests that the Conservative government follow the model used in Quebec, which has achieved success with its approach to fighting crime, based not only on repression, but also on re-education and social reintegration.

I urge my dear colleagues in the Conservative Party to ask the Conservative members from Quebec whether the justice system in Quebec is having a positive effect on crime.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that it is better to attack the roots of violence—poverty, social exclusion and social inequality—than to send more and more people to prisons, which often serve as crime schools.

We are not opposed to incarceration, because some crimes are serious and we must protect our fellow citizens.

As already mentioned by some of my colleagues, the Bloc Québécois opposes this bill. It is based on an unproductive and, above all, ineffectual approach. We are convinced that it will in no way contribute to improving the safety or our fellow citizens.

Were Bill C-27 to be adopted, it would make significant changes to the dangerous offender designation system. According to the government proposal, an individual could be declared a dangerous offender when found guilty for the third time of a serious crime. Bill C-27 creates a presumption: the accused is a dangerous offender when convicted of three primary designated offences for which he has received a sentence of two years or more.

In addition, Bill C-27 transfers the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused. This means that the accused will have to prove to the judge that he should not be designated a dangerous offender.

The Bloc Québécois believes that any measure that automatically determines the extent of the sentence imposed is a dangerous and irresponsible approach. As for the reversal of the burden of proof, it is not justified. If the offender runs the risk of spending the rest of his life in jail, it stands to reason that the state prove that he should be designated a dangerous offender.

In addition, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, we have serious—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude today the speech I started two weeks ago on Bill C-27, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code so that the courts designate as dangerous offender an individual who is convicted of three serious crimes, unless that person can prove that he or she does not meet that definition.

Just before I was interrupted the last time I spoke to Bill C-27, I was questioning the approach taken by the Conservative government that now wants to automatically determine the extent of the sentence imposed and reverse the burden of proof. In our opinion, this approach is irresponsible because, as my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue so clearly explained, we believe that the justice system must be based on a personalized process that is geared to each case and based on the principle of rehabilitation.

However, with this bill, sentencing is no longer a personalized process but rather an automatic process, and the fundamental principle of rehabilitation is eliminated.

That is not all. The bill goes much further in providing not only for automatic sentencing, but also for the reversal of onus. At present, our legal system rests upon the basic principle that it is up to the Crown to prove that an individual is guilty.

Due to the reversal of the burden of proof, the Bloc Québécois has serious concerns about the constitutionality of the bill. We believe that the reversal of onus will represent a very heavy burden of proof. The fact is that any accused who wishes to challenge the assessment filed in support of finding him to be a dangerous offender will likely have to produce an expensive second assessment. But the Conservatives ought to know that the presumption of innocence was introduced precisely because the accused are all too often destitute and may not even be able to afford counsel to defend them.

Why change the procedure for finding individuals to be dangerous offenders when the existing one is working well? The procedure allows the prosecutor to ask the judge to find an offender to be a dangerous offender after a first offence, instead of the third one—it is not three strikes and you're out—if the brutal nature of the crime is such that there is no hope of rehabilitation.

In Quebec, statistics show that, for repeat offenders, prosecutors prefer the long term offender designation procedure over the dangerous offender designation procedure. Members will recall that, after serving their sentences, long term offenders remain under the supervision of the correctional service for a period of up to ten years upon returning to live in the community. This is more conducive to rehabilitation. Fewer violent crimes per 100,000 of population are committed in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. This seems to indicate that the Quebec model, which is based on rehabilitation instead of repression only, is working.

The government wants to continue deluding itself into thinking that this bill will be, and I quote, “protecting innocent Canadians from future harm”.

The government is unable to provide us with studies supporting this statement. The Conservatives are trying to convince people that those who oppose their plans do so out of lack of concern for the victims and public safety. That is what the Conservatives are currently saying. But the public knows full well that the changes to the Criminal Code proposed by this government are not real solutions to violence in our society.

I realize that the Conservatives are quite influenced by the U.S. model and that they very much like the U.S. approach, but the hon. members of the government have to understand that it is not by filling our prisons and building new ones that the federal government will reduce the crime rate. It is important to remember that the United States, according to hard statistics, has an incarceration rate seven times greater than Canada's and a homicide rate three times higher than Canada's and four times higher than Quebec's. So why adopt the American model? I am convinced that to better protect the public, we should address the root of the problem, in other words, the causes of crime and violence in our society.

The Conservatives should understand that poverty, inequality and the sense of exclusion are three significant elements of the emergence of crime, which is why it is important to adopt social policies that do more to foster the sharing of wealth, social integration and rehabilitation.

I worked for a number of years at a CLSC, in the early childhood, youth and adult departments and with seniors. Often, prevention measures are already needed early childhood to help young parents properly raise their young children, and to help and support them in their education. If this support is not given in early childhood, quite often these children can, unfortunately, turn to crime.

It is also important to remember—and for the Conservative government to clearly admit—that this bill will entail additional costs for the prison system, which is already overburdened. This is money that will not go toward fighting the deepest source of violence—poverty.

If the government absolutely wants to go ahead with reforms, then it should focus on the parole assessment process so that release is based on the merit principle and on the assurance that the individual no longer represents a danger to society.

Lastly, instead of trying to do something after the fact through reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code, the government would do better to address the source of the problem by adopting effective social policies and by maintaining the firearms registry, which limits the movement of weapons and increases people's awareness regarding the responsibilities involved in owning a firearm. Clearly, tackling the causes means tackling social policy.

When funding is cut from employment insurance benefits and from literacy programs, when funding is cut from communities in need and their resources taken away, crime rates will rise. Statistics show that when we intervene in communities—and I worked in underprivileged environments for years—crime rates, poverty, social injustice and inequality are all closely related.

In short, the Bloc Québécois does not support this bill, which, we believe, does not promote rehabilitation, but rather an increase in recidivism. I would also like to add that the Criminal Code currently contains all the provisions we need to put away people who commit serious crimes. We are not against punishing serious crimes, as the Conservatives suggest.

To conclude, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the members opposite, in their speeches regarding clamping down on crime and protecting our society, focus on the criminal and his rights, privileges and treatment. I never hear a whole lot from the opposition, particularly the Bloc, about the victims of these people, who are considered to be extremely dangerous because of their proven past.

I do not understand how any human being could think for a moment that extreme, serious consequences should not occur when an adult rapes, murders, or tortures a child. I have a five year old grandchild. If somebody did something like that to my grandchild, I would not care if he ever saw the light of day again. Why should he?

We can look at the root causes all we want, but we have not done very well in the past 13 years with respect to child poverty and all that. We could look at a number of things that could be considered the root cause of a lot of attacks on our children.

For 13 years, I have been trying to get this place to do something serious about child pornography. That group of people on the other side of the House has always balked at getting tough on child pornographers.

Does the member not know that child pornography is a real root cause of a lot of these problems? It affects people's brains. They go out and attack children. They love to attack children. That is their way of life. I do not want to spend one penny trying to rehabilitate somebody with that kind of poisoned mind. I really do not care. I want him off the streets and I want him in a place where he can never hurt another child.

I really get tired of hearing about root causes. I never hear mention of child pornography, a major root cause for attacks on our children. Why do they not grow up, get smart and start to deal with these people the way they ought to be dealt with?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by the Conservative member's comments. He stated that the Bloc Québécois does not care about the victims of crime. In fact, we have community agencies that work with victims of crime and work to prevent youth crime. These organizations are under-funded.

If the Conservatives are truly interested in helping victims of crime or sexual assault, then I ask the Conservative government to increase provincial transfers for health and social services which would allow us, in Quebec, to better support our agencies that look after victims of crime and sexual assault.

Unfortunately, that is not the case at present because social policies are taking a hit. The Conservative member claims that we do not care about these individuals. The government has just cut social programs.

We are speaking of the Criminal Code. That does not mean that we do not care about victims of crime. On the contrary. Action in this area must be based on programs to support these individuals. The Conservatives are cutting in all areas related to crime prevention. They want to send more people to jail.

The Conservative member should not be lecturing us.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Criminal Code, there are already provisions with respect to the sentencing of dangerous offenders. One of the concerns that has been raised is that if this bill is passed in its present framing, portions of the existing Criminal Code, dealing with dangerous offenders, could in fact be struck down as well. Could the member comment on whether he thinks that is a valid enough concern for this bill to be given further consideration?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members believe that the Criminal Code contains nearly all the elements needed to declare someone a dangerous offender, or what Quebec calls a long term offender.

The Bloc members feel that the bill does nothing but further criminalize a dangerous offender. It is up to the judiciary, not a bill, to determine who is declared a dangerous offender. There is no automatic way—after three strikes, you're out. In that respect, I agree completely with the hon. member. And we are concerned.

At present, the Conservative Party wants to improve judges' working conditions. But the Conservatives have to let justice take its course, and they have to provide the means to enable it to do so. That might be a bill that would provide more resources, make it possible to further assess the chance of parole or add to the number of psychosocial experts to conduct follow-ups.

But we have no need of a bill that, in a move calculated to appeal to public opinion, simply proposes to improve public safety by tolerating the first three offences. A person could just as easily be declared a dangerous offender after only one offence, and the member knows that as well as I do. I want to thank him for his question nonetheless.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Wild Rose, raised the issue of how the Bloc Québécois argument disregards interest in the victim. That is an excellent point. We on this side have raised that many times and of course the Bloc has responded by saying that not enough money has been given to victim organizations. That is not what this legislation is all about.

This legislation says that the third time someone is convicted, not charged but convicted, for a very serious offence the onus is on the convicted person to show why he or she is not going to be a dangerous offender. That is what it is all about. It has nothing to do with all the other garbage that the Bloc Québécois is talking about.

I would like to zero in on one of the areas that my colleague from the Bloc raised when he said it is going to cost too much money because there is no room in the jails to put these terrible people. I assume from that he is saying, we should let them go. I do not think the member realizes what the whole purpose of this is about. It is about, first, a penalty and, second, protecting the public and the victim.

I ask the member to reconsider his position and support this legislation.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was answering a question from a Conservative member that, in fact, did not pertain to the bill.

As I said in my speech, Quebec has the fewest major crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. We have rehabilitation measures and community support measures. Here, we also have a justice system, a Criminal Code, that we can use to punish people. What does this bill add, then? We feel that it adds nothing other than the idea that after three strikes, you're out. A person might be convicted and sent to jail for life after his first dangerous offence. It is up to the judiciary to decide. A bill like this is not going to improve public safety.

I would also like to point out that we are not opposed to prison terms for people who commit serious crimes. Of course we are not opposed to that. But we also know that there need to be rehabilitation mechanisms and inmate services. I am not sure that when someone who spent 20 years in prison and received no rehabilitation services leaves prison—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired. The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that in the years to come a certain amount of courage will be needed to stand up to demagoguery. It is possible that nobody in the United States has found themselves in this situation, even those that were re-elected.

I have come to this point in my life after spending all my career dealing with crime in one way or another, whether it be as crown prosecutor, as defence attorney, as public safety minister, as justice minister or in today's role as federal MP. This means that my vision of crime is more complete than what we see from the member for Wild Rose, for example, or from just about anyone whose knowledge of crime is based solely on what they read in the papers.

Here is another piece of legislation brought to us by the current government which is based on the American model. I will have the honesty to tell the truth here, as will be the case throughout my remarks: it is not as terrible as the American model. It does not go as far. Nevertheless, it is a step in the wrong direction.

To fully understand how we are going in the wrong direction, we must make a few comparisons. The homicide rate is one comparison we can make. In the United States, that rate is three times higher than in Canada.

Ask any educated and reasonable American to explain why that is. He will say that it is because it is so easy to get firearms in the United States. There is a contradiction in the United States, and the government wants to import into Canada: let us be harsher on criminals, but more lax with firearms. Let us put more people in jail, let us have more guns around, and the situation will improve.

I have never understood this logic. Yet, this is what some people want to do here. The homicide rate in the United States is three times higher than in Canada. I want to be absolutely transparent here: I know that, contrary to what many people think, the crime rate in the United States is generally comparable to our rate in Canada. Our crime rates generally compare with those of countries where economic development is similar.

Do we want to follow the U.S. model? That model has led to an increasing number of people being incarcerated. While our two countries had similar incarceration rates 15 or 20 years ago, that rate is now seven times higher in the United States than in Canada. Is there anyone here who thinks he is safer when he travels to the United States than when he is in Canada? The rate is roughly the same for crime in general, but not for very serious crimes.

The connection with firearms is very clear when one considers that, in the United States, there are five times more spouses killed by guns than in Canada. This clearly shows that it is not real criminals who kill in these cases, even though these crimes are the most dramatic ones.

There is also a clear connection here. Out of all the people killed in the United States, eight times more are killed by guns there than in Canada.

Of course, there will always be people who kill. Regardless of the legislation that we pass, there will always be people who commit crimes.

The question is, how do we fight crime effectively? I will talk about it after oral question period.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have 16 minutes left, after oral question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin had the floor. He has 16 minutes left to conclude his remarks. He may now proceed.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that my audience has changed but I will still follow up on the introduction I made earlier to try to convince the government—and I do not know if that is possible—that it is going down the wrong path in continually copying American methods. The methods it is using in this bill are once again based on automatic responses whereas, in dealing with crime, we must do the exact opposite. The issue of delinquency as a whole must be dealt with through an individualized approach to sentencing. It is not a simple issue.

I also noticed something that we see constantly from the current government. Every time it wants to increase sentences or impose minimums, it tells us about the worst cases. Well, it must be understood that when certain sentences are imposed automatically, they apply not only to the worst cases but also to the less serious ones.

Then, when we are given examples of sentences that seem totally unjustified, I do not remember one instance where it was mentioned that even one of these sentences was overturned by the Court of Appeal or that it was even appealed. It must be clearly understood that there are thousands of judges in Canada and that thousands of sentences are handed down every day. In such a system, errors are inevitable and we do have a mechanism that enables us to correct those errors. Under this mechanism, a large number of factors are taken into consideration when imposing a sentence. It seems to me that, if the government wants to change the law, it should demonstrate that the sentences imposed by the appeal courts are not appropriate.

With this bill, the Conservative government is telling us that it entertains the illusion that this piece of legislation will help us achieve the objective—a very ambitious one—and I quote, “of protecting innocent Canadians from future harm”. I am willing to bet my shirt that the government will not succeed. Crime will always exist. What we need to do is look for models that will give us a better way of dealing with crime.

Also, and this is something we have been criticized for in the past—I notice that my audience has changed—we have been asked why opposition to stricter sentences proposed by the government always seems to come from Quebec? That is simply because, in Quebec, we have tried alternative approaches and found out that they work. Quebec's violent crime rate is lower than the Canadian average. The homicide rate in Quebec is also lower than the Canadian average.

As a matter of fact, Quebec did not draw inspiration only from the United States. Probably because of language differences, it tends to look at models offered by various countries, including European and Scandinavian models. These countries still believe in criminology, in the sense that they regard crime as a complex issue. Similarly, general psychology is a complex science with methods of measurement different from those used in exact sciences, physical sciences and even chemistry. Nevertheless, some truths become obvious over time, including the fact that the fear of going to jail is not much of a disincentive for criminals. In fact, I would say that the fear of going to jail is only useful in keeping law-abiding people from straying from the straight and narrow.

I realize that a society where those who break the rules face no punishment whatsoever is likely to experience some slackening. In fact, that happens in societies where the police has no control on crime. But essentially, offenders think differently from people like ouselves, who would figure it is not worth their while to commit a crime because of the risk of a harsher sentence, and tell themselves, “Why take that risk just to get that?”. No, their reasoning is different. These are generally people with a short term outlook on things; they do not think that far ahead.

The department itself, before drafting these bills, asked researchers to establish a list of studies on imprisonment.

They had noticed that it did not reduce crime, and they established a link between longer jail sentences and a slight increase in recidivism. This shows that such an approach is not only useless, it makes things worse. Is this not precisely what we are observing in the United States? Are we really prepared to spend seven times more on incarceration measures to tackle crime, when we know that crime will always exist, but that it is possible to reduce it? Incidentally, it has diminished in Canada.

Before this bill was introduced, my colleague and homonym from Hochelaga, asked the Library of Parliament to prepare a paper on studies dealing with crime. Here are some brief excerpts:

After decades of relatively steady increases, Canada's overall crime rate began to drop significantly in the early 1990s. From 1991 to 2004, crimes reported by police forces dropped by a little over 22%, or by an average of 1.6% per year...The drop in crime was particularly sharp in the 1990s. From 1991 to 2000 alone, the rate dropped by nearly 26%, or an average of a little over 2% per year...The downward trend in the overall crime rate was followed by a period of stability between 2000 and 2002, then a notable increase of 6% in 2003, largely due to the increase in crimes against property. The slight decrease of 1% posted in 2004 appears to indicate a return to the downward trend that started early in the decade.

I often do the test, and I am convinced that I am teaching something new to most people when I say this. Why? Because, when it comes to crime, most people trust daily newspapers. But the fact is that newspapers only report exceptional cases. They do not write about ordinary crime cases.

Certainly if something serious happens—like in the collection of crimes always presented by the member for Wild Rose—such a crime would make the headlines of the daily newspaper. For 30 years I have been watching the opinion polls on crime levels. Crime is going down and people still have the impression it is rising. Crime can be measured, because the police receive complaints from complainants, which they note. They compile them. That is how we get an overview.

I said earlier that Quebec had a completely different attitude from the rest of Canada. So it is not surprising that its representatives in this House present different solutions.

In Quebec, the number of violent crimes is lower than the Canadian average. Quebec has had remarkable success with young offenders, thanks to an individualized approach.

In spite of this success, Quebec was forced a few years ago to adopt the new Canadian policy, a policy that forces judges to follow a path with absurd outcomes.

I remember a judge who told me about a young man who was arrested on the side of the street for trafficking a small amount of drugs with a double agent. It was discovered that he had a cell phone, a car and an apartment, and that he was dressed, if not tastefully, fairly expensively. He had already committed a minor offence, but he had complied with all the conditions of his sentence.

If that had occurred before the reform, I would have said to myself that, since this young man is clearly evolving, it is time for me to intervene and send him to an institution for young offenders for a little while. But I cannot do that because the guidelines tell me that there was not any violence, he fulfilled the conditions of his sentence, the drug offence was minor, and so on. So things were going in the opposite direction.

Quebec, which incarcerated half as many young offenders as Canada, had a crime rate corresponding to half that in the rest of Canada. I would have thought that, in the same country, two different communities that apply different means might observe each other, take a page from each other's best practices and seek to adopt them. But this is not what happened. The preference was to look towards the south.

Could this be because consultation is done in English only and some people are so impressed by news from the south that they want to impose a hard and fast model and not rely on the good judgment of judges? And yet in Quebec, where these measures have been put into practice, there has been a decline not only in youth crime but also in adult crime.

That is why Quebec still objects to this. We are trying to persuade the rest of Canada that the American system, which incarcerates seven times as many people as we do, and where the risk of getting killed is three times higher than in Canada, is not the right way to do things. Better that we should look, as Quebec does, to foreign models such as those in Europe and, in particular, in Scandinavia.

There is another thing. People always think that prison is the solution to crime. Here again, what I see is that some people are so impressed by the economic success of the United States that they envy that country and try to imitate it. Let us do that in other areas, but this is not the area to do it in.

For example, Japan is another country whose economic success is impressive. Are we aware that Japan incarcerates three times fewer people than Canada? That comes to 21 times fewer than the United States. Japan also has the lowest crime rate in the world.

I am not saying that we can reproduce the unique social context that exists in Japan here, but this is one more demonstration that systematically and blindly locking people up is not the right solution. The real solution for fighting crime lies in individualizing sentences. When a crime has been committed, we must first assess the seriousness of the crime, and then look at the circumstances in which it was committed, the motivation behind it, whether the person was led into committing the crime and whether there is a possibility that he or she can be rehabilitated. Sometimes we will arrive at totally different solutions.

In my law practice, I once got someone a suspended sentence for three counts of trafficking in heroin, in a case in which the principal offender got 12 years in prison. I guarantee not only that the suspended sentence was justified, but also that it had a successful outcome for that individual, if I recall correctly. That person has been completely rehabilitated. She wrote to me at Christmas for years, to send me photographs of her little family. I was very moved to learn, when I met her by chance 15 years later in a restaurant where she was with her children, that she had given her eldest daughter the same name as my eldest daughter, Sophie.

Knee-jerk reactions are not a solution, particularly when there are serious offences that cover all sorts of situations.

I acknowledge that kidnapping is a serious crime. Abducting a child is indeed serious. Kidnapping a child for ransom is different, however, from a father taking his child from the mother who has custody when he believes that she is not fit to care for the child and the child wants to go with him. Of course it is a serious matter to break the law. The crime of kidnapping covers extremely different situations, however, as we can see.

The same is true for sexual touching. There are different kinds of sexual touching. Certainly, violent sexual touching is unacceptable, because it is much more serious. Once again, this is a crime that can be committed in more serious and less serious ways. The proposal is to treat them all the same way, and it is that knee-jerk reaction that we oppose, because we have achieved better results in Quebec by taking an individualized approach to sentencing.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the speech by the Bloc member. I want him to know from the outset that I respect the years that he put into the justice system as a crown prosecutor, as a defence attorney, and probably some other avenues.

I am assuming we are fairly close to the same age. I spent the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s in the education field, in the schools working with children. I remember in the 1960s and 1970s we allowed kids to go to the parks and play by themselves. We allowed them to go to the corner store to pick up some school supplies. We did not worry about their safety, but as the years progressed, it got worse and worse and less safe and more and more problems developed. All through those years there was a steady increase. I know he is talking about how much crime is really down, but I do not really believe that. I know that a lot of crime does not even get reported any more. And if it does not get reported, it cannot be in the stats and that is too bad.

During our generation, does the member not agree that we sort of let things get out of control with drugs, with pornography, particularly child pornography, where it grew and grew over those years that he talked about when things were really bad?

I am suggesting to the hon. member that today it is extremely bad when our children, and I am talking about babies and little kids, are being attacked, assaulted, raped and murdered by those evil people out there who like doing it. They like doing it because they are fed through the pornography against children, through the avenues that are available.

Our generation let it get completely out of control. I am ashamed of that and I would think that the member would be too. I never could understand why when we work hard to get rid of child pornography which feeds and poisons those minds that we would always end up being blocked and we could not get it done for 13 years. There is always somebody who objects. How could anyone object to getting rid of those kinds of things?

For Pete's sake, let us get serious. Let us clean up this mess. People who attack children should go to jail and never come out again.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the member for Wild Rose and tell him that in Quebec, people who attack children are put in prison, and that if they do it again, they will certainly spend long years in prison.

Unfortunately, that is perhaps the big difference between us. My personal experience is totally different from his. I raised children. They went to the park. I did not always go with them, and I would even say that most of the time I did not go with them. They were never attacked. There are attacks, but they are relatively rare.

I remember the newspapers of those days, and last weekend I was watching the movie Monica la Mitraille. By the way, I recommend the movie to everyone because it is a very good Quebec film. There was a real machine-gun Monica. I saw her in court when I was a young man. That was the era of armed bank robberies. The movie also shows how a young person turns into a criminal. In any event, I remember the beginning of my law practice. There were bank robberies every week. Today, bank robberies have almost totally stopped because preventive measures have become much more effective.

If we are afraid that children walking in a park will be attacked, it would be much cheaper and much more effective to pay for supervisors so that the children can play in safety. I am convinced that measures for preventing crime are effective.

My colleague does not believe that crime is on the decline because he does not read the statistics. He does not trust the people who compile data on crime. He says that people do not report crimes. In my experience, someone whose child has been attacked or a woman who was injured on the street generally complains to the police. Obviously, that is the basis for the statistics.

Increasingly, sex crimes are being reported. When I was young, the crime of incest was almost never reported. Today, it is. A great many sexual assaults, such as touching or sexual harassment were not reported. In contrast, today they are; but rape and violent crime are reported as often as they always were.

I would really like to know whether the member for Wild Rose is aware of someone who knows a girl who was violently attacked and who refused to report it to the police because she thought they would do nothing.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech, which I found extremely interesting.

I, too, was quite surprised to hear our Conservative colleague's statements. He claimed it is dangerous to live in Quebec and walk around there. I am from a riding in southwestern Montreal. The Saint-Henri neighbourhood used to have a terrible reputation. Now, people from all over Quebec are coming to live there because it is a peaceful haven where people feel safe. I think there is a disconnect between reality and what some people say to scare others.

I find that in Canada, there are two very different ways of viewing the fight against crime. For years, Quebec has been working to prevent crime, while the rest of Canada has focused on suppressing it. This has happened a lot, and we have seen it with young offenders. The work Quebec is trying to do is always hampered by the federal government.

I would like my Bloc Québécois colleague to tell me if there is some other way Quebec could go about making its own laws the way it wants to and its own choices about how to handle crime, instead of having the federal government impose its way of doing things.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the person who asked that question already knows the answer. There is obviously another solution.

I am a bit saddened to say so, because I have personally always been a proponent of a sovereignty-association, like most Quebeckers, I am sure: we do not hate Canada or Canadians. What we do not like is the Canadian Constitution, which is assimilating us slowly but surely. That is what we want to separate from.

Generally speaking, we would like to maintain relations with the rest of Canada. I have always believed that we could, among other things, share the same criminal law, but not if Canada wants to continually align itself with the United States, which is going down a terrible path. The United States now incarcerates people as much as Russia does, which was once unthinkable. We could explain why the things that seem to happen in Wild Rose do not happen where we are from, but I suspect the hon. member for Wild Rose may have been exaggerating.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member failed to address a lot of things. If he thinks for a minute that there are more drugs in Wild Rose than there are in Quebec ridings or that child pornography does not exist in Quebec like it does everywhere else, he is living on a different planet, not a different nation. He does not address that. Why is it that his party is so reluctant to come down hard on these elements that obviously are a real threat to our society because they poison the minds of individuals who would dare carry out a threat of violent crime?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are fewer drugs or less pornography, but in my experience, I do not think I know anyone who prevents their children from going to the park for fear they will be attacked. And if that really happens in Quebec, the reaction is instant: more police are sent on patrol. I think that is a lot smarter.

The solution is not to hit hard, but to hit effectively. Being effective means trying to understand why people commit crimes and to address the root of the problem.

I do not have a lot of time to explain it, but that is the difference between Quebec and Canada. Thank God we have less crime in Quebec. It would be possible to have even less if they took our example.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

We have heard all the rhetoric from the other side time and time again. I have seen this in committee. I have the privilege to serve on the justice committee. We have seen on Bill C-10, which would bring in mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, how all of the opposition, the NDP, the Liberals and Bloc, are united in opposing getting tough on crime, even though the NDP and the Liberals ran on a platform in the last election of getting tough on crime. Actually, they were promising to bring in measures that were even tougher than what our bill contains. For them to now say that our bill goes too far, is ridiculous.

We saw the same thing with Bill C-9, the bill that would have brought an end to conditional sentences for people who commit serious crimes, like arson, break and enter into a home and car theft. Again the opposition ganged together to gut that bill.

I think Canadians are saying enough is enough. Three of the four parties in the House were elected with a mandate to get tougher on crime. The NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives said that we would get tougher on crime.

A few months later, we brought forward Bill C-9 dealing with conditional sentences, Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory minimum sentences, and legislation dealing with raising the age of protection. When our party is putting forward the legislative initiatives to protect Canadians, we see the opposition parties dragging their feet, standing in the way and flip-flopping, when they should be cooperating with us so we can make Canada safer.

I reject the premise of some of the remarks today that crime is not getting worse. The crime statistics that were just released yesterday say that violent crime is up, gun crime is up and gang-related crime is up. I do not say that to be an alarmist. It is just that we on this side of the House have decided that we will face the facts that Canadians want us to take crime seriously, that crime is serious and that effective measures need to be put in place.

I want to speak today to Bill C-27, a bill involving dangerous offenders, a bill that addresses the worst of the worst, as it were, when it comes to criminal offenders, those who prey on innocent Canadians, those who have been shown to be perhaps repeat offenders and those who commit the most serious crimes. This is not about any low level crime. It is the most serious crimes and the most serious offenders.

The bill responds to our government's goal of tackling crime by strengthening measures to protect families from offenders who are of a high risk to offend sexually or violently in our communities. Most of these amendments are the result of changes that the provinces, the territories and other stakeholders, including victim's groups, have supported. That is important to note.

The bill amends the dangerous offender and long term offender provisions, as well as sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code dealing with peace bonds.

The dangerous and long term offender amendments in the bill seek to strengthen and enhance those provisions. One of the amendments deals with applications for a dangerous offender hearing under part XXIV the Criminal Code. It requires a prosecutor to advise a court, as soon as possible after a finding of guilt, which is important to note, and before the sentence is imposed, whether it intends on proceeding with an application.

However, for this provision to apply, the prosecutor must be of the opinion that the predicate, or current offence, is a serious personal injury offence as defined in the code, and the offender was convicted at least twice previously of a designated offence as newly defined in section 752, and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for these prior convictions. This person has to have committed a serious crime for which he or she were tried and sentenced twice before for this particular provision to come into play. When that is the case, the crown prosecutor must indicate whether he or she will be pursuing the designation of dangerous offender.

Another amendment ensures that a court cannot refuse to order an assessment where it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offender might be found to be a dangerous or long term offender. This was a technical amendment recommended by provincial and territorial ministers of justice.

The bill also imposes a reverse onus on the offender in some situations where a crown prosecutor has sought a dangerous offender designation. If a prosecutor is able to satisfy a court that an individual was convicted of a third primary designated serious sexual or violent offence, one of the most serious offences under the Criminal Code, the crown is deemed to have met its case that the individual is a dangerous offender and the individual must then prove on a balance of probabilities that he or she does not meet those criteria. We are shifting the onus, after a third offence, on to the offenders to show why they should not be designated as dangerous offenders. This brings some balance and fairness into our system.

However, the bill also clarifies 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 be adequate and neither the prosecutor nor the offender has the onus of proof in that matter.

These amendments clearly strengthen the dangerous and long term offender provisions and will ensure that prosecutors can more readily seek a designation for violent and/or sexual criminals who will in turn receive some of the toughest sanctions in the Criminal Code.

I also want to touch on peace bonds. Bill C-27 seeks to amend the provisions related to section 810.1 peace bonds for the prevention of sexual offences against children. The member for Wild Rose spoke passionately about his desire to protect children from sexual offenders and this bill deals with just that. I commend him and all members who have taken this up and are concerned about protecting children. Also, section 810.2 peace bonds target more serious violent and/or sexual offences.

These types of peace bonds are preventive in nature. They are instruments that are available to law enforcement officials to protect the public. It is not necessary for an offender to have committed a criminal offence for a judge to make such an order. These orders require individuals to agree to specific conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. They aim to protect individuals and the general public from persons who are a danger of committing sexual offences against children or are likely to commit a serious personal injury offence. These situations we know all too often do exist.

Once granted, failure or refusal to enter into peace bonds could result in an immediate term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. They can be renewed and breaches of any of the conditions in the peace bond would be considered a criminal offence and can be prosecuted in any provincial or territorial court with criminal jurisdiction, providing up to a two year prison sentence.

Specifically on a peace bond, where there is fear of a sexual offence, the current section of the code allows anyone who fears, on reasonable grounds, that another person will commit an offence under specific provisions of the code against a person under the age of 14 years, may lay an information before a provincial court judge for the purpose of having the defendant enter into a peace bond. The specific offences covered include sexual assaults, sexual assaults with a weapon, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touch and child pornography offences.

Obviously, those are very serious offences and this bill seeks to protect young children from them. The peace bond can set out certain areas, for example, where an offender is not allowed to go.

Bill C-27 also clarifies and outlines several additional conditions available to a judge if the judge considers it desirable to secure good conduct from the offender.

Our new government was just elected in January. We said that we would tackle crime to make our streets safer. What is a bit ironic is that the NDP and the Liberals also said that they would take steps to tackle crime but we have seen no evidence of that so far in this session.

Bill C-27 is one of the many initiatives the government has taken toward attaining the goal of making our streets safer. We consider offenders, who are at high risk of offending sexually or violently, to be a very serious threat to public safety.

I support this bill, as do all members on this side. I hope other members of the House will see how important these provisions are and how they are necessary measures that can be implemented as soon as possible to protect Canadians, protect children and protect society from the worst offenders.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure to hear a speech that makes sense on this particular issue. It sort of gives one a little more confidence after what has been happening over the past little while.

I wonder if the member could comment on what happened in my riding during the last election. I think most people in this place know that I have been working on a lot of justice issues for quite a few years. Yes, I am pretty passionate about some of them, particularly crimes against children. However, when I was campaigning in the last election we hardly ever entered into any debates on the subject because the Liberal candidate and the NDP candidate could only agree and cheer along with me on everything that I said with regard to getting tough on crime. I thought to myself that this would work out pretty good because, if I and my party went back to Parliament as the government, we would get things done knowing we had the support of the guys on the left. I thought this was looking good for Canada but, from what I am hearing today, it is looking sad for Canada. I wonder if the member would agree with me.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with many of my colleagues and we found, disturbingly, that was the case in many of our ridings. I know it was the case across the country. It was certainly the case when we looked at the platforms of the national parties because both the NDP platform and the Liberal platform called for getting tough on crime.

I want to use one quick example. Our bill on mandatory minimum sentences would bring in, for the most serious offences involving gun crimes, three, seven and then ten year escalating sentences. The proposal put forward by the NDP was to have a four year mandatory minimum sentence for any firearms offence, serious and non-serious, on the first offence. The Liberals were proposing a doubling of the current mandatory minimum sentence from four years to eight years. Our bill brings in what we feel are constitutional measures, proportional measures, escalating so that on the first offence the sentence would be less severe than on the second and so on. It ramps up in severity. The more someone repeats the offence, the more severe the penalty.

The NDP and the Liberal platform went way beyond what we are proposing right now and yet they are not supporting any of our legislation that is designed to protect Canadians. Why will they not get on board?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just have to point out, from an NDP point of view, that sometimes the government does not go far enough in getting tough on crime.

My colleague has not been listening if he has not heard some of the speeches from colleagues on the benches at this end of the House on the bill seeking to seize the proceeds of crime, the assets of terrorists, because we cannot understand why the government has gone soft on that bill. We think we should be able to seize the proceeds of crime, whether it is a motorcycle from the Hell's Angels or some other item from an organized crime figure. We should not just be able to seize their bank accounts. We should be able to seize their luxury mansions, their speedboats and their tricked out Escalade cars. If they cannot prove they purchased those luxury items through legitimate earnings, we should be able to seize them and put the reverse onus on the crook to prove they did not buy them through the proceeds of crime.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Why don't we talk about this bill?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I am only pointing this out, Mr. Speaker, because the member down there wandered way off the subject of the day to accuse us of not being tough enough on crime when in actual fact it is those members who are going soft on organized crime. I do not know who they are worried about making angry.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a little rich. I can understand the hon. member's concern about his party having a record of being soft on crime. We only need to look at the evidence. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc are ganging up in committee to frustrate any attempt to get tough on crime. They gutted Bill C-9 on conditional sentencing. They opposed mandatory minimum sentences when they said during the election that they would be in favour of them. Now, on Bill C-27, which deals with the most violent and most serious offenders, people who have a third time serious offence, those members are not willing to get tough on these individuals. However, we are.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

Our government has already presented a number of important measures aimed at furthering our key election commitment to tackle crime. Among many other promises in our election platform, we said we would “create a presumption-of-dangerous-offender designation for anyone convicted and sentenced to federal custody for three violent or sexual offences”. Bill C-27 seeks to fulfill this specific election promise. We said we would do it, and we are doing it.

Our Conservative government believes in treating criminals justly, but justice demands that after repeatedly offending against society, violent criminals must be stopped. After three strikes, the onus is on the violent criminal to prove he is no longer a danger to society. We do not believe in the revolving door justice that the Liberals promoted over the past 13 years, a system whereby serious offenders were able to commit violent and sexual crimes repeatedly and then were set free repeatedly to victimize even more Canadians.

We believe the primary responsibility of government is to protect Canadians. That is exactly what Bill C-27 will help us do. Bill C-27 strengthens existing measures that are available to protect our loved ones, our neighbours and our communities from repeat offenders.

I am going to get into some technical aspects of the bill, but they are actually very important.

The first portion of the bill deals with applications for dangerous and long term offender hearings under part XXIV of the Criminal Code. The amendments impose a duty on prosecutors to advise a court whether they intend to proceed with a dangerous or long term offender application as soon as possible after a finding of guilt, and before sentencing, when the following criteria have been met: first, they are of the opinion that the predicate or current offence is a “serious personal injury offence” as defined in section 752; second, the offender was convicted at least twice previously of a “designated offence” as newly defined in section 752 and was sentenced to at least two years for each of those convictions.

Under the current legislative framework, a court will order a designation hearing based on whether the individual has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence and whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the individual will be found to be a dangerous or long term offender.

An amendment recommended by provincial and territorial ministers of justice ensures that a court cannot refuse to order an assessment when it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offender might be found to be a dangerous or long term offender.

As well, an amendment is made to mandate a court, following an application by a prosecutor if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be a dangerous or long term offender, to order a psychiatric assessment before the hearing can proceed. This was previously done at the discretion of the court, but no longer.

Another amendment allows the court to extend up to 30 days the period within which a report must be filed if there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Of particular interest to members of the House may be the amendments in the bill providing for a reverse onus in dangerous offender designation hearings.

The amendments provide that the Crown is deemed to have satisfied the court that the offender meets the prerequisites for a dangerous offender designation once the court is satisfied of the following four principles: that the offender has had two prior convictions from the new list of 12 serious sexual or violent primary designated offences in section 752; that the previous convictions carried a sentence of at least two years; that the current or predicate offence must also be one of those primary offences; and finally, that the predicate offence would otherwise merit at least a two year sentence.

There are some serious hurdles here that need to be overcome, but we are confident that they can be overcome.

However, the amendments give the offender an opportunity to rebut this presumption on a balance of probabilities. The bill also clarifies 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 be adequate, and neither the prosecutor nor the offender has the onus of proof in that matter.

These amendments will enable prosecutors to more readily seek a designation for violent and/or sexual criminals. They will also encourage consistency in prosecuting when considering a dangerous or long term offender designation.

I would now like to speak briefly about the amendments to the provisions dealing with peace bonds. Bill C-27 amends section 810.1, dealing with peace bonds for the prevention of sexual offences against children, and section 810.2, dealing with peace bonds for more serious violent and sexual offences.

Peace bonds are tools available to law enforcement for public protection against high risk individuals who are likely to commit a sexual offence against children or personal injury to others. Current sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code may allow anyone who has fears on reasonable grounds to lay an information before a provincial court judge for the purpose of having the defendant enter into a peace bond to keep the peace and to comply with any other conditions the court might impose that are designed to protect the public from future harm.

The section 810.1 peace bond is designed to protect against sexual offences against children under the age of 14, while section 810.2 targets individuals who may commit “a serious personal injury offence”. A serious personal injury offence is defined in the Criminal Code as including offences that are pursued by way of indictment, such as first degree or second degree murder involving violence, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger life or safety, or where the offender could be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment or more.

Alternatively, a serious personal injury offence also includes a conviction for sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon or aggravated sexual assault. Under the current legislative framework, a judge may order that a person enter into either of these peace bonds for a period not exceeding 12 months if the judge is satisfied that the informant has reasonable grounds to fear that another person will commit a relevant offence. This means a sexual offence against a child for the section 810.1 peace bond or a serious personal injury against another person for the section 810.2 peace bond.

The amendments that we are bringing forward significantly extend the maximum duration of these peace bonds, from 12 to 24 months in certain situations.

For the section 810.1 peace bond, this longer peace bond will be available where a judge is also satisfied that the person was convicted previously of a sexual offence in respect of a victim who is under the age of 14.

For the section 810.2 peace bond, the longer duration can apply where the court is satisfied that the offender has previously been convicted of a serious personal injury offence. Currently, the judge can also order that the defendant comply with any conditions that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the offender does not commit harm. These often include conditions to not have contact with potential victims or to stay away from certain places and to report regularly to the police or probation workers.

The amendments that we are putting forward will clarify that broader conditions can be imposed on defendants than those that are currently described. The additional conditions outlined in the amendments relating to both types of peace bonds include requiring a defendant to, for example, participate in treatment programs or wear an electronic monitoring device if the Attorney General consents, or remain within a specific geographic area unless permission to leave is granted by a judge, or remain at a residence at specific times, or abstain from consuming illegal drugs, alcohol or intoxicating substances. Clearly we are placing more options before the courts to prevent people from reoffending.

In addition, the very subsections in the two provisions regarding the types of conditions that can be considered will be amended so that they are worded more consistently. There are a number of wording differences between sections 810.1 and 810.2.

While there are certainly differences in who these provisions target, many of the wording differences have caused some difficulties in interpretation in the courts. As such, all provinces and territories have requested amendments that would provide a more uniform approach.

It is proposed, for example, that the judge must now consider, for both types of peace bonds, where they previously did so only for 810.2, whether it is desirable in the interests of safety to prohibit the defendant from possessing certain items, including firearms, or whether it is desirable to require the defendant to report to the correctional authority of a province or police authority.

The amendments in Bill C-27 will aid prosecutors considering a dangerous or long term offender designation. The bill will also enhance the ability of law enforcement officials to supervise and control offenders longer and more stringently if they are at high risk of reoffending.

Our three strikes law, Bill C-27, puts the protection of the public first, ends revolving door justice for violent offenders, and meets our election promise to Canadians. I ask all members to support this bill.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague to clarify something, not only for me but for any Canadian who may be observing these proceedings.

My understanding of the provisions contained under Bill C-27 is that if someone is convicted a third time for a dangerous or sexual offence, the onus will be on that individual to try to demonstrate or prove to the courts why he or she should not be considered a dangerous offender.

In other words, if someone has been convicted of a rape for the first time, goes to jail, gets out on parole, again rapes another child or young person, is convicted the second time, goes to jail, gets out and is convicted a third time for rape, that individual would have to prove to the courts why he or she should not be considered a dangerous offender. That seems to me to be eminently reasonable.

What I would like the hon. colleague to comment on is this. My understanding is that the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals will be voting against this bill.

Once again, if someone is a convicted three-time rapist, not accused but convicted, that person would then have to make application to the courts as to why he or she would not be considered a dangerous offender. The onus would be on that individual under this bill.

My understanding is that the opposition parties, all of them, for some strange reason that is totally unfathomable to me, will be voting against this legislation that is designed to protect citizens and victims. I ask my colleague if I am on the right track. Should I believe my ears? Is that exactly what is going to happen? Are they going to vote against this legislation?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, his ears are working fine, regrettably. It is incredibly unfortunate that this is in fact the case. For many months now this bill has been coming forward. I do not know about the hon. member or my colleagues, but I know that during the last election I had numerous debates with members of the Liberal Party and the NDP. They all came forward saying yes, they were going to get tough on crime. They said yes, they supported mandatory minimum sentences. They said yes, they supported dangerous offender legislation.

Now here we are in the chamber with an opportunity to pass the very bill that the member describes, one that would prevent somebody who has already committed horrible offences from being able to recommit those offences, and the members opposite and to my right, or should I say to my left, simply refuse to come along with us and support this proposition when we know Canadians want this.

Last fall, on our safe streets and communities task force, I spent many months with the current finance minister travelling across the country talking to members, police officers, families and people who have been victimized by crime Everywhere we went, at every stop across this country, Canadians demanded that we get tough on crime, that we do not allow people who have committed horrible crimes to reoffend. Once we know they are dangerous, they should not be let out again, yet that is what the previous Liberal government has allowed for so long.

Here we now have the opportunity to correct this huge problem within our justice system. Those members are sitting on their hands in this empty chamber, as I see when I look across, and are doing nothing to support the measures that we have come forward with in a mandate given to us by the Canadian public.

I implore the members opposite, the few who are here, to support this measure.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the government benches look pretty empty too.

I am waiting for the day when members of the Conservative Party and that government will be able to govern without having to mention the opposition parties. I wait for the day when the government will be able to stand on its own feet as a mature government and articulate public policy on its own merits, when it does not require reference to the Liberals this, the NDP that, and the Bloc the other. When is the government going to grow up and articulate good public policy from the floor in the House? That is what I am waiting for.

I note in regard to a lot of what the member was just referring to when describing the circumstances surrounding rape that those conditions also exist in the Criminal Code and allow the designation of a dangerous offender now.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, coming from a member opposite who calls our border officers wimps, I do not think he has a lot of credibility on criminal justice issues.

I can assure him that we have tremendous support for this legislation. He may be embarrassed at what his government has not done over the past 13 years and may want us to not refer to its failures going forward. We have no other alternative but to look at the problems that party has left with our society that we are here now to correct. I would encourage the member and his colleagues to support this measure.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started on this particular bill, I want to remind the minority government of neo-cons that in fact more people voted against them than voted for them. Sometimes that is just a little lost on members opposite. If we were to look at the polls today, even fewer would vote for them than voted for them during the election. The consequence of that is that the new minority government has to solicit the cooperation of the parties opposite.

I want to note that the government dropped 11 bills on the floor of this House and the Liberal Party consented to six of them. Like that, we consented to six of them, largely because they mirrored legislation that was put forward by the Liberal government in the last Parliament. Poor fellows, like they cannot take success. Is that not what it boils down to? They cannot take success. They got six free bills.

The Conservatives talk about being tough on crime. Well tough does not mean stupid on crime at the same time. This is one of those bills that is just plain stupid because it will not survive any kind of constitutional challenge. It is a classic.

The Conservatives whip up a fear, get people all wired about how dangerous it is out there, that the whole nation is just going down the tubes, and then put forward another dumb bill. Here we have one more dumb bill that somehow or another is going to save the nation from this massive crime rate.

I listened to the member for Wild Rose being rebutted by the member from the Bloc Québécois because the member for Wild Rose is absolutely convinced that we are in fact under a massive crime rate in this country. The statistics of course do not bear him out. They have not borne him out for the last decade, but that really does not much matter to him. It does not seem to much matter to the members in his party because they basically traffic in fear and smear. They get the population worked up about something that does not exist and then propose a solution to a problem that does not exist. They then run away from it because the crown attorneys, the defence counsel, the accused, the victims, and the judges will have to clean up the mess afterward.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am having difficulty hearing the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. I think all hon. members would want to keep their questions and comments until after the member's speech, when there will be an opportunity to ask him questions or provide him with some comments. Let us allow the hon. member to continue with his speech.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River on a point of order.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to support you on that. There has not been a five second window since my colleague began his speech that the members of the government have not been yelling and interjecting. I simply ask for the courtesy to let the member deliver--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member, but I think I did just mention that. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention on the part of the Speaker and my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River. Certainly, the hon. members opposite have no interest in dealing with facts or in dealing with the Constitution or in dealing with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For whatever else the Liberal Party stands for, it is the party of the Constitution and the party of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let me turn to the bill which, I submit, is deeply flawed. Members who might be watching this debate, and I cannot imagine why they would be, but maybe they are, should know that in the Criminal Code, as it presently exists, there is a dangerous offender section. It is section 753. It says:

--definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence--

That is evidence, gentlemen:

--establishing

(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour--

(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender--

(iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint;--

That already exists in the Criminal Code. This bill does not change that. This bill stays with that standard of behaviour.

What is going to happen if this bill passes? First of all, a crown attorney is going to have to give a notice. He is going to give a notice presumably after two convictions. Right now there does not need to be two convictions. It can be done after one conviction, if it can be established that the individual is going to be a threat to society. In fact, an indeterminate sentence can be obtained based upon simply one conviction. The crown attorney is still forced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those elements of that individual's behaviour threaten society at large.

What will happen here is that the crown attorney is going to give notice. Think about that for a second. The defence counsel probably has someone who is a pretty bad person, probably has evidenced behaviour so much so that he or she has been convicted of at least two offences. That person is now looking at an indeterminate sentence, not a determinate sentence. In other words, throw the person away.

Now the defence counsel is going to say to himself or herself, “Well, we are going to fight this and we are going to fight this hard”. There are no deals and no convictions.

What will happen then? The defence counsel is in effect going to force the crown attorney to accept the plea to something lesser than possibly is appropriate under the circumstances. Now we are looking at an indeterminate sentence rather than a determinate sentence. Instead of the individual going away for an appropriate period of time on the apprehension that they may go away for a much longer period of time, the defence counsel will try and plead it down to something less.

Purists in the chamber may think that this is not very good at all. On the other hand, that is the way the court system works. I do not see that changing any time soon.

We will have a perverse consequence. In fact, the courts are going to get clogged, the crown attorneys are going to have to make deals that they do not want to make, and the courts, ending up clogged, are going to actually process fewer people who have been charged with offences.

The reaction of the crown attorney is either twofold. The crown attorney can either say, “Okay, let us bring it on and let us have the fight” or it is going to be, “Let us make a deal time”. Those are the two choices that the crown attorney will be faced with. The likelihood is that the crown attorney is going to accept something of a lesser plea because in fact the provinces are not going to be greatly more resourced in order to be able to deal with this legislation.

We can ignore that kind of advice on the part of the experts that come before or will come before the committee, or we can take it into consideration when drafting a piece of legislation.

The risk is that it puts the entire section 752 in jeopardy. One can go to the bank on it. It will be absolutely certain that if in fact this section were to pass, if in fact an individual were to be convicted under this section, this legislation would be challenged by defence counsel in court under a charter application. There is an absolute certainty of that.

We put at risk the entire section 752. The court might either strike this bill or it might strike the entire section. We again have an ironic consequence that we would lose the entire dangerous offender section and have nothing, which I do not think any party in this House would support that kind of consequence.

We are playing a high stakes game here with things that clearly are of serious consequence. I do not think hon. members need to take my word for it or anybody else in this chamber. They might actually listen to what other people who have expertise in this area actually say about it.

If I may take some time, I would like to reference David Paciocco, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa. He begins his speech by saying that the best that could be said about this bill is that it is an amalgam of unenforceable and constitutionally suspect provisions. It puts the burden of three strikes on the accused to prove that he or she does not pose that kind of danger that the dangerous offenders do.

In other words, it reverses the burden. We are reversing the burden on somebody who has to prove that they will not likely do this action. When we do that we, in effect, are having to prove a negative. If we are having to prove a negative, the courts that are constitutionally charged with reviewing this under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will find it very difficult to accept that this is constitutionally acceptable.

The individual accused and convicted has to prove that he or she is incapable of restraining himself or herself, likely to cause death or injury in the future, have a substantial or general degree of indifference to the consequences of his or her behaviour, and be marked with an incorrigible brutality.

The professor goes on to say that, in effect, judges are forced to find that offenders pose the kinds of risks I just described not only in cases where there is a reasonable doubt but even in cases where it is equally probable that the offender poses no such risk. Therein lies the difficulty that this bill poses for those members in this party who actually have to read the bill in the context of the Constitution and in the context of how courts actually behave.

I listened to some of the rhetoric from the other side and I wondered whether in fact those members ever actually go to courts and actually see how they operate. Do they see what the dockets are like for these judges, some 200 or 300 cases on a docket at any given time? Do they realize that plea bargaining is in fact a way of life in courts and that we would have no justice system at all, that it would grind to a halt if in fact every section of the Criminal Code was constitutionally challenged? All we have done is raised a huge flag for defence counsel to challenge this constitutionally.

The professor goes on to say that if this were true, the provision would not only fail to meet the rational connection test, it would also fail to meet the ultimate balancing that is done under the proportionality test. The provision costs to the liberty interest of the convict would outweigh the benefits the provision would produce. In either event, section 1 would not justify the reverse onus.

The court is continually balancing the rights of the accused versus the safety and security of society. It is called the proportionality test, and it is a constant factor in any judge's mind. Does the sentence or the proposal for an indeterminate sentence weigh against the legitimate concerns for the safety and security of the larger society?

I hear the rhetoric about getting tough on crime. I respectfully submit to members opposite that they should get a little smarter on crime. They should not put legislation on the floor which will almost inevitably be challenged in the courts or which will almost inevitably see charter challenges from defence counsel.

I submit from our side of the aisle that there is no way we can support this legislation. It does not meet the proportionality test. It does not meet the constitutional test. We cannot reverse the onus in a situation of this kind. We are, in effect, saying to the courts that the person should be put away indeterminately and that person would have to prove they would not offend in the future. This is very poorly drafted legislation. It deserves to fail.

I would be interested in any questions that members opposite may want to propose.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of what my colleague across the floor had to say. I may have spent more time in courtrooms than most lawyers have. One of the things I noticed during that 30 year career was the fact that lawyers continually challenged the law. I do not think we should be concerned about that.

He is fully aware that reverse onus provisions in the code already have been challenged and upheld as constitutionally strong.

The member talked about plugging up the courts. The courts do not continually deal with these people, but they deal with them enough times that we need to do something. We are talking about the worst of the worst offenders. They are not shoplifters or people who break windows. These people have run afoul of the law in the most heinous way. We should not, as a society, necessarily have to wait for them for a fourth, fifth or sixth time. This is a law that only makes sense to ordinary Canadians.

What do we have to fear if someone does challenge it in the courts, being that a lawyer's role is to continually challenge the law? We should not prejudge what the courts would say.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. We are dealing with the worst of the worst and, therefore, a very small minority of people. At any given time, there are only 21,000 people under Correctional Service supervision. Of those, about 8,000 are in some form of non-custodial supervision. We are dealing with a very small subset of a group of people. The commitment on the part of the Conservative Party during the election was to crack down on crime. In fact, it is cracking down on a very micro-subset of the worst of the worst.

I point out that section 752 has already been constitutionally challenged and has already been upheld in the courts. By putting this overreach into the courts is in fact opening up section 752 for an entire constitutional challenge. The risk he runs does not in any way commensurate with the harm that he wishes to address.

First, we are dealing with a micro-subset of a subset of a micro-subset. Second, he is putting at risk the entire constitutionality of section 752.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during these remarks and prior remarks there was a suggestion that this legislation attempted to deal with the worst of the worst.

I have looked at the schedule of offences listed in the bill. While they are all criminal offences, they might not be classed as the worst of the worst. There are some 56 separate offences listed, not just the rape scenario mentioned by one of the members opposite. I agree a rape situation is an extremely serious offence and three of them in a row leads one to an obvious conclusion. However, the offences listed can include ordinary assault, an abduction of a child from Canada, which could be a parent leaving with the child without authorization, and robbery. I am not saying they are not criminal offences, but the members opposite described these offences as the worst of the worst.

Would my colleague care to comment on the list, given that we are dealing with a “three strikes and you're out” presumptive scenario in the bill?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think California has something of a parallel legislation and it is finding that it does not work. It catches a bunch of unintended consequences. My hon. colleague addresses one of the unintended consequences.

The members opposite think this is like three brutal assaults, therefore this person is unable to control himself or herself. This constitutes a danger to society and, therefore, the individual should be put away as a dangerous offender. However, by lowering the standard of the offence, effectively we are opening up the entire Criminal Code, within a certain realm, to people who probably the members opposite do no intend to have convicted as serious offenders. By reversing the onus, for instance two assaults and now a third assault, one may or may not be the worst of the worst. One may have other problems that get one there.

The times when I was in court, which I do not think were nearly as frequent as he was in court, a lot of the people convicted were people who had all kinds of other problems. Something in the order of about 70% of the offender population is functionally illiterate. A lot of them have serious mental health issues. What we are doing is designating a lot of these people as dangerous offenders, putting them away in an indeterminate fashion and letting them rot.

I do not see the argument that they hon. members opposite are making to support the bill. It is literally taking a howitzer to kill a gnat.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, coming from Winnipeg Centre, one of the most shocking things, when dealing with criminal justice issues or sentencing, is acknowledging the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our prison system to date.

When I looked at the schedule of offences being contemplated for inclusion under the bill, it struck me right away that it will exacerbate the appalling social situation where aboriginal people are locked up at an alarming rate disproportionate to their size in the population.

Has my colleague given any thought to whether there was any cultural analysis given to the bill when it was crafted in that light?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the discouraging part is I do not think much analysis has gone into the bill. It is simply election rhetoric and reaction to that rhetoric.

The hon. member rightly points out that, particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, aboriginal offenders are seriously overrepresented in the criminal court system. Frequently they have problems outside of simply criminal issues, whether it is mental health issues or other social issues. The hon. member would know all these things better than I would.

That was my point on the previous issue. The bill will catch a whole bunch of people whom not one person in the chamber thought would get caught. It is easy. An individual has two assaults. This individual is on the streets. The person has an alcohol problem or a mental health issue problem, et cetera. The Crown gives notice, the defence counsel, who is usually duty counsel and does not really know the offender, will try to do his or her best to do a defence on a reverse onus and our friend, on the streets of Winnipeg, is in an indeterminate sentence, which essentially is a life sentence, for what otherwise would have been maybe a two year or a four year conviction.

That is how it will play out. I think there is a significant chance of injustice as a consequence of that.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has stood in the House and referred to the bill as being stupid. I must thank him for this astute legal analysis. As proof of this point, the hon. member offers up the assertion that the bill might be found unconstitutional by our courts because it contains what is called the reverse onus.

Briefly, there is a list of provisions in the Criminal Code containing the reverse onus. They have either been unchallenged through the years or held to be constitutional. Examples of these are: section 515, bail provision; section 490, a sex offender registry provision; section 16, not criminally responsible provision; and section 487, DNA orders. I could go on. In other words, there are multiple precedents in the Criminal Code for a reverse onus provision.

Would the member for Scarborough—Guildwood would rise in his place and retract that statement?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Not a chance, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is correct to say that there are reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. He is incorrect to say that it is reverse onus for indeterminate sentences. An indeterminate sentence is essentially a life sentence. A person is away at the pleasure of Her Majesty. That is it, end of the story.

It will be a red flag in front of the court which inevitably will be challenged. The hon. member and his government have put the entire dangerous offender section of the Criminal Code at risk by doing so.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to finish up on that last point before I begin my remarks, there are multiple precedents in the Criminal Code for reverse onus provisions. Moreover, the burden is on the accused, an accused who has already been found guilty of the crime. That is key. The person has already been found guilty.

The bill is not stupid. It is the legal analysis of the hon. member opposite that more readily meets this description.

It is humorous to watch the member anticipate, almost with glee, the efforts of defence lawyers. He talks about the amount of time he spent in court, but who we really need to be listening to are the citizens of Canada who send us to this place, who sit and watch this on television and who may have spent no time in the courtroom, but who know, because common sense tells them, that this is the right thing to do for people who commit multiple, heinous crimes. We are talking about the worst of the worst here. We are talking about the Peter Whitmores of this world.

This is part of what sparked this type of courageous bill from the Minister of Justice. We are talking about locking up indeterminately, for at least seven years, the worst of the worst. Canadians coast to coast to coast know it is the right thing to do. It is only the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP members who do not know that it is the right thing to do.

It is my privilege today to speak in favour of Bill C-27, which proposes to strengthen and clarify certain provisions relating to dangerous and long term offenders as well as two types of peace bonds. This bill seeks to accomplish the following reforms.

First, it proposes a number of changes to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code. These changes are designed to address concerns that since 2003 there have been problems encountered in securing dangerous offender designations. These changes include a new reverse onus provision, a new provision that codifies the determination of fitness of sentence, a new declaration provision and some procedural changes regarding the psychiatric assessment.

Second, this bill will introduce a number of amendments to toughen the sections 810.1 and 810.2 peace bonds that allow police and crown prosecutors to impose extensive conditions on individuals in our communities who have a high risk of committing serious sexual or violent offences.

Certainly these reforms are significant in the overall context of offender management, which is the federal responsibility of Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, within the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. My speech today will focus on the Correctional Service, Canada's management of high risk offenders, and how the proposed provisions will assist these officials to monitor and supervise criminals who are at risk to commit violent and/or sexual offences.

The role of CSC is very important to highlight in the context of the amendments to the sentencing legislation. CSC is generally responsible for the management of all offenders who receive federal sentences of detention, that is, sentences of two years or more in a penitentiary.

Once an offender is sentenced, the role of CSC commences, in balancing assisting offenders in their rehabilitation with measures of control. This role continues throughout the duration of the sentence. Public safety is the paramount consideration.

Upon intake, each offender is assessed to determine appropriate interventions or programs. The assessment is multi-faceted and incorporates risk-based historical factors as well as the need for correctional intervention.

Risk-based historical factors are derived from tools such as criminal records and any sex offence history, as well as guidelines established by the Correctional Service to assess serious harm. The need for correctional intervention is determined through an analysis of factors such as employment, marital and family status, substance abuse, community functioning and the attitude of the offender.

The factors used to determine intervention are dynamic. As such, they require continuous monitoring to establish risks for reoffending posed by the offender at any given time. When all the factors are considered, offenders can be identified as high risk, the level of intervention required to achieve safe and timely reintegration into society can be determined, and a correctional plan can be established for the offender.

The correctional plan provides information about the management of an offender's sentence from beginning to end. It may include correctional interventions such as the referral to one of a range of accredited correctional programs, including the violence prevention program or the national substance abuse program, in order to meet the varying needs of offenders.

Other interventions may include increased levels of contact between an offender and a parole officer, psychological counselling, and community based substance abuse programs. These interventions are crucial in assisting the successful reintegration of offenders.

I have briefly outlined the role of the Correctional Service at intake. I will now speak about parole offenders generally and how this relates to the legislation before the House today.

Generally, an offender may or may not be granted parole eligibility by a judge in accordance with the Criminal Code. Offenders who are granted parole eligibility must serve one-third of their sentence before they are eligible to be released on parole. For certain violent offenders a judge may impose parole eligibility at one-half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less. For dangerous offenders, there is no parole eligibility for the first seven years and then every two years thereafter.

The offences that carry a parole eligibility requirement of one-half of the offender's sentence must be pursued by way of indictment and may not be a minimum punishment, and the offender must receive a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more. These offences include some of the most egregious crimes, such as sexual interference and sexual exploitation involving victims under 14 years of age.

The paroled release of an offender has a graduated approach rather than a cold release into the community. For instance, conditions may be recommended to the National Parole Board, such as imposing a curfew on the offender, to reduce the risk that the parolee will reoffend.

Offenders who have not been granted parole eligibility under the Criminal Code are eligible for statutory release. This is an inmate's legal entitlement, with exceptions for inmates serving life or indeterminate sentences to be released into the community after serving two-thirds of their sentences.

All federal offenders are to be reviewed for parole by the National Parole Board, if eligible, unless they waive this right. The board, in determining parole, is guided by a list of principles, including that the protection of society is the paramount consideration in all cases. The board must also consider certain criteria to grant parole. It must be of the opinion that an offender will not reoffend.

The National Parole Board must consider whether there is an undue risk to society before the expiration of the offender's sentence. It must also be satisfied that the release of an offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen.

For dangerous offenders, the onus is on the offender to prove that he or she poses no risk to the public if parole is granted. Dangerous offenders are very rarely granted even limited parole. According to the National Parole Board, about 99% of all dangerous offender parole applications are rejected outright. This compares to, for example, parole applications for offenders convicted of first degree and second degree murder, whose parole applications are denied about 65% of the time.

As a result, the dangerous offender indeterminate sentence is often referred to as the toughest penalty in Canadian criminal law. Three main areas are considered during the board's review: an assessment of an offender's criminal and social history; the offender's institutional behaviour and results of interventions; and the release plan and community management strategy.

With respect to an offender's criminal and social history, many factors are assessed, such as the details of the offence, criminal history, substance abuse, and physical and mental health. Institutional behaviour and intervention assessment considers any evidence of a change in the offender as a result of the benefit of any treatment or program participation while incarcerated, as well as the offender's understanding of the current offence and previous criminal behaviour.

When assessing the release plan and community management strategy, National Parole Board members will consider the availability of programs or counselling, supervision controls, and whether special conditions are required to manage risk factors in the community.

Given all of these considerations and criteria, along with internal board policies, parole may not be granted to those offenders who are viewed as high risk and represent an undue risk to reoffend.

Canadians across the country have told us that they want to take action on crime. With this landmark legislation, we are delivering, but we cannot do the job alone. We need the support of the opposition MPs to help us pass this important legislation that we have introduced to tackle crime.

Despite grand overtures and rhetoric, the opposition has done little to actually get tough on crime in this Parliament. The opposition talked a lot about getting tough on crime during the election campaign, but this is really about what happens after the election. It is about how members stand in the House and represent their constituents and how they vote.

There is only one party that is sticking up for safe streets and safe communities and sticking up for the safety of our children and our seniors, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada and this government. I call upon the opposition to stop watering down crime legislation and do as it promised in the election campaign. Let us get on with the job of making our streets safe for all Canadians.

I would like to mention a few members in the House who are on board. They know the importance of getting tough on crime. First of all, they are led by the Minister of Justice, but we also have the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Wild Rose, the member for Cambridge, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, the member for Oxford, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap, and the list goes on with every single member on this side of the House. I see the member for Macleod looking at me. I see the member for Vegreville—Wainwright. They all want credit and they are all working extremely hard on this file to get tough on crime. I wish the members opposite would join us in that venture.

I thought I was going to have 10 minutes, but it turns out that I have 20 minutes so I want to talk to the House a little about how crime affects people in my riding of Palliser and across the entire province of Saskatchewan.

In case members do not know, Saskatchewan continues to be the crime capital of Canada under an NDP government. For the information of the House and the members opposite, I would like to let Canadians know what life is like under an NDP government.

Per capita, Saskatchewan's overall crime rate is higher than Ontario's. Saskatchewan is the murder capital of Canada. That is shocking. Saskatchewan has the highest rate of violent offences of any province in Canada. Saskatchewan continues to have the highest property crime rate in Canada. Crime rates for robbery in my home city of Regina are the third highest of any city in the country. Regina has the highest number of car thefts in Canada, again per capita.

All of us in this chamber and everyone watching at home recognize that this is a disgrace. The people of Palliser and the people of Saskatchewan have a right to feel safe in their homes and on their streets. Instead, every year they find that they live in the most dangerous province in Canada, thanks to years of provincial NDP and federal Liberal governments.

One would think that members of the opposition, when presented with a bill like Bill C-27, would support our government's tough new measures to crack down on dangerous offenders. Again, we are talking about the worst of the worst. We are talking about two dozen individuals a year. That is what we are talking about.

The members opposite and the members in the NDP refuse to support this bill, a bill that puts the onus on offenders who have already been convicted of three violent or sexual offences to justify why they should be released into a community. This is perfectly reasonable.

People at home recognize that it is perfectly reasonable. In fact, many of my constituents have contacted me wondering why we give people three chances. This is the Canadian way. We have a heart and we try to rehabilitate people, but there is a certain point at which we have to say enough is enough. Canadians are with us. To me and to the citizens of Palliser, the approach of this government makes a lot of sense.

That is not what we are hearing from the opposition benches today. I cannot believe that those members are not going to support this bill. Canada's new government is ready to take immediate action to get tough on dangerous offenders. I ask the members opposite, particularly the members of the NDP, to stand up today and join our efforts.

I ask that they do the right thing and support our efforts to make our neighbourhoods safe, but perhaps that is wishful thinking. After all, let us look at the record of the NDP when it comes to crime and criminal justice bills. The NDP joined with the Liberals to gut an important piece of our government's legislation, Bill C-9, which would have eliminated house arrest for arsonists, car thieves and criminals who break into the homes of our citizens.

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that if someone burns down a building, steals a car or breaks into someone's home, they should probably go to jail. The members in the opposition parties do not think so. They think these offenders should be eligible to serve their sentences perhaps in the comfort of their own living rooms. Canadians know that is wrong.

I know the NDP members like to advocate softer sentences for criminals and make excuses for why we should not get tough on crime but Canadians understand that gutting important crime bills and failing to stand behind legislation, like Bill C-27, is simply wrong.

When it comes to Bill C-27, the NDP justice critic did not do the right thing and voice his support for our bill. Instead, he criticized the Conservative government for bringing forward legislation to target dangerous offenders. He suggested that the bill, including its reverse onus provisions, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, during the last election campaign the NDP said that it supported a reverse onus on bail for all gun related crimes. The NDP members cannot have it all ways. They cannot say one thing during an election campaign and then do a flip-flop once they come to this chamber. While I am on this topic, I should mention that the former Liberal justice minister also dismissed this bill outright. It is shameful.

It is clear that the NDP are content to say anything to get elected but when it comes to standing behind their words and doing the right thing they simply cannot be trusted. I think the facts speak for themselves. There is only one party in Canada today that is standing up for safer communities, safer neighbourhoods and safer streets and that is the Conservative Party of Canada and this new government.

I am so proud to support Bill C-27 on behalf of the citizens of Palliser. It is the right thing to do. It is the tough action on crime that Palliser residents have called for. What I hear all the time is that enough is enough, and this is the right thing to do.

I would like to take this opportunity during Remembrance Week and with Remembrance Day on Saturday to urge all Canadians to share the story of remembrance and to take the time to remember our veterans and those who currently serve in the Canadian Forces around the world, including our brave men and women in Afghanistan. The veterans and the members of the Canadian Forces are people to whom we owe everything that we enjoy today. We owe everything to those individuals. I urge members to take the time to remember, as I am sure all Canadians will.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Laval, Health; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to correct the record, if I may. The member who just spoke referred to Bill C-9, a bill that just passed through this place. While it arguably may not be bang on relevant, it was mentioned by the member in his speech.

The member and the Minister of Justice have publicly stated that arson was removed from Bill C-9. Is the member aware that arson of a dwelling house still remains within Bill C-9? What those members are saying to Canadians, almost every day, is, I could be polite and say that it is wrong, but it is misleading to the point of being deceitful.

Is the member aware that arson of an inhabited dwelling house is a personal injury offence? It is quite unfair to Canadians for him and the justice minister to continue to repeat those remarks. It is misleading and most unfair.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into that. Perhaps he is picking on a technicality in the bill. My understanding is that under the Liberal and NDP versions of justice in this country, people who burn down property should be eligible for a conditional sentence.

I noticed that the member did not mention anything about the fact that for people who break into other people's homes, for theft over $5,000 or auto theft, he had no problem with those individuals perhaps serving those sentences in the comfort of their own living rooms.

The Liberals and NDP just do not get it when it comes to crime. Canadians have had enough and they have said as much. One of the major reasons they elected a new government on January 23 was because they knew it was time to get tough on crime. Canadians want the Liberals and the NDP to stop dragging their feet and pass these important bills, bills that will improve the safety of our streets and communities.

I would like everyone who is listening at home to notice there was no mention whatsoever that persons who commit break and enters and car thieves should not be allowed to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own living rooms. That is the hon. member's view. It is not the view of this government.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member for Palliser waved his arms about and told us that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois are making a mistake by not supporting this bill. I believe that the majority of the members of this House do not support this bill simply because it is a bad bill.

Most certainly, the Bloc Québécois does not support it because we base our position on what is happening in Quebec. When it come to justice in Quebec, we consider rehabilitation to be the most important thing, and this works. Proof lies in the fact that the crime rate in Quebec is lower than in Canada or the United States.

I wonder if the hon. member for Palliser believes in rehabilitation. Even more so, I wonder and I will put the question to the hon. member, although he says he wants our streets to be safer, why does the government, the Conservative Party wish to allow weapons to circulate freely and with no control on our streets?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite knows that is not the case. This government has actually introduced mandatory minimum penalties for crimes committed with firearms. We believe in effective gun control measures. What we do not believe in is a $2 billion boondoggle registry that did not prevent one crime or save one life.

The member opposite talked about the majority of this House. For the people watching this debate at home, that will be one of the reasons that more Conservative members will be coming to this place. We, on this side of the House, believe in rehabilitation of offenders as well, but in Bill C-27, we are talking about two dozen people in the country, the absolute worst of the worst, people convicted of multiple heinous crimes, people like Peter Whitmore in Saskatchewan who has multiple sexual offences against children. We are talking about putting the onus on those individuals and giving them an indeterminate sentence of seven years.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bluster from the member is quite something when we all know that right now it is possible to declare somebody a dangerous offender the first time they commit a heinous crime of the kind he is describing. The bill does not really add anything to protect Canadians. If someone is a dangerous offender, that is possible.

In my riding there is a group of dedicated, grass roots organizers and volunteers who believe in restorative justice programs. They have organized a youth restorative justice program. They are called the Burnaby Restorative Action Group, BRAG. They cannot get money from any level of government to assist them in that important work.

We all know that restorative justice programs work, that they reduce crime, that they bring offenders and victims together, that they resolve the problems and that they take the responsibility of solving the kinds of problems that led to crime in our cities, communities and neighbours very seriously. Here is a group of dedicated volunteers that cannot get one penny of assistance from the federal government to set that kind of program up, to run it and operate it effectively. I would ask the member if that is appropriate.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not bluster. This legislation has received the support of victims' rights groups across the country, as well as the Canadian Professional Police Association. Our new government's stance is in step with the opinion of the vast majority of Canadians that serious crime must equal serious time. It is high time we started looking at crime and punishment through the eyes of victims instead of criminals.

The member mentioned an association in his riding called BRAG. He should take that up with the Minister of Justice on another day. Today we are talking about locking up indefinitely the 24 most dangerous people in this country.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike members opposite, I will not stoop so low as to call members of this House deceitful. A colleague of my friend opposite was not being deceitful. He probably did not read the bill and was not prepared. He made a promise during the election with no intention to keep it and, therefore, felt no need to be prepared.

This bill deals with primary designated offences, offences committed, not once or twice, but three times. We are talking about sexual interference, incest, murder and kidnapping. Unlike what the member opposite suggested, kidnapping does not require a beyond a reasonable doubt defence. I am not suggesting members opposite were being deceitful. I just do not think they are prepared. Given that there is no requirement for a beyond a reasonable doubt defence, it is a balance of probabilities. There is still an opportunity for a judge to intervene in this case.

I would just like to ask the hon. member if he agrees that this is on a balance of probabilities, not on a beyond a reasonable doubt, as was indicated by members opposite who are not properly prepared.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a comment was made earlier by a member opposite about arson of a dwelling house being removed from Bill C-9. He should have been prepared when he came to the House. The truth is that it is taken out if someone is in their home when it is burnt down. However, if people are not in their homes when someone burns it down, the Liberal and NDP members think the arsonist should be able to serve his or her sentence in the comfort of his or her own living room. The member should have known that before coming into the House.

To answer the hon. member's question, the Minister of Justice has been very successful in striking an appropriate balance. We need to keep in mind that these people have already been convicted and certainly this law will--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this bill. I may not be a lawyer, but I have enough brains to read bills. I can tell whether a bill is in tune or not with the reality. My 13 years of experience as a member of Parliament and lawmaker in this place have taught me the difference between good bills and bills that do nothing for society in Quebec or Canada.

Bill C-27 before us does strictly nothing to help fight crime, reduce crime or discourage potential criminals from offending. This is a totally pointless bill which does not meet these objectives.

I listened earlier to the hon. member from the Conservative Party according to whom being against this bill is to be against the victims of crime. What demagoguery.

Bills like this, which do no good, may in fact interfere with the normal court process. Judging by the experience of the Americans in recent years, after they introduced similar legislation, this is the kind of bill that can hamper crime-fighting efforts instead of providing additional tools to fight crime. No study has shown that this three strikes and you are out policy can do any good.

In the United States, where the crime rate is the highest in the world, experience has shown in recent years that having that kind of policy in place does not make the crime rate go down. There are mostly studies that establish a connection between the likelihood of reoffending and the length of incarceration. That is the exact opposite of what we have just heard in relation to this bill.

In addition, this bill ignores a basic legal principle: the presumption of innocence. Even before a criminal commits another offence, he has to prove that he is not a dangerous offender and that he should not be incarcerated indefinitely. The offender has the burden of proof. I do not believe that giving an individual such a responsibility in the justice system is the right approach or that it is in keeping with the principle that every individual should be given a chance. This reverse onus is not in the tradition of British law, except in certain specific cases, such as proceeds of crime.

Recently, through the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, we passed a bill under which, after being convicted, an individual who has taken part in organized crime activities must prove that he acquired all his property legally: the Mercedes, the house, the secondary residence. This type of exception is what we should have, when we look at all the organized crime rings.

Opération printemps 2001 showed us what it cost in legal resources and tax dollars to prove that all the property belonging to the Nomads, Hells Angels and other organized crime rings had been acquired illegally.

When we look at this bill, we can see that it can even undermine the legal process. I was listening to my Conservative colleague earlier. He said that he had received calls from his constituents asking him why we should wait for the third time before declaring someone a dangerous offender and incarcerating that person indefinitely.

I would ask him the same question in reverse.

Why wait for the third offence when today, depending on the seriousness and brutality of a crime, a crown prosecutor can ask that someone be declared a dangerous offender after the first crime?

It is not necessary to wait for the third time. If the first crime is particularly brutal, the crown prosecutor can ask that the individual be declared a dangerous offender. The judge may grant the request and declare the individual a dangerous offender after the first offence.

Why wait for the third offence to be committed when, in the current system, with the flexibility afforded lawyers and judges, we can use intelligence and discernment to determine, right from the first offence, if rehabilitation is possible based on the nature, seriousness and brutality of a crime?

I said earlier that the United States experimented with this type of policy. Their prisons are full. It has been said that the Prime Minister is a carbon copy of George W. Bush. The government wishes to copy the Americans not only in military and economic policies, and support for oil companies, for example, but also in the changes it wants to make to the current justice and correctional systems in place in Canada.

In the United States, prisons are bursting at the seams. The rate of incarceration is sevenfold that in Canada. Yet, even with a policy of “three crimes makes a dangerous offender”, the US homicide rate is triple that in Canada and four times greater than Quebec's rate. That must mean something. When a system does not work, for example in the United States—a country with one of the highest rates of criminalization—we must not copy that system and we should try something else. We must not duplicate the American system. To make themselves look good, the Conservatives have introduced this type of legislation while acting as though they alone can guarantee the safety of individuals, the prosecution of criminals to the bitter end, as though they alone will ensure that justice is served in this country. This is a completely twisted claim with respect to the discourse and the content of the bill.

As lawmakers, we bear enormous responsibility. This responsibility certainly includes the treatment of victims, both the past victims and potential victims of criminals. We need to look after them, but to do so, we need to have the right tools. In the last 10 years, serious crime in Canada has gone down. So they should not come to us with just the 2004-05 data and say that the situation is absolutely frightful and so terrible that something must be done. Certainly it should, but not through measures that are out of touch with reality, like these.

We need real action, but that is not what the Conservatives are offering. It is just the appearance of action. They want to show that they made some political promises that made no sense at all during the last election campaign, including this policy of three crimes equals a dangerous offender. So they introduce this bill. I cannot make head or tail of it. It has no relation to reality and adds nothing. It does not add any tools for fighting serious crime in Canada.

Among the things that should be done—but which they have not done—is the essential tool of firearms control. We just received the most recent data from Statistics Canada. We are not making this up; it is Statistics Canada. It tells us that Quebec and Prince Edward Island have crime rates that are much lower than the rest of Canada. The city with the highest crime rates and most serious crimes is Edmonton. Calgary takes second place. That is significant.

When people come from a region where the crime rate is the highest, could they not be a little bit more intelligent and find some way to deal with crime? Firearms control and the firearms registry are what we need. Yesterday, for example, they were saying on the news that 80% of the crimes in Edmonton were committed with unregistered firearms. Therefore, 20% of the arms were registered. Is that not a sign that controls should be tightened? We need to have a well managed registry.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the floor and the Chair wants to hear what he has to say.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that you are prepared to hear what I have to say to the end.

When we are faced with a reality such as this, we sit down and pay attention to the crime rate. In some regions of the country it has gone down. Why? In Quebec, emphasis was placed on rehabilitation. There are dangerous offenders, but not many, and before an individual is declared a dangerous offender that person is first considered a long-term offender. This criminal can be supervised for 10 years.

Let us look at the crime rate in Quebec. It speaks for itself. Quebec is the place where there is the least amount of serious crime, but it is also the place where emphasis has been placed on rehabilitation. It is also the place in Canada where people are quite aware of the importance of gun control. This also says a lot. There are predispositions. There is intelligence in an approach.

The Prime Minister and his government have decided to do away with the firearms registry, to remove all controls and now weapons are pouring in from Montana, crossing the Canadian border, which is a real sieve. They are pouring in. Everyone is armed and it is a circus.

This is not how things work. First, we must keep the gun registry. Second, we must improve enforcement along our borders. Let us set up controls at the border, to prevent gun smuggling. One can go anywhere—a bar, a pub, whatever—ask for a handgun and get it very quickly. There is an incredible traffic going on for these weapons. That is the second measure to take, instead of passing cosmetic bills like this one, to make the Conservatives look good, because they want to show that they are the only ones defending justice. My foot!

I just said that these are two important measures, but the Conservatives are totally opposed to them.

Third, how about investing in prevention? We see some very young people—aged 10 to 12 or 13—working with henchmen from criminal organizations. For example, these young people help hand harvest cannabis plantations in Ontario, Quebec or elsewhere, and are paid $20 an hour. They work with organized crime and they learn to make quick money the easy way. Could it be that, as they get older, these young people will continue to deal with the criminal world and become part of it, instead of becoming honest members of our society? The purpose of prevention is to keep them from doing that. It is to ensure that those young people who are at risk can integrate our society and rehabilitate themselves, before they become adults and join the ranks of organized crime.

When do we hear about crime prevention for young people? When do we hear Conservatives talk about rehabilitation? Never.

I will conclude by simply saying that the Conservatives also claim to be great protectors of public funds. Looking at how they manage that money is my pet project. They claim to be great protectors of public funds. However, because of the measures that they want to take, jails will be full of people who, after three offences—regardless of the merits of the case and the good judgment of judges and coroners—will join the inmate population, thus increasing it significantly.

I would like to give you a few figures relating to the cost of rehabilitating a prisoner. In Canada, keeping a person in the prison system costs an average of $88,000. I am not talking about maximum security. Maximum security—incarcerating dangerous offenders—costs $120,000 per year. That is a lot of money.

Do you know how much it costs to supervise an offender? About $26,000 per year. $26,000 compared to $120,000 or $88,000 speaks volumes.

First of all, the Conservatives opted for Criminal Code reforms that provide no new tools for fighting criminals. Second, they did so merely to look good and give people the impression that they are strong supporters of a police state and the victims, even though they are doing nothing to help victims. What they are really doing is creating criminals, promoting recidivism and creating potential victims.

Third, they have not considered prevention and rehabilitation, even though that is what works. Wherever this approach has been used, crime rates have dropped and there have been fewer serious offences. Wherever there is a sense that the people's representatives do not support rehabilitation, we get situations like in Edmonton and Calgary, where the crime rate is sky-high.

Maybe this means something.

Furthermore, these ineffective measures, which are completely useless for protecting potential victims, cost an arm and a leg; they are a huge waste of public funds. As I said, measures like these create fertile ground for recidivism. There are people who go to prison and end up staying there 10, 12, 15 years. Most studies show that when they come out, their risk to re-offend is higher than it would be if they had had access to rehabilitation, as they do in Quebec and other countries. We have to think about this and stop going for the right-wing police approach by claiming to be the only ones fighting for justice. Give me a break.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment to make on the whole issue of the opposition's soft on crime stance and one particular question for the hon. member from the Bloc.

The first thing I would comment on is that apparently the opposition members think it is an appropriate sentence to have criminals sit at home watching a 52 inch plasma TV stolen from a house that they just burnt down. That is exactly what these members are saying should be an appropriate sentence as opposed to Bill C-9.

I am absolutely appalled that he would stand in the House and say that for $26,000, that is the reason we cannot afford to designate somebody as a dangerous offender.

In our province there is a man by the name of Peter Whitmore who has just recently abused two 12-year-old boys. It is the sixth or seventh time he has done this. He was not designated a dangerous offender. Had he been so, he would have been in jail.

Why does that member not come to my province and tell the parents of these 12-year-olds that $26,000 is more than the value of a young child? Please come out.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to resume with a more civilized tone. The Conservatives have a tendency to shout like that and sound off indignantly. They should express their indignation about their own government's failure to act on organized crime. They should stop throwing stones at the Bloc Québécois. I have a good memory. In 13 years, there were three major reforms to the Criminal Code to get the Hells Angels and other such criminal gangs behind bars. Those three major reforms were introduced by the Bloc Québécois. We did everything we could to get those reforms passed. The Conservatives were reluctant to adopt the reforms needed to fight real criminals with real tools.

Getting back to his example, what does Bill C-27 have to offer? From the first serious offence for assault or a heinous sexual crime—which we find just as heinous as my Conservative colleague does—a coroner can ask that the convicted individual be designated a dangerous offender. They want to give such criminals three chances. Where is the logic in this bill?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I might say at the beginning, as one of the ones you tuned up for shouting across the floor earlier, that you are to be congratulated for the non-partisan and fair approach you take to your occupancy of the Chair. You treat both sides the same.

I have a question to the member who spoke, and it spins off what the new government member said a minute ago when he outlined a serious crime and indeed it is a serious crime. However, when we are looking at these bills, the key question is, will it work? That is what is fundamental. We all know there are crimes out there and there needs to be penalties for them, but the key question in terms of the whole new approach the Conservatives are taking to law and order is, will it work?

I attended the justice committee the other day. There was no evidence nor concrete facts. The Conservatives are basically bringing in an Americanization of our justice system. Which country do we feel safer in walking the streets, this one or south of the border? So I ask the member--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

To be fair, again, this question and comment period will collapse at 5:30 p.m. and I would like to give time to the New Democratic Party for a question. I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I ask that the response be brief.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague is entirely correct. What they are trying to do is simply copy the Americans. In the United States, where such a policy was brought in, here is what happened. The American rate of incarceration is seven times higher. There are three times more homicides in the U.S. than in Canada, and four times more than in Quebec.

Why would we copy such a policy here, when it clearly does not work and accomplishes nothing? Despite my colleague's indignation, I still insist that this measure is completely ridiculous. Its sole purpose is to make the Conservatives look good in the eyes of Canadians and deliver on their promises, which are completely ridiculous.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will recognize that there is less than a minute for both the question and the answer.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for his eloquent and thoughtful remarks. I will dwell only on the one issue that he raised.

In my earlier comments, I said that in fact the Conservatives are being soft on crime on the issue of reverse onus as it pertains to the proceeds of crime. It was a Bloc Québécois initiative that said in situations of organized crime why should we not be able to seize the luxury homes and assets and have organizaed crime prove that it earned that money legally and it was not purchased through the proceeds of crime.

Is it not the Conservatives who are going soft on that policy? They are not going after organized crime nearly as stiffly as was recommended by our colleague Richard Marceau from the Bloc Québécois?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and NDP friend for this question.

Reverse onus for the proceeds of crime is not the only amendment to the Criminal Code introduced by the Bloc Québécois. There were three others, and they were all major.

One of them, for example, is what led to operation springtime 2001 and its outcome, which targeted criminal biker gangs and made it easier to prove someone's membership in a criminal gang. We followed up with reverse onus. These are real tools, unlike the nonsense being presented here today. And those real tools were the Bloc Québécois' contribution.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 9, 2006, consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-27, which deals with dangerous and high risk offenders.

This is a bill that was tabled last October as a definitive response to a very real problem facing all Canadians: how to ensure that we are safe from repeat violent and sexual offenders. This bill does not target minor offenders. It does not target one time offenders. It does not target property offenders.

This bill goes after the very worst of the worst. It tries to address the concern that the most dangerous violent and sexual predators are properly sentenced and supervised if and when they are released into the community.

It is my understanding that some hon. members opposite have some concerns with this bill, to the extent that they may not allow this legislation to move forward to committee as it stands. My purpose is to encourage them to take at least that small step.

This bill has been tabled to respond to the concerns of ordinary Canadians, all Canadians everywhere, about safe streets, but it was also tabled to respond to specific recommendations that had been subject to thorough and rigorous review by justice system workers at every level.

The bill includes many important reforms that we on this side of the House feel are too important for community safety for us to allow them to die on the floor of this chamber. While I recognize that there might be disagreement at this stage of the debate on some issues, I am hopeful, and I implore this House for a willingness to get this bill before committee where there will be an opportunity to fully explore this bill.

The target of this legislation is dangerous and high risk offenders. We are not talking about minor offences in this legislation. We are not talking about people who shoplift or who get into a bar fight. That is not to underestimate or downplay the extent or seriousness of those offences, but we are talking about psychopathic and habitual predators who have proven by their conduct that they are simply unable to control themselves in the community. They have committed manslaughter. They have committed sexual assaults. They have abducted and sexually molested children, not once, not twice, but three or more times.

Having followed this debate, I have noted that the primary concern of those who have already spoken in the previous hours of this debate, as I have heard, is that this bill offends the constitutional rights of individuals who would be subject to the new provision that raises a presumption of dangerousness for individuals convicted for a third time of a specific or violent sexual assault.

I would like to take a moment to respond to this concern as best I can in the time allotted, using, of course, the expertise of lawyers and researchers who have supplied me with information Again, I am arguing the general broad points and, as a non-lawyer, I implore people to listen. Even if they do not agree with all the specifics of the argument I will put forward from the lawyers who laid this case out to me, I urge hon. members opposite to at least listen and realize that these points are debatable.

The last major reform of the provisions that apply to the sentencing and management of dangerous and high risk offenders, as provided for in part XXIV and sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code, was in 1996, when Bill C-55 was introduced.

That legislation was the result of an exhaustive review by a federal-provincial-territorial task force of justice officials from across Canada. They made a series of recommendations that formed the basis of those reforms and were eventually passed by Parliament and came into force in August 1997.

The position on this side of the House is that since these reforms evolved through the courts, further requirements for changes to these provisions have become apparent.

Bill C-27 seeks to address these specific problems.

My understanding is that the primary objective of Bill C-55 in 1996 was arguably to make the dangerous offender sentence process less cumbersome for the courts, and to ensure that individuals who were somewhat likely to reoffend sexually or violently, but who did not meet the dangerous offender criteria, would still receive adequate supervision once released into the community after their penitentiary terms had expired.

A number of important substantive changes were introduced to realize these specific objectives. In the first place, provisions were amended to make the sentencing of all dangerous offenders automatic, that is, if an offender was found by the sentencing court to meet the strict criteria of section 753 of the Criminal Code, then the court was to have no further discretion. The individual had to be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence.

I would like to emphasize that my understanding is that, prior to the 1997 reforms, individuals would be declared by the court to be dangerous offenders if they met the criteria of the provision, but the court was able to give either an indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence as the court saw fit in the circumstances.

Prior to the 1997 reforms, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated in an 1987 court case, R. v. Lyons, that while the indeterminate sentence was arguably the harshest sentence available in criminal law, it was not unconstitutional as there were adequate procedural checks and balances to prevent an indeterminate sentence from being imposed in cases where such a sentence could not be justified. Specifically, the discretion to refuse the indeterminate sentence, as well as the availability of parole, allowed the court to find that the indeterminate sentence itself did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada followed this approach in the subsequent landmark decision R. v. Johnson, in 2003, when it concluded that the 1997 reforms could not have intended to create an automatic indeterminate sentence for all individuals that met the dangerous offender criteria. Citing the prior ruling in Lyons, the court held that Parliament must have intended the reforms to be constitutionally viable and, as such, the 1997 amendment had to allow the sentencing court to retain full discretion to impose a fit sentence in the circumstances.

To give effect to this principle of constitutionality required discretion. In Johnson, the Supreme Court directed the sentencing court to refuse to declare an individual a dangerous offender if satisfied that a less harsh sentence, such as the long term offender supervision order, is available to achieve the objective of public safety, even if the individual fully meets the dangerous offender criteria.

Evidently this decision produced some inconsistency and confusion in the sentencing courts regarding the type of proof required to determine whether the lesser sentence could control the threat to the community, and who has the burden, and the extent of that burden.

In many jurisdictions, for example, sentencing courts have required crown prosecutors to meet the burden of the Johnson decision on the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. This can provide a huge strategic advantage to the offender, so I am told, so that counsel may advise them to simply refuse to participate in the entire process, leaving the Crown with a difficult evidentiary task to prove the negative in perpetuity without an opportunity to assess the offender directly.

I see that my time is running out, but I have gone through some of the legal points as best I understand them. I would like to finish off with a final general point.

We do not believe that the current situation is acceptable. We also believe there are real solutions that are not only viable but necessary. We believe Bill C-27 represents an important response to the problems with the current provision.

As such, I hope some effort will be made by all parties in the House to find a way to allow this bill to proceed to committee. This is a bill that protects public safety, protects our children and protects all of us. I urge all members to support this bill.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, we have examined this bill. I thank my hon. colleague for the information he has just provided. However, before coming to this House, I was a criminal defence lawyer for 25 years.

I encourage the member to read the Johnson decision and especially the Supreme Court decision in Mitchell. These two Supreme Court decisions have found—let me quote from one to avoid any ambiguity—that “The principles underlying the... sentencing provisions dictate that a sentence must be appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case”.

This means that a court cannot impose a sentence of indeterminate detention if the offender could receive a lesser sentence, such as the long term offender designation currently provided for in our Criminal Code.

I have a very specific question for the member. Does he not think that the problem is not keeping individuals in detention but rather releasing them too soon, and that the problem lies much more with conditional release?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted in my speech, I am not a lawyer nor do I have that background. I was relying on the research of lawyers and so forth and they have a different opinion than the hon. member has. That is fine. Let us work that point out in committee. If at that point we cannot resolve the doubts of the hon. member, then the hon. member would be more justified to vote against the legislation.

At the end of his question he said that there are not only problems to be fixed in this legislation, but there are problems with parole and with sentencing, and I would agree with the hon. member. There are problems in other aspects of the justice system, with parole and so forth, but let us not let the good be the enemy of the best. Let us not let the need to proceed in one area deflect and distract from our need to proceed in other areas.

I would urge the hon. member that if in committee and if in the final stage his concerns cannot be alleviated, then I would understand much better the hon. member's position. At this point at second reading, perhaps he could at least look at supporting the bill in principle so that we may find some measure to deal with a very small number of very violent, dangerous offenders.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld that the existing dangerous offender sections of the Criminal Code are constitutional. However, with regard to some of the changes in Bill C-27, experts within the legal community think that certain of those provisions in grafting on to the existing dangerous offenders provisions would raise again the argument of unconstitutional elements.

When debate first commenced back at the end of October last year, justice officials gave an opinion that they felt that the legislation as proposed to be amended by Bill C-27 would likely face a constitutional challenge in the courts. Is the member aware whether the justice officials continue to hold that opinion?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate to my hon. friend the general point in my speech that there is debate about the constitutionality. I accept that there are varying legal opinions on this matter. I urge my colleague to support the bill in principle at second reading and then at committee work out the details and let the constitutional arguments take place at that point.

I would urge the hon. member to support the bill in principle. If he cannot, then at third reading he may vote against it.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, Valentine's Day, to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

I will preface my comments by saying that I am not a lawyer. The House has heard from numerous lawyers who have outlined technical flaws, quoted Supreme Court of Canada decisions and discussed at length specific sections and subsections of the Criminal Code and their application within the justice system. I have concerns about the changes proposed in this bill from an average citizen's standpoint.

Under this bill an offender who already has three previous designated offences and who is facing a dangerous offender hearing will be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless the offender can prove on the balance of probabilities that he or she is not. This proposed change is a serious concern to me and many other Canadians.

Our justice system operates on the premise that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the defendant to show that he or she is innocent. Imagine if all of us had to do that.

The bill proposes a significant change in the premise of our justice system, a change that the legal community has not called for, a change that is unconstitutional and contradicts centuries of common law precedent. This leads me to question why. Why does the government want to reverse the onus of proof on to a defendant?

We have heard in the previous debate on Bill C-27 that the legal community has already denounced these proposed changes as unconstitutional, that the current system is working. What is the current system?

Currently, before the accused can be found to be a dangerous offender, it must be established to the satisfaction of the court that the offence that has occurred for which the accused has been convicted is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of behaviour that involves violence, aggressive or brutal conduct, or failure to control sexual impulses. In addition, it must be established that this pattern of behaviour is very likely to continue.

Even after this determination, the court still has discretion to not designate the offender as dangerous or to impose an indeterminate sentence. The current legislation meets the highest standard of rationality and proportionality in legal terms. The current system thus is working, so once again I ask why the government wants to change something that is working.

Surely the government must have been bombarded with pleas from the legal community pointing out the need for this change. There must have been hours of discussions. There indeed must have been repeated consultations with lawyers and justices across our country. There certainly must have been studies conducted and research into how such a system has worked in other countries. That is what we would expect. Nay, that is what we as a Parliament would demand before such a proposal appeared on the order paper.

Sadly, believe it or not, it would seem that no consultations have been undertaken. There has been no consideration of the pros and cons of this legislation outside of this chamber. Opinions have not been sought from the best legal minds in this country.

There seems to be a pattern forming here. The government does not seem to care what the people of Canada want. Instead, the Conservatives are heck bent on imposing their own narrow view of society. They do not want to hear what law professors and practising lawyers have to say. They do not want to hear what the John Howard Society has to say. They do not want to hear what average Canadians have to say. They do not want to listen because they think they know best. I can think of numerous other instances where the we know best syndrome has shown through.

In child care the Liberal government set up agreements to fund new early learning and child care spaces. The Liberal government held consultations with families, with child care professionals and with the provinces and territories. They told us they needed more access to child care and the money to pay for it. They told us about the shortages of spaces across the country. They gave us their vision for Canada's children and outlined the importance of these programs to the early education of Canada's children and their future success. Then the minority Conservative government came in. The Conservatives cancelled the funding agreements. They told Canadians they should fend for themselves in finding care for their children.

The we know best syndrome has also led to the cancelling of the Kelowna agreement. Once again the Liberal government had worked for years with aboriginal leaders and provincial and territorial governments to develop a funding agreement that would help. The Liberal government committed more than $5 billion over five years to close the gap between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians in the areas of health, education, housing and economic opportunities. Once again the minority Conservative government came to Ottawa and cancelled the Kelowna agreement. The Conservatives said they would have their own solution, but our aboriginal peoples are still waiting for help.

In taxation policy the Conservatives have refused to listen. Economists have repeatedly stressed that income tax relief is better for the economy and the country than a reduction in a consumption tax such as the GST. However, the Conservatives know best, so they raised the lowest income tax rates and added an additional tax burden to the thousands of low income working families and seniors--

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am interested in what my colleague has to say about the bill we are debating today. Somehow he has slipped into the Kelowna agreement. He has slipped into child care and now he is starting on taxation policies. What in the world does that stuff have to do with what is before us today?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order. The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has the floor. He knows that he has three minutes left and I am sure he will get back on the subject.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, because that is not even close to a point of order in the rudiments of democracy.

Many seniors have called my constituency offices because they did not understand why the Canada pension plan cheques were reduced. It very clearly proves that the minority Conservative government raised their taxes so that upper income Canadians could save hundreds of dollars on their new cars and yachts.

The issue at hand proposes a significant change in the premise of our justice system. Whose justice system are the Conservatives using as an example of how this change works in other countries? The United States has similar legislation, commonly referred to as three strikes legislation. This was touted as a deterrent to repeat offences. In reality, all the legislation has done is cost millions more for the justice system while producing very little change in crime rates.

A professor at the Centre of Criminology confirmed that a large amount of research in the United States has been overwhelmingly consistent in showing that these changes in sentencing have no effect. In terms of deterrence, it is just nonsense. Professor Doob warns of another hidden cost in that defendants who face the prospect of an indefinite prison term will rarely plead guilty, forcing the court system to absorb the cost of lengthy trials.

Let us recap. The legal community has denounced these proposed changes as unconstitutional. The government has not sought input from experts to ensure the proposal is what is needed. Similar legislation has not worked in other countries. This will add further burdens on our already overtaxed justice system. There is potential for accused criminals to be released due to delays that infringe on individuals' charter rights. We are adding a fiscal burden to the provinces without providing additional fiscal resources for these expenses.

Clearly, the media has really understood this very well when it talked about how the previous attorney general may dream of hitting a home run with his three strikes and you are out legislation, but U.S. experience suggests he is more likely to be thrown out at home plate.

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

Mr. Speaker, our Liberal colleague made all kinds of statements. He even went so far as to say that sentences are not effective and that putting people in prison is pointless. That may be true for Liberals, but for most people, fear of ending up in prison can be a great deterrent.

Perhaps my colleague is unfamiliar with something that happened in Quebec City. A man by the name of Bastien killed a 12-year-old child. The body was found half-buried in a sandbox. Those parents are still mourning the loss of their son. At the time of the murder, Mr. Bastien was supposed to have been in prison. How do you explain that? What are we doing?

I would have liked to have asked a lot of questions. We cannot compare our system to the Americans'. We are talking about serious sentences, not minor criminal issues. We are talking about major offences. Comparing that to what is happening in the United States is misguided. What message are we sending to the parents of Mr. Bastien's young victim?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, at no time did I ever say that a prison sentence was not a deterrent. I believe very strongly in that.

Indeed, although I may not be a lawyer, since the late seventies, in my role as an elected official, I have received numerous awards for my work in crime prevention. I understand these issues very much on a personal level from dealing with victims of crime and in proposing programs that actually work to help people, so I take great offence that I would be misquoted so dramatically and so erroneously.

When we think of what our system is meant to do, clearly if we really want to solve a problem, when there are issues of chronic offenders, then we use the system to all its weight and justice. Can we imagine us going back to trial by battle-axe or boiling oil? We know with certainty that the three strikes legislation has not worked and has led to an 18% increase in prison occupancy with a marginal decrease in crime.

Therefore, we have to worry, given the expense of it, whether it will have an impact. Clearly, without having any consultations with the justice community, with even the victims of crime, these are the types of things that we have to do.

As I speak to people, it may on the surface sound like another one of those glorious things that we are going to wrap up and put away, and maybe that plays well to a certain mentality. However, it all comes down to once individuals have been falsely accused, they are sure going to hope that the justice system works for them. I believe strongly in that and I hope that answers the member's question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has one minute remaining for his question and the answer.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer and defence attorney, I am accustomed to asking short questions.

I would like to thank my colleague for answering the question. I would add that my colleague opposite would be well-advised to look closely at the law. Mr. Bastien was given a conditional release. The problem was not on the legal side of things; it had to do with the conditional release program.

Does my colleague agree that we should look at the conditional release program to find a solution to the problem raised by our Conservative friends?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River should know that the hon. member has left him 10 seconds to respond to the question.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace). This bill is a significant step to strengthen the existing provisions of the Criminal Code that allow us to protect families from high risk offenders who are likely to commit violent or sexual crimes in our communities.

The provinces, territories and other stakeholders have all asked for reforms. I first want to deal with the existing provisions of the Criminal Code on recognizance to keep the peace, and on preventing sexual offences involving children, serious offences involving violence, or offences of a sexual nature. I will then deal with the technical amendments and, finally, with the substantive amendments proposed in the bill regarding these provisions.

Currently, recognizances to keep the peace come under sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code.

Under the existing legislation, the purpose of a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810.1, is to prevent sexual offences against children under the age of 14 years. The offences listed include sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching and incest.

The purpose of a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810.2 is to prevent a person from being the victim of a serious personal injury offence. The expression “serious personal injury offence” is defined as follows in section 752 of the Criminal Code:

752(a) an indictable offence...involving

(i) the use...of violence

(ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person, and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more, or

(b) an offence or attempt to commit an offence...sexual assault,...sexual assault with a weapon...aggravated sexual assault...

Currently, anyone may lay an information before a provincial court judge to have a defendant required to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810.1 or 810.2.

In order to require a defendant to enter into such a recognizance under one of these provisions, the judge must be satisfied that the informant has reasonable grounds to fear that the defendant will commit one of the listed sexual offences against a child under the age of 14 years, or will inflict serious injury.

When a judge orders that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace, that measure can be imposed for a period of up to 12 months. Furthermore, the judge can order the defendant to comply with certain other conditions.

For example, in the case of a recognizance to keep the peace imposed under section 810.1, intended to prevent sexual offences committed against children under 14, a judge can currently impose the following conditions, prohibiting the defendant from:

...engaging in any activity that involves contact with persons under the age of fourteen years, including using a computer system for the purpose of communicating with a person under the age of fourteen years;

...attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of fourteen years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, or playground.

As for a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810.2, the judge can impose conditions that prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearms or ammunition.

If the defendant fails to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace, the judge can impose a prison sentence to a maximum of 12 months. If the defendant enters into the recognizance but fails to comply with the conditions set, he or she can face charges under section 811 of the Criminal Code and be sentenced to a maximum of two years in prison.

These two kinds of recognizance to keep the peace give law enforcement officials the tools they need to protect our citizens from high-risk offenders who are likely to commit a sexual offence against our children or a serious personal injury offence.

I have briefly outlined the current regime applicable in the case of recognizances to keep the peace pursuant to sections 810.1 and 810.2. I would now like to look at amendments proposed by Bill C-27 to these provisions.

At present, there are some differences between the texts of sections 810.1 and 810.2. Although there are definitely differences with regard to the type of persons targeted by these sections, a majority of the changes in wording have posed problems for the courts required to interpret them.

Some technical amendments in Bill C-27 seek to solve these problems of interpretation and to respond to the related requests by provinces and territories, that wished to have amendments resulting in greater consistency between the two existing sections.

For example, existing section 810.2 states that a provincial court judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, whereas section 810.1 states that the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance but does not specify its nature. Clause 5 of this bill adds: “to keep the peace and be of good behaviour” to section 810.1, making it consistent with section 810.2.

In addition, the current version of the sections on keeping the peace does not specify the same types of conditions that a judge can impose when he orders the defendant to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace. These inconsistencies are addressed by clauses 5 and 6 of Bill C-27.

For example, once Bill C-27 goes into effect, the judge will have to decide, in the case of two types of recognizances to keep the peace, if it is desirable in the interest of public safety to prohibit the defendant from having certain objects in his possession, namely firearms, and if it is desirable for the defendant to report to the provincial correctional authorities or the police.

I have dealt briefly with the technical amendments to the provisions of the bill on recognizance to keep the peace. I would now like to talk about the substantive amendments, which are designed to strengthen these sections of the Criminal Code.

As I have mentioned, under sections 810.1 and 810.2, the judge can order the defendant to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace for a maximum of 12 months. Bill C-27 seeks to extend this period to 24 months under certain circumstances, for both types of recognizance.

The amendments propose that, in the case of a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810.1, which is intended to prevent offences against children under the age of 14, the judge can order the defendant to enter into a recognizance for a maximum of 24 months if the defendant was convicted previously of a sexual offence in respect of a person under the age of 14. Similarly, a recognizance to keep the peace under section 810.2, which is intended to prevent serious personal injury, can be imposed for a maximum of 24 months if the defendant was previously convicted of a serious personal injury offence.

The amendments that double the duration of the two types of recognizance to keep the peace are designed to ensure that repeat sex offenders are subject to a longer monitoring period. They are also designed to reduce the chance the offenders will take advantage of the inadvertent expiry of a recognizance to keep the peace, as in the case of Peter Whitmore. Canadians want to feel safe in their communities.

Doubling the duration of a recognizance for repeat offenders will better protect the public.

Under the existing provisions, sections 810.1 and 810.2 provide that the judge may order that the defendant comply with all reasonable conditions prescribed in the recognizance. These conditions, which are often added by judges to keep children and other persons safe, include prohibiting the defendant from having contact with the potential victim or from going to certain places, and requiring the defendant to report on a regular basis to police or probation officers, but they are not specifically set out in sections 810.1 and 810.2.

The changes proposed in Bill C-27 would specify that not only the conditions in sections 810.1 and 810.2 may be imposed—for instance, prohibiting the defendant from having contact with certain persons as part of the conditions of a recognizance under section 810.1 and prohibiting the defendant from possessing any firearm as part of the conditions of a recognizance under section 810.2—but other more general conditions may also be imposed.

The proposed amendments would specify additional conditions with respect to both types of recognizance, including conditions that require the defendant to participate in a treatment program; to wear an electronic monitoring device; to remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the provincial court judge; to return to and remain at his or her place of residence at specified times; and to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance.

In conclusion, high risk offenders who are likely to commit sexual offences or violent offences constitute a serious threat to the safety and security of—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for questions and comments.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the hon. Conservative member. There need to be some statistics. The purpose of this bill is to ensure better public safety. It proposes that after three major crimes, the burden of proof should be on the accused, contrary to what the justice system currently requires.

In the United States, the system works the way the bill proposes our system would work. Nonetheless, there are seven times more homicides in the United States than in Quebec and Canada. In my opinion, it is not by sending more people to prison, as this bill proposes to do, that we will resolve the problems of crime.

This bill should also promote rehabilitation and crime prevention by addressing causes such as poverty and violence. More punishment will not help matters. We are not against ensuring public safety, but keeping people in prison longer does not rehabilitate them.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's question a bit odd. I did not talk about three times, I talked about 14 years, the age of consent for sexual relations. Perhaps we should go over this again.

As far as the comparison to the United States is concerned, once again, the Bloc is making crude comparisons. It is short on details because there is no possible link between what is being proposed here in Canada and what is currently in effect in the United States.

We are talking about serious criminal offences: death threats, aggravated assault. Can the Bloc member tell me what we should do with someone who is caught three times in the process of beating someone senseless with a crowbar?

[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.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the catcall from the Conservatives in terms of shame, there is a bit of a shame to this because the second part of the bill has a great deal of merit. In fact, I believe it would attract all party support in terms of dealing with a problem that existed even when I used to practise a lot of criminal law 30 years ago. It has to do with the use of the recognizance or what is more commonly called the peace bond, and the weaknesses in the code with the use of those instruments and the limitations that were imposed by the initial promulgation of those sections.

Coming back to the shame part, it is so typical of the Conservative government that it has combined two provisions in this one bill. The Conservatives badly want one of the provisions in order to keep their political agenda going. They are not really dealing with the reality in the streets, in our courts, of crime, nor dealing with criminals in a serious, effective and efficient way, nor the protection of our society and of all our citizens.

If the Conservatives were really serious about that they would not combine the two provisions. They know full well that constitutionally under the charter, and just about all the legal opinions that I have seen and which opinions I share make it clear that the approach that is being taken in this bill with regard to requiring accused persons to prove they are not dangerous offenders will be challenged. This bill requires accused persons to prove they are not dangerous offenders. This provision is simply not going to be sustained in our courts. It is going to be challenged immediately and at every level. I expect if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court that it will be struck down.

We have to understand from where those opinions flow. It is not only reversing the onus and reversing a long-standing tradition of a person's right as an accused party or even a convicted party to have the onus of both the accusation against him or her to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but also on the balance of probabilities to have his or her sentence imposed proven by the state, or by the Crown in our jurisdiction.

Most of the Conservatives do not appreciate how significant this is, that once found as a dangerous offender there is no time limit on when the offender would be released. There are opportunities to reapply, again proving that the person should be released under this system. The finding of a dangerous offender, that determination, means not only life as it is known for murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, treason and other such charges where there are definitive times when a person will be released, but if a person is found to be a dangerous offender, the person will stay in jail for the rest of his or her life.

We are changing a long-standing provision, and we are talking about 300 or 400 years of jurisprudence within the common law system and the criminal justice system as it evolved out of England, the presumption of innocence, the requirement of the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. We built that as a bulwark against abuse by the state. Imagine with the new provision, a judge sitting there and saying, “They are asking me to find that it is okay to do that, that it is within our accepted jurisprudence. And on top of that, if I do find that the person does not prove he or she is not a dangerous offender, I am then going to confine that person to prison for the rest of his or her life”.

Any objective person who understands how our court system works can see that it is highly unlikely that our judges are going to do that, whether it is a trial judge, an appeal court judge or a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. They are all going to be of the same mind. Any opinions that we are hearing from the Conservative Party and the government to the contrary have to be looked at in that context and with a great deal of suspicion.

What we have here is a government that is quite prepared to say, “It is likely that we are not going to get this bill through now, but in the next election, whenever that comes”--and given the way the Conservatives have approached the administration of this portfolio in particular, we would hope that an election would be fairly soon and the Conservatives would be turfed from office because of their ideological bent and quite frankly the abuse they are making of the system. Having said that though, what they are saying is they want to be able to win those elections to keep pushing those hot button items and say, “We are tough on crime”. Of course they are not smart on crime and this bill is a classic example of that.

More important, this bill is a very jaundiced, cynical approach by the government. The Conservatives are saying, “We know we are going to lose this but we also want to be able to say we tried to deal with the recognizance and peace bond issue. Out on the hustings we will be able to tell people that the three opposition parties are soft on crime, that they do not know what they are doing and that they voted this bill down”.

The provisions with regard to peace bonds are badly needed. Perhaps the most significant provision is to extend the use of peace bonds from one year to two years. I can say from my own experience in the courts over a number of years, both with regard to criminal cases and matrimonial cases, these are used most extensively where there is a dispute between partners in spousal relationships. Oftentimes, because of the procedures within the court and being slow in getting them started, my experience has been that most peace bonds are only effectively in position for about nine to maybe as little as six months by the time the paperwork gets done, the accused person understands what they are and the rest of it. It seems to take about three months, minimum, to make them effective. They really are only useful in deterring misconduct on the part of the person who is subject to those peace bonds for about six to nine months.

What the government is proposing, and I salute the Conservatives for that, if it was not for their cynical approach, is to extend it to two years. That would be a much more effective use of this tool in terms of controlling misconduct. A person is simply ordered by the court to be subject to this recognizance, which the person signs. If the individual breaches it, there are penalties that flow from that in terms of additional criminal sanctions.

There is another thing it does, and again this is a major plus that we need in our courtrooms just to make it possible for the police, prosecutors and judges to do their jobs in terms of controlling this kind of conduct. It gives substantial additional powers to the judiciary in terms of conditions that can be imposed on the people who are subject to peace bonds, including requiring them to wear a bracelet that identifies where they are at all times. We know from a number of cases across the country, and I can think of some in my home province, where there has been the need for that kind of a tool in order for the judiciary and police to monitor people. This would give them the authority to do that.

I want to conclude by saying I have made a proposal to the minister, which I will make more formal shortly, that we split this bill and allow this legislature to vote on both aspects of it. It is possible procedurally to do that. I am suggesting that may be the way out of this very inappropriate approach that has been taken by the government with regard to these two issues.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Windsor has been working on justice issues for a number years for the New Democratic Party.

Many people in the Conservative movement in Canada often say that courts should not be legislating, but there is an inverse to that logic, which is that legislatures should not prejudge what courts are going to decide.

This legislation has gone through the process within the justice department and the issue of whether or not it is constitutionally fit was dealt with. Therefore, the core issue is the issue of principle that we are dealing with, with regard to criminal justice reforms. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said a minute ago, this is unanimously supported by deputy attorneys general across the country, including those in the NDP Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I know for a fact that Mike Farnworth, the NDP MLA in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, the riding that I represent, takes a very strong stand on criminal justice issues as the justice critic for the NDP in British Columbia. He understands that the public is, frankly, tired of laws that do not seem to hold people accountable, which is what the first part of this legislation is about.

On the principle of this legislation, which is that if somebody, after having had all his or her rights respected and having gone through the process, is convicted of sexual interference, inviting sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, attempt to commit murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, or sexual assault with a weapon or threats of bodily harm, any three of those crimes, after the third conviction the person needs to demonstrate to the public that he or she is not a dangerous offender and is no longer a threat.

What in the world is wrong with that basic principle? How in the world can the NDP be opposed to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just flipping through my file while my colleague was asking his question. I am sitting here with a letter from the Attorney General of Saskatchewan who is opposed to this section. I am not sure what consultation went on.

One of the problems with the government, as opposed to the pattern and the protocol that has been long established going back 50 years, is that it has not been consulting with a lot of people. It has been going through a very narrow channel of people it consults with, those it fully expects will support its ideology, much as it is now doing with the appointments to the screening committees for judicial appointments. The government thinks that if it can talk to just certain people, it can get enough support for these types of very radical departures from our traditions within the criminal justice system. As a member of an opposition party, I am not prepared to go along with that.

If the government had consulted meaningfully, the opinions that I have expressed today on behalf of a lot of groups would have been given to it and it would have realized that this is not sustainable.

The member talked about a person who has been convicted of this specific offence and that then justifies changing the reverse onus and exposing that person. We are not talking about many cases. It may be as few as 10 or 12 cases. I am not sure where the figures are coming from that it may be 100 or 120. It may be as few as 10 or 15 cases a year that we are talking about.

If the government were really serious about this, it would give the prosecutors the resources they need to present the cases that need to be presented and we would put those people behind bars just using the traditional methodology that has withstood the test of time and that has served us very well as a society.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the bill was first debated at second reading last October, I think October 30, some of the interventions had indicated that the Department of Justice itself had admitted that this legislation would likely be subject to a challenge.

Could the member explain how it is that the government can come forward with a bill in the face of the likelihood of a challenge? Is there something that can be done to remedy that or is it simply the combination of reverse onus and the indeterminate--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. Time has run out but I will allow the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh a short response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a way to remedy the bill with regard to dangerous offenders. I think the opinion the government received or all sorts of indications it received from the Department of Justice that this would not fly under the charter is very accurate and I do not think there is any way around it.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important legislation.

In my community there is no more important issue that has been expressed by my constituents in the past couple of campaigns than the issue of criminal justice reform.

The Vancouver area and the lower mainland have some of the highest property crime rates in all of North America and violent crime is also on the rise. This is a growing concern in my community and a growing concern across the lower mainland.

My colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, mentioned that to a lot of Canadians and certainly to a lot of my constituents there is a concern that our justice system is like a fisheries program. It is like a catch and release program rather than a real true justice system where people are held accountable for their behaviour, particularly dealing with the issue of dangerous offenders.

Dangerous offenders is what this legislation is about. It specifically deals with people who have been convicted, who we know are dangerous, who we know are threat to our communities and we know the reality of recidivism rates with people who are particularly sexual offenders and we have an opportunity to hold them accountable and to protect the public. We should take that responsibility seriously and we should enact legislation to protect the public when we know we can. We know we can and our government is trying to do that with the bill.

The dangerous offender provisions have a long history in Canada and have been used as a sentencing tool going back to 1947 with legislation creating the habitual offender designation. That legislation created specific sentencing measures targeting persistent dangerous criminals engaged in the more serious forms of crime. The provisions allowed the courts to impose either a determinate or indeterminate sentence where the crown was able to satisfy the court that the individual's habitual criminal activity was not likely to be deterred by a regular sentence and the individual had been convicted of three or more indictable offences.

Courts were guided by fundamental principles of justice in sentencing to determine that while an offender might be of extreme risk to commit further offences at the time of sentencing, if there was evidence that after a sentence of incarceration and parole that the threat would cease to exist, the court had the duty to impose a determinate as opposed to an indeterminate sentence.

The provisions were amended a number of times but the next major redrafting occurred in August 1997 with the passage of Bill C-55. The most significant amendment in the 1997 legislation was an attempt by the government of the day to do away with the judicial discretion afforded prior to that time for a dangerous offender to be given a determinate or fixed sentence.

The rationale behind the move was that a new sentencing option, the long term offender designation, would be offered to those individuals who did not quite meet the dangerous offender criteria. It was perhaps believed that in doing so, the loss of discretion regarding the indeterminate sentence was acceptable to the courts from a charter perspective, given the availability of the lesser long term offender designation.

As has been mentioned many times during the debate on the bill, in 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Johnson that while Parliament could do many things, it could not remove the discretion of the sentencing judge in a dangerous offender sentence and still respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court reiterated the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada's previous leading case on the charter viability of the indeterminate sentencing option in R. v. Lyons handed down in 1987.

As a result of the 1997 amendments and the decision in Johnson, we ran into a new, albeit unanticipated, problem regarding the sentencing and management of dangerous offenders. The impact has been that a number of individuals who were originally intended to receive the indeterminate sentence of dangerous offender are instead being sentenced under the lesser long term offender option, with the result that these individuals will eventually be released into the community under a long term supervision order of up to 10 years.

From the perspective of the crown prosecutors, the impact of the Johnson decision was that, in many cases, they are now under an additional burden. Not only must they approve beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender meets the dangerous offender criteria, as was the case prior to the decision in Johnson, but they must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser sentence of a long term offender designation could not be used to successfully manage the risk that the individual posed to society.

Offenders who otherwise arguably would qualify for an indeterminate sentence on evidence that they are very likely to repeat their sexual or violent offences when released, can now argue much more easily that they will be manageable under a regular sentence followed by a 10 year supervision period in the community. Let us be clear that post-Johnson, the offender often strategically decides to simply refuse to cooperate with the evaluation process knowing this will frustrate the crown's ability to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If the crown cannot meet this burden then the court cannot impose the indeterminate sentence.

Clearly, action was required to resolve these new anomalies. Bill C-27 does take some bold steps but the suggestion that this proposal is unconstitutional in any way is not founded on an accurate understanding of either the current state of the law on dangerous offenders or what Bill C-27 actually does propose.

The concern appears to be centred on an assumption that there is a constitutional requirement in a sentencing hearing to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This argument cites the need to respect section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While I agree that it is a fundamental principle of justice that a person charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty, as enshrined in the charter, this tenet simply does not apply to the sentencing process.

I note that the Supreme Court of Canada, in the landmark case R. v. Lyons, canvassed the issue of whether rights associated with trial proceedings could be extended to dangerous offender proceedings. The court in Lyons was clear that the section 11 charter right regarding the procedural protection to be tried by jury does not extend to the sentencing phase. In my view, this rationale applies equally to the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In other words, it does not apply to the sentencing process. It is very clear.

This fundamental right is analogous to the other procedural rights enumerated in section 11 and, as such, it is hard to suggest that the logic applied previously by the court in Lyons would be any different. The individual has already been presumed innocent, has been tried and has been found guilty. The right to be presumed innocent has been preserved and nothing in Bill C-27 touches the sanctity of this basic principle of justice or charter right.

While I respect the opinions of members opposite, it is nonetheless my view that the presumption of dangerousness after the third conviction is constitutional given that it is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Lyons.

I recognize the opposition's concerns. Nonetheless, I believe that it would be a great disappointment to all Canadians if the bill were to fail to proceed further than this debate.

I support Bill C-27 and I support sending it to committee for further study and consideration. Indeed, this is where I believe these issues can be more thoroughly considered, addressed and discussed.

We need the bill to pass to ensure more consistent consideration of the dangerous offender provision by crown prosecutors and to ensure more effective management of high risk offenders. That is what Canadians expect of us, that is why the legislation should pass and that is why I encourage all members of the House to support the legislation. We must hold criminals and multi-convicted criminals accountable for their behaviour. Let us stand up and do something right for victims for once.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Before I recognize members on questions and comments, I would like to get a sense of how many questions there might be so that I can attribute the time fairly.

We will now hear the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech made by the parliamentary secretary on Bill C-27.

The Liberals support all efforts, actions and legitimate measures that respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while seeking to protect Canadians and to punish offenders who pose a real threat to our community and our safety.

We Liberals wanted to propose changes to the justice system regarding dangerous offenders. Some very serious concerns were raised by the legal community about the constitutionality of this bill.

Why would the Conservatives bring in legislation that would bring amendments to the dangerous offenders system which have the great potential of being declared unconstitutional and, with such a decision on the part of our courts, could threaten the dangerous offenders system that we have right now?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague, the new justice critic for the Liberal Party, will bring a lot of important ideas to the debates.

Frankly, this is not an argument. When legislation is brought before the House of Commons, the justice minister or any minister responsible must put it through a vetting process to ensure that it recognizes and respects Canada's Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That process has been done.

As I said at the beginning of my comments to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, some people in Canada often say to courts in this country that they should not be legislating. They should be judging the law but not be legislating law from the bench. The reverse reality to that is that Parliaments and legislators should not be assuming what the Supreme Court or any court will say.

This is a common sense provision. If my colleague looks at the cases that have taken place, this reverse onus provision is constitutional. It is respected and it has gone through the appropriate vetting processes to ensure that those standards are met before the legislation was introduced here in the House.

If my colleague is sincere in her request to have criminal justice reforms put through this Parliament and enacted on behalf of her constituents, I look forward to seeing her stand in her place and vote yes to the legislation to send it to committee for further examination. If she does not do that, then we know how sincere she was.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to reread very carefully the Mitchell and Johnson rulings made by the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not agree with what the hon. member just said. When I sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we asked questions of Justice officials about Bill C-27, and they told us that they were not sure.

Therefore, do not come and tell us today that this bill may be constitutional. Based on the two rulings made by the Supreme Court in 2003, it is almost certain that this legislation is unconstitutional.

Why not target section 761 of the Criminal Code, dealing with the powers of the National Parole Board, because that is where the problem lies?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not present at the committee meeting my hon. colleague referred to. I can however assure him that every bill that this government introduces in this House respects our Constitution and our laws.

This is the first time since I was elected to this place in 2000 that I see the Bloc Québécois finally support our Constitution. This is a great day for Canada; the Bloc Québécois wants to respect our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This bill is in the interest of Canadians and Quebeckers. It is proposing changes that are respectful of voters in the member's community and of those in mine as well. I think that, after having been debated in the House, this bill should be referred to committee for further consideration.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very interesting and important debate. Many of my colleagues come to this from a legal background. I come to this with an engineering background, so I might take a little different approach.

I will begin by looking at the big picture, and the big picture is that overall, serious crime rates in this country are falling. Yes, we can find exceptions within certain demographics, possibly, and certain types of crime, but overall, serious crime rates are falling.

Secondly, from outside Canada, other countries look at our judicial system as one of the finest in the world. The best example of proof that I can provide is that Canada played a key role in establishing the international court system in The Hague, and our judicial experts are called upon on many occasions to provide advice to China and to other developing nations when it comes to creating their judicial systems.

I start from the premise that our system is not perfect. We can agree on that, that there are always ways to make things better, including when it comes to dangerous offenders and I agree with my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. We are not against improving measures to deal with dangerous, long term offenders, but we are against the way the government is approaching this task.

Again, we have a system that, while not perfect, is among the best in the world. Yes, we have very sad incidents where terrible people do terrible things to other people, to innocent people, and none of us here would ever say or do anything to support such activities. At the same time, we must not compromise the balance that we are seeking to achieve in our judicial system, and that balance will be put to a test in a serious way when the reverse onus is applied in situations like this.

It is easy to say when on the front page of the paper a serious crime is being reported, but we cannot make our decisions in moments of passion or moments of panic. We have to make our decisions for the country in times of calm, in times of reflection, and using the best wisdom available to us.

I would like to see improvements to the dangerous offenders legislation. Nobody wants to see dangerous offenders in situations where they are going to repeat. Unfortunately, the government did not send this to the justice committee but instead to a legislative committee. Had it gone to the justice committee, I assume we would have seen a full range of consultations and input from all quarters of the country, from stakeholders interested in crime issues.

We did not have that and clearly we have the Criminal Lawyers' Association that says this is dangerous ground upon which to tread. The justice minister and attorney general for Saskatchewan has expressed grave reservations about this, and there are others.

Let us encourage the government not to take what I call a lazy approach of throwing something out there and just seeing what happens. That is pretty careless because as my colleagues from Windsor, Montreal and others have suggested, there is a very good chance, that the constitutionality of these measures will be proven not to be supportable. In so doing, it is very possible that other sections of the dangerous offenders legislation could also be compromised.

There is also the question of whether we are going to really be putting more people in jail as a result of this because there will be less plea bargaining. I know there are concerns over the plea bargaining process but there is a place for it, if it is handled wisely. It will only mean higher rates of incarceration. What thought has been put to the extra resources that provinces will need in order to deal with more people in jail?

There are certain unintended consequences and there may be others that I am not mentioning which could happen. We are simply saying to the government to stop, catch its breath and let us take some more time. This is not an issue that needs to be resolved tomorrow.

Let us take some more time and ensure that it is right. Let us not take the lazy approach. Let us do some more homework. Let us ensure that those who have a say on this, whether they are for or against it, let them speak up and be heard, and let us find a way to improve measures dealing with dangerous offenders, but do so in a way that will not test the constitutionality of not only those sections, but of sections related to dangerous offender legislation.

I am certain there will be an election sooner or later and I know the Conservative Party certainly has a history of using jingoism in terms of getting support for its often radical and extreme views. I am reminded in this debate of what George Bush, until he got into trouble the last year or so, would say to those who criticized his position on the Iraq war, “oh, you don't support our troops”, as if speaking freely in a free society was against the troops because the troops are there to protect democracy.

In the same way the Conservatives would argue that if we do anything to provide dangerous offenders with anything but unconstitutional remedies for society, then we support dangerous offenders. That is not fair. It is not true. It is not the case.

We are as much interested in dealing with dangerous offenders as anyone in this House, but we want to do it in a smart way. We want to do it in a way that respects the opinions on both sides of the debate and in a way that will not fail before the courts.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. He seems to be making the same point that a few of his colleagues have made which is to question the constitutionality of the bill which is not for members of Parliament necessarily to determine ultimately. I suppose that would be determined by the courts. Our legal opinion is that the bill is constitutional.

This bill deals only with the most serious criminals in Canada. I would like to know most of all, why would he not support the bill? Why would he not support the bill in the interests of the safety of Canadian citizens? It is about justice, nothing more. In principle, does the member support keeping Canadians safe, yes or no? It is that simple.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the hon. member for proving the point I made in the last few sentences of my remarks. I thank him for pointing out exactly the argument the Conservatives will make. It is hollow. It is empty. It is jingoism.

I am sure he will not find a member of the House who does not want to deal effectively with dangerous offenders, but the government has taken the lazy approach to this. Its members are not listening to all the stakeholders on both sides and in so doing are throwing up their hands asking: what is the simplest thing we can do? The simplest thing we can do is a dangerous option because we may lose it all in the courts.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to the comments made by my colleague from the Liberal Party that the views of the Conservative Party are somehow radical or extreme and he just used terms like “hollow”, “empty” and “jingoism”. Quite frankly, that is very unparliamentary language from a member who has been in this House long enough to know better. I do not understand how jailing dangerous offenders in order to keep them off the streets somehow affects the rights of Canadians. The other question I have is one of the Liberal record of 13 years where the Liberals did nothing on this subject--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry. If the hon. member asks his other question, the member will not get a chance to respond.

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the previous Liberal government brought in a number of very useful amendments to the dangerous offenders sections of the Criminal Code which have proven the test of time. We are only saying to the government that we will work with it on this, that if it listens to everybody, there is a way to make things better, but it cannot take a chance like this and have the whole thing thrown out. Therefore, we only encourage the government to catch its breath, fill those voids, and let us find a way to do this better.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an extremely important debate because even though it is about a bill that is—if not exactly technical—fairly precise, it encompasses the Conservative government's vision of the balance between justice and security, a balance that, unfortunately, seems to be more and more upset because of an extremely dangerous ideological approach.

When I see a bill like this one, I cannot help but think of how debates are run in this House and in public by this government, particularly by the Prime Minister.

In that sense, we have good reason to be very worried about the fact that they are taking so lightly a bill to amend the Criminal Code and other acts—a bill that may have enormous consequences for a large part of our population—by using arguments that, more often than not, are not based in fact. That is what I found during question period again today.

When the Prime Minister said that the Bloc Québécois did not support the upcoming bill on income trusts, he was deceiving the people. He was misleading them. What we are trying to do is fix the Prime Minister's broken promise. During the election campaign, he said that he would not touch the tax laws on income trusts, which was completely irresponsible. Then on October 31, he made a surprise decision to break his promise, a decision that affected 2.5 million small investors.

The Bloc Québécois is trying, in a responsible way, to minimize the negative impact on those Canadians and Quebeckers who unfortunately believed the promise the Prime Minister made during the election campaign.

Recently, the Minister of Industry was distributing a document in the riding of a colleague of mine. The document stated that the government had passed a law allowing pension income splitting between spouses and doubling the tax credit for private pension income. Such a bill has not even been tabled yet. We do not even know if that will be in the budget or in a separate bill.

It is not true. The government is disguising the truth for partisan and ideological purposes.

It reminds me of a hippocampus. I am not referring to the sea horse, the little fish that swims in an upright position. When I speak of a hippocampus, I mean the mythical animal that was half horse, half fish. This government makes me think of a hippocampus, because it has two sides and it is manipulating morality by presenting only one side of this issue. This is unacceptable in a debate as important as this one.

I would remind you that this bill seeks to declare someone convicted of three serious crimes a dangerous offender, unless that person can prove that the definition does not apply to him or her. The burden of proof is therefore reversed. In our opinion, this bill is harmful and ineffective and will not help to improve public safety.

What is the government doing to sell this ideological vision of repression? It is implying that safety in our cities is being compromised, in Canada and Quebec. Yet for decades the crime rate—especially the rate of violent crime—has been declining. I am not trying to trivialize the problem. I recognize that we must ensure that, especially in our major cities—I am thinking about street gangs, for instance—the necessary social and economic measures are in place to prevent this problem. But this is not where the government is headed. We are fooling ourselves.

Studies show that automatically applying harsher penalties will not produce the desired results. The real question, then, is: What is the best way to prevent crime? What is the best way to protect the public? It is certainly not to toughen the Criminal Code in this way, but to invest in literacy and women's groups and to maintain funding for programs such as the summer career placement program. But this is not the approach the government has chosen.

In that sense, this bill is not an isolated measure. It is part of an overall ideological approach that is extremely dangerous to the future of Canada.

This is true for Canada and for Quebec. What we are defending is a model of justice based on a process tailored to each case and based on the principle of rehabilitation.

We have already had a debate in this House on young offenders. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois was the only party to propose this approach that is characteristic of Quebec society, whereby prevention and rehabilitation are better avenues than repression for ensuring the safety of our cities, our land and our people. In that sense, the U.S. example is striking and should serve as a lesson. Unfortunately, it seems that the government is blind to this reality. A procedure already exists.

In Quebec, the justice department reached agreements with the Philippe-Pinel Institute to conduct psychological assessments. I know some experts at this institute because they are members of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the union for which I was the secretary for eight years. These experts have credibility before the courts.

Based on the findings of the assessment report, the prosecutor decides whether or not to seek a dangerous offender designation. The experts assess the person, his or her psychological weaknesses and his or her rehabilitative potential. With the assessment, a fully informed decision can be made.

This bill proposes that after the third offence, the alleged criminal would automatically have to demonstrate that he is not a dangerous offender. There is a system. After the assessment report is presented to the judge, the defence can present a second opinion. In the end, the judge makes a ruling.

Perhaps we can improve on certain criteria and make sure of certain things. Nonetheless, we already have a procedure that has been proven to work for the past number of years. What this government is proposing is totally excessive.

As I said, it will provide a false sense of security. Thus—and we will see in the next budget—the provinces and Quebec will have few resources to successfully address the real causes of crime, namely poverty, isolation, addiction and a host of other social problems.

I would like to reiterate that we believe this approach is not only ideological, but it also deceives the population because it does not allow us to address the underlying problems. This places a much heavier onus on the accused. Any accused person who wishes to challenge the assessment filed in support of designating him or her as a dangerous offender will have to ask for an expensive second opinion. Not everyone will have the means to do so. Not everyone will have access to the necessary professional legal services. Since the offender could spend the rest of his or her life in prison, it seems reasonable that the government should have to bear the burden of proof when designating dangerous offenders. We could ask ourselves what this government's next step will be. Will they begin to question the entire existing principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty? It would then be up to defendants to prove their innocence.

As the statistics remind us, there are scores of adverse effects. In this regard, I would like the Prime Minister to use his hippocampus, and I am not talking about the mythical animal I referred to at the beginning of my speech, but rather that complex neural structure shaped like a sea horse, which is the part of the brain that controls memory.

If the Prime Minister could just listen to the facts and remember them when the time comes to draft legislation, all Canadians would be now much safer.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague, who talked about ideology. It seems that the ideology I have heard all day long from the other side is “blame the victim and blame society” for those people who are dangerous criminals.

I think it is fair to say that the only people logically opposed to this legislation would be the dangerous criminals themselves, people who have committed three of the most heinous criminal offences.

This legislation is not to be used lightly. It does not allow for that.

I heard the hon. member use the words “it's harmful and vindictive”. Could he tell the members of the House and Canadians in general who the legislation would be harmful to or vindictive to?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not how we should be looking at the problem. We have to consider the facts and address the real challenges posed by crime-producing social problems.

I will take Quebec as an example. Statistics show that prosecutors choose the long term offender designation procedure used in Quebec over the dangerous offender procedure to deal with repeat offenders. As we know, under the long term offender designation, offenders who go back to the community after serving their sentences remain under correctional supervision. They do not just go off like that. This supervision may go on for up to 10 years. This is more conducive to rehabilitation, while being less expensive to the State. That is something that might catch the attention of the Conservatives. Fewer violent crimes per 100,000 of population are committed in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada.

As we can see, the Quebec model, which is based on rehabilitation—especially for young people—instead of repression, appears to be working quite well.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has raised an interesting approach to this. First of all, he established that the government is not trustworthy, as shown by its decision to break a promise on taxation of income trusts, and then he pointed out that the approach to the criminal justice system has absolutely nothing to do with crime prevention, remediation and, in fact, rehabilitation.

He went on to point out that if we put forward a piece of legislation like this, which the justice department itself has indicated will likely require challenges in the courts at all levels, a lot of people will slip through the cracks while this judicial process goes on, so this is totally a wrong-headed approach. I wonder if the member would like to amplify a little further the reason why the bill is just a wrong-headed bill.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Not only are we going in the wrong direction because repression is not the solution to the problem of crime, but this repression runs the risk of having a perverse effect. With the new provisions introduced into the Criminal Code, many accused will prefer to plead not guilty in the hope that they will drag out the process and clog the judicial system rather than negotiating prison sentences or other types of punishment with the Crown.

From every perspective, this bill is not only ineffective but it creates the illusion of security and runs the risk of having a perverse effect on the judicial system. That is why the government must redo its homework.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the previous speaker. He indicated that our government is not interested in rehabilitation or prevention measures. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over $20 million was invested in our 2006 budget and targeted specifically at youth at risk. Clearly, we on this side are very interested in prevention and rehabilitation.

The member also mentioned that serious crime rates are falling. Does the member really believe that average Canadians today feels safer in their communities than they did 20 years ago?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem with this bill is that it will probably give many Canadians and Quebeckers the impression that they live in a world that is less safe today than it was 10 years ago. That is not the case.

Unfortunately, sensational reporting by certain media that practice so-called yellow journalism, fueled by certain statements by Conservative members and ministers or individuals who share their ideology, have led them to believe it. We should look at the facts. The crime rate is going down.

I know very well what the member is saying. Every day I have to convince those around me. I always carry statistics proving that their perception does not correspond to reality. With its talk, this government is fostering a misunderstanding of the facts.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of this bill. After listening to the comments from the hon. member for Joliette, it seems the Bloc is more concerned about the dangerous offender than the victim, or the young child who has been abused, injured or sexually mistreated, or the mother or father of that child, or those potential children who might be abused. If we pass this legislation, this could otherwise be prevented.

As we know, safe streets and communities are important to all constituents in Canada. We are rightly proud of the history of having safe streets and homes, but times are changing and Canadians are experiencing not only an increase in crime, but an increase in a crime of the most heinous kind, one that is violent and abuses the sanctity of people, particularly children. They have called upon the government to take action. They have called upon the government to pass legislation not only in this area, but in other areas as well. We cannot ignore this problem. We must roll up our sleeves, do the job that needs to be done and work in committee to get the bill passed.

During the last election, we promised Canadians that we would crack down on crime, and that is exactly what we propose to do. We promised, we made a commitment and we are moving on it. We have tabled Bill C-27 in that regard.

In a nutshell, Bill C-27 deals with dangerous offenders and provides for ways of dealing with them. In particular, it also deals with section 810, peace bonds, which can put certain restrictions upon them should they ever get released.

To make it clear, many are calling upon the government to take action. Recent events in the area of Whitewood, Saskatchewan have brought many constituents together. They have presented a petition to the government asking for action. They have said that dangerous offenders should not be out on the loose or if they are released, they should be subject to some of the severest of conditions, so the public is not endangered by their actions. They have not only united the community in that area, but all of the constituency that I represent, including Saskatchewan, as well as provinces beyond.

We have received petitions signed by up to 24,000 to 25,000 Canadians who urge this government to take action. Today, I had the opportunity to file those petitions. It is fitting that we would do it on the day we are introducing Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. Let us see what they call for in that petition.

They have asked the government to proceed with changes to the justice system in legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles. They have asked for mandatory or compulsory electronic or other forms of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody. They have asked for compulsory public notification and movements of convicted pedophiles. They have asked that we ensure repeat offenders are designated as dangerous offenders.

Why has this situation incited such an interest in the many constituencies, people and communities of Canada? Because the public is fed up. People have had enough of this easy justice, especially where people have been convicted of the same serious offences on at least three occasions, offences that require two or more years of jail time. They are saying there comes a point in time where something needs to be done. These people need to be contained or released under very strict conditions.

I am quite pleased to say that the Government of Canada has responded to the petition that my constituents have filed, and its response is interesting to note. It says that the Government of Canada is fully committed to protecting children from sexual offenders. In the last Parliament, Bill C-2 introduced mandatory minimum penalties for many sexual offences committed against children. These offences are, therefore, not eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Also, a number of criminal law reform initiatives have recently been introduced in this regard, including: Bill C-9 to restrict the availability of conditional sentences, which I just mentioned; Bill C-22 to increase the age of protection; Bill C-27, regarding dangerous and high risk offenders, about whom I speak today; and Bill S-3, regarding improvements to the national sex offender registry.

As introduced, Bill C-9 would toughens penalties for a number of sex offences, including offences against children, by making it clear that the conditional sentence is no longer available. Who could argue against that? Bill C-22 would better protect against youth adult sexual predators by raising the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years.

Who opposes this legislation? The opposition parties, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Party and the New Democratic Party have been obstructionist in committee. They have taken clauses out. They have watered them down. They have made them almost of no effect, when just the opposite is what the people of Canada expect. They expect us to get at least that tough, and tougher. They try to use the argument that it might not be constitutional.

However, these individuals, these victims, need protection, and that is exactly what we are about to do. Most Canadians are calling for us to take that action. It would be a good point for the opposition to take that into account, get behind us and have this legislation passed, as opposed to delaying it in committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time for debate has expired. I know he is just getting started, but he has about four minutes left in which to wind up the next time he gets the opportunity.

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we promised Canadians we would crack down on crime. Upon taking office, we promised that we would move quickly to fulfill these commitments, and we have. That is why we have tabled this legislation to deal directly with serious, hardened, repeat offenders.

In a nutshell, we have identified problems with the dangerous offender provisions and section 810, peace bonds provisions, of the Criminal Code.

This bill addresses those problems in an effective way and in a fair manner to ensure that individuals who pose a clear danger to offend violently or sexually are properly managed and contained for the safety of all.

In my community of Whitewood, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, a number of individuals have gathered together to present a petition to this House. We have received between 24,000 and 25,000 signatures requesting that this government take some action. The petition reads:

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:

Whereas, Canadians enjoy living in safe and secure communities and believe that the safety of their children is a basic right of all Canadians;--

Obviously, some of the events that have happened put some of that in question, but the petition goes on to say:

Whereas, from time to time young children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders;

Whereas, Canadians desire that steps be taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring;--

The petition then goes on to request specifically that the government:

Proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties to convicted pedophiles;

Make mandatory compulsory electronic or other form of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody;

Ensure compulsory public notification on movements of convicted pedophiles;

Ensure above noted repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders.

Indeed, this particular bill directly responds to the issues raised in the petition.

First, it addresses the potential inconsistencies in the use of the dangerous offender provisions by requiring Crown prosecutors to openly address whether an application should be brought. However, there are three serious violent or sexual offence convictions which certainly include sexual offences against children.

Second, the bill proposes to reverse the current onus on the Crown where an offender has been convicted for a third time of a number of serious and violent sexual and violent offences.

Third, the bill also clarifies that there is no onus on the Crown in regard to the fitness of a dangerous offender designation. The proposed changes to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code will make it easier for Crown prosecutors to achieve dangerous offender designation against repeat child sex offenders. About 80% of all dangerous offender applications are against sexual offenders and about half of these target child sexual offenders. Certainly, at some stage of the criminal process, there needs to be a provision where offenders are dealt with in a determined way.

Fourth, Bill C-27 also clarifies that section 810, peace bonds, include the ability to require defendants to submit to electronic monitoring. This peace bond is a powerful tool for police and Crown prosecutors which enables the imposition of severe restrictions on any individuals likely to commit a sexual offence against a child, even though they have not been charged with or convicted of any specific offence.

The section 810 provisions of the Criminal Code are quite encompassing and this legislation enlarges the jurisdiction from a one year term to a potential two year term.

What section 810 would allow the justices to do would be items such as these: prohibit the defendant from engaging in any activity that involves contact with persons under the age of 14 years, including using a computer system; prohibit the defendant from attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 14 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or in day care centres, school grounds or playgrounds; require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device as long as the attorney general makes the request; require the defendant to remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the provincial court judge; and require the defendant to return to and remain at his or her place of residence at specified times.

When we couple all of those potential conditions that can be imposed, along with electronic monitoring, it certainly brings those who are serious offenders, that have been convicted on three separate occasions of serious offences and are sentenced to two years or more, to a place where they can be accounted for and where these kinds of things can be prevented.

There is an argument made that at times we have to balance the rights of the accused against the rights of others, but when we are talking about the children in our society, certainly that balance should favour them at some point in the system. People should be given an indeterminate sentence with no entitlement to statutory release unless they can prove that they should be.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary's comments on Bill C-27 and the issue of the reverse onus.

The presumption is that if an application is brought for a dangerous offender hearing under Bill C-27, the offender would automatically be presumed to be a dangerous offender and would bear the burden of refuting that presumption.

I wonder if the member is aware that some provincial attorneys general have expressed concern that while they do want to see the dangerous offender system strengthened and made more effective, they have concerns that this provision, which reverses the presumption onto the shoulders of the offender, might in fact be deemed constitutionally invalid.

I wonder if his government has looked at that issue and what expert opinions they have on the question of the constitutionality of such a provision.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am sure that the Minister of Justice has done his due diligence and obtained opinions, and there will probably be some range of opinions.

However, we are not talking about someone who comes before the court presumed to be innocent of any offences and with a clean record. In this case, we are talking about someone who has been before the courts on a violent or sexual offence that has encountered a two years sentence, sentenced once to two years, and then repeats the offence. The individual comes before the court, is convicted of a serious offence, either injury or sexual offence, with another two year sentence, and then appears before the court yet again. The individual is not innocent, but is proven guilty of that offence and has a sentence of two years or greater. At that point the court is saying that this individual must then be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless the individual can prove otherwise.

That is an appropriate thing to be done. I would hope that our constitution, at some point, would say that these individuals have done enough damage to society, they have hurt enough young children in society, they have done enough damage to them emotionally, physically and otherwise that it is incumbent upon them to show why they should not be put away with an indeterminate sentence where society is protected.

Of course, they could raise that issue, but at some point the threshold is crossed where it is constitutional. Certainly, in other cases where there has been reverse onus positions in either bail provisions or other ones, the court has found them to be constitutional and to stand the test of constitutionality.

There may be a test that we would like to see happen, but if we ask any mother or father of a young child, they would be very much concerned and would be very much offended if our Constitution did not allow them that additional avenue of protection that is specified in Bill C-27.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intent in terms of protecting Canadian citizens from people who could be considered dangerous offenders.

One of the concerns I have is the right of all Canadian citizens, regardless of being innocent or guilty, to have access to legal aid or to lawyers.

An awful lot of people in my riding bring up the issue of the inability to seek legal aid, and legal aid in various provinces is getting harder and harder for people to access in order to have their grievances or whatever heard by the judiciary.

Can the hon. member indicate, in the premise of the bill or in any future aspects of the bill, that everybody, under that premise, will have full and equal access to legal assistance to defend themselves under any circumstances?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the provinces determine how the legal aid system works from province to province and certainly provide for that.

I can also say that some courts appoint counsel if they feel that representation is needed. It is not a question of whether or not one should be represented. The issue of the bill is that at some point a person ought to be declared a dangerous offender and society should be protected, and every avenue should be used to make that process happen. Province by province will make that determination, I am sure.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition's justice critic I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace). Members will no doubt be familiar with this bill as it has been debated at second reading on a number of occasions.

I would like to preface my remarks today with the following facts.

First, it is important to point out that in spite of the fearmongering rhetoric that emanates from the government benches, crime in Canada is, and has been for some years now, in general decline. Though media reports and the occasional sensational story may lead us to believe otherwise, Statistics Canada reported that crime fell by 22% and the violent crime rate fell by 13% between 1992 and 2004. These facts unmistakably belie the government's propaganda to the contrary.

I also wish to state that we Liberals support strong, effective criminal legislation. There is no doubt about that. We want to see tough and smart legislation being introduced in the House, the kind of legislation that will actually make Canadians and their communities a safer and happier place. We will not accept a Prime Minister who pushes a petty, partisan agenda using front line police officers or a Minister of Public Safety who dismantles or tries to dismantle Canada's widely used gun registry. We want legislation that achieves results, not headlines.

That is why our party on numerous occasions tried to fast track a number of justice bills. Inexplicably, these offers have been met with deafening silence from the government. Thus, we are not amused when we hear government members claiming shamelessly and falsely that we are soft on this or that.

With respect to the bill currently before us, we have heard from several members of all parties. I would like to thank them for their contributions. In particular, I would like to thank my colleague from London West, who gave us an eloquent and intelligent analysis of Bill C-27. She highlighted the bill's shortcomings, which I would like to review here.

First, the proposed new section 752.01:

If the prosecutor is of the opinion that an offence for which an 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, the prosecutor shall advise the court, as soon as feasible after the finding of guilt and in any event before sentence is imposed, whether the prosecutor intends to make an application under subsection 752.1(1).

This section would require prosecutors to notify the court as soon as possible after the finding of guilt of their intent to seek dangerous offender designation . The problem with this is that subsections 752.1(1) and 752.1(2) already govern the submission of such applications. The amendment proposed by Bill C-27 is therefore redundant because the relevant provisions already exist in the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, as my colleague from London West explained, there were problems concerning jurisdiction because the list of designated offences included a large number of offences under provincial jurisdiction. Everyone except for the minority Conservative government knows this. The administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction. There is also a problem in terms of application because failure to comply with this provision carries no consequence. It seems the government was not being very careful when it drafted this clause.

The second problem is a big one because it is constitutional. As I said, several constitutional experts believe that section 7 and paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be violated by the clause in the bill that establishes the presumption that an offender is dangerous.

The Liberals believe that this bill can be improved in a way that respects the charter and our Constitution and guarantees real safety for Canadians and Canadian communities. That is why we intend to draft some amendments. We hope that the government will take a close look at them and agree to them. I will explain them.

First, one of the problems with this bill is that there is no obligation, on a third conviction of the most serious personal injury offences, for the crown prosecutor to actually apply for a dangerous offender hearing. It is all very well and good to say that we are going to if an application is made and that the offender will be presumed to be a dangerous offender, but if the crown prosecutors do not make the application, there is no dangerous offender hearing.

We on the Liberal side, we of the official opposition, are open to the idea of reform of the dangerous offender sections. We want to toughen the legislation in committee and address some of the serious concerns that remain regarding the way this bill is designed.

One of the proposed amendments that we will bring is in regard to the fact that currently when a judge is making a determination as to whether or not the dangerous offender designation is appropriate, one alternative already exists after disposition, and that is the long term offender designation. However, if the judge designates someone a long term offender and gives a supervision order that can be as long as 10 years after that offender completes his prison sentence, and if the long term offender violates a term of his supervision order, he cannot, under the current system, be compelled to face a new dangerous offender hearing. He can only face a new dangerous offender hearing if he commits another new and serious criminal offence.

This is a hole in the system that the experience of actually putting it into practice has brought to light. We on the Liberal side, the official opposition, are of the opinion that if an offender has received a long term offender designation that is because he went through a dangerous offender hearing. If that offender violates and is found guilty of breaching the supervision order for a long term offender, it is already a criminal act. That criminal act should be designated as one of the criminal acts that would automatically trigger a new dangerous offender hearing. This is a provision, if it is put in place, that would actually strengthen the entire system and make Canadians safer.

The second is as I mentioned. Currently, and even if Bill C-27 were adopted as is, there is no obligation that a crown prosecutor make an application to have a dangerous offender hearing upon a third conviction of a serious personal injury offence. We believe it should be mandatory. We believe that among the list of the designated offences there is a whole series of offences where it is clear that it should be automatic.

Therefore, we wish to bring an amendment to Bill C-27 that would make a dangerous offender hearing automatic if there is a third conviction on a series of very violent personal injury offences and possibly even those criminal acts that are very violent and in which a firearm is involved. We are prepared to look at that as well.

However, we wish this bill to get into committee so that we can explore this, hear from expert witnesses on the various issues and bring forth our amendments. I would hope that the government would support these amendments, because the amendments the Liberals are proposing would actually strengthen the dangerous offender system, much more than the particular reverse onus or reverse presumption that the government is proposing.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. At one point she accused us of a petty partisan agenda. I can assure the member that in my riding people of all political stripes are asking us to take action on the matter of criminal offences in Canada. For a long time, people have been aware that the system is out of balance in terms of taking into account the victims' needs.

She also commented that the violent crime rate has dropped by 13%. That may be true or it may not be true. My question is this: if in her riding the murder rate was 100 per year and then dropped to 87, would that be acceptable? Would the rate of sexual offences dropping to 87 still be acceptable?

Is it not true that we still have an obligation to deal with an unacceptably high incidence of these kinds of situations where young people are being exploited and sexual offences continue to occur? We are talking about this happening after three convictions, not just accusations. I think it is time for us to act. Canadians are asking us to act. I would appreciate the member's response.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am continually astounded by the deafness of the members of the government. I clearly stated that the Liberal caucus, the official opposition, is in favour of strengthening the dangerous offender system. That is point number one. Our proposed amendments would actually make this stronger rather than the proposed amendment the government is proposing to reverse the presumption.

On the issue of the falling violent crime rate, the member presumes that because I quoted Statistics Canada, which said violent crime rates have actually gone down, it means the rate as it is now is perfectly acceptable to me. That is a presumption which is completely wrong. To quote Statistics Canada is to provide a context so that people understand. No murder, no homicide, is acceptable, but if people think it is getting worse that in fact is not what the statistics and Statistics Canada are telling us.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

More people get murdered every year.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

So therefore, the dangerous offender system needs to be improved and we believe that our amendments, which would make dangerous offender hearings mandatory on a third conviction of the most serious personal injury criminal acts, would actually strengthen the dangerous offender act; it would not be as the Conservatives intend to do with Bill C-27 as it is now written and leave it to the discretion of the crown prosecutor.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Give the public service more leeway? Why should elected people get to decide things?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

What Canadians may not know is that a dangerous offender hearing costs approximately $100,000. Therefore, many crown prosecutors, even if they believe the offender is a dangerous offender, may decide not to make an application for a hearing because they do not have the budget for it or because it is very time consuming. Therefore, it should not be left to their discretion. It should be made mandatory. I hope, given the comments of that Conservative member, that he at least would support such an amendment to the bill.

I hope that he would also support an amendment that would make a breach of a long term offender order an automatic trigger for a dangerous offender hearing. I hope he would support it and talk to his justice minister and other ministers, including the Minister of the Environment, who seems to be having a great deal of fun heckling while I am speaking, to convince them that they are good amendments.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You don't heckle? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

This is a serious issue. I would ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of the Environment stop making comments that tickle my humour and distract me from the points I am attempting to make. I believe I am making them very well notwithstanding his diversionary tactics.

The Liberals approve of the provisions that would strengthen the recognizance sections of the Criminal Code, sections 810.1 and 810.2. We think those are excellent.

We also think that some of the technical amendments or changes are good, but where we think the bill fails is that, one, it does not make a dangerous offender hearing application automatic or mandatory on a third conviction and, two, it does not make the breach of a long term offender order an automatic trigger for a dangerous offender hearing.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and speak to Bill C-27. The constituents of Newton—North Delta are fully aware of my full support of any legislation that punishes violent or sex offenders, which is why I will be supporting the bill at second reading.

However, my colleagues and I have serious concerns about the constitutionality and the strength of this bill.

Since being elected, I have consistently supported legislation that is both tough on crime while supporting an activist social agenda that seriously addresses the causes of crime.

I support tougher sentences so that those who commit serious crimes do serious time. However, at the same time I support creating more social programs, which include child care spaces as well; all efforts aimed at poverty reduction and substance abuse; and any legislation that will help take guns off our streets. We must strike a balance between the two to be effective. We must try to see the big picture.

These changes cannot be debated in isolation, as the government does. With this legislation being debate today, before the accused can be found to be a dangerous offender, we must ensure that the offence is not an isolated occurrence. We also must establish that the pattern is very likely to continue.

Even after this, the court still has the power not to designate the offender as dangerous or to impose an indeterminate sentence. However, the dangerous offender section that we currently have in this country, which has put 360 dangerous offenders behind bars, is charter-proof and is working.

In fact, the former Liberal government 1997 created the long term offender designation. This was targeted at sexual and violent offenders because many sexual and violent offenders required special attention even if they did not meeting the criteria for a dangerous offender. This was a necessary change because, as of June 2005, we had 300 offenders under the long term offender designation in Canada.

The Liberal Party strongly supports real efforts to protect Canadians and punish offenders who represent threats to the safety of our communities across Canada. However, any changes that we make to the current system must be done in a manner that would not jeopardize the victims' rights.

Changes proposed should not back up the courts. If there are charter challenges, the courts could be jammed for years. Our amendments to Bill C-27 are not designed to weaken the bill, as the official Liberal critic spoke earlier in favour of this, but to make it stronger and effective, which can only be done by being non-partisan. By doing that we would ensure that the criminals are sentenced and put away as fast as possible.

We would like to introduce provisions that allow crown prosecutors to seek a dangerous offender hearing if someone currently considered a long term offender violates any term of the supervision order. This would toughen the law from its current version and keep career criminals off the streets.

There is no reason we cannot have mandatory dangerous offender hearings following a third conviction for serious crimes. This would be more effective than the current reverse onus provisions in the bill. Once again, this would toughen the bill from its current version. It is not efficient if the reverse onus legislation cannot pass a constitutional challenge. We just back up the appeals process by doing that.

I would now like to focus on the issue of the constitutionality of Bill C-27. The bill has proposed sections on which legal experts have big questions with regard to their constitutionality. The bigger problem with many of the reforms in the bill, as many of us know, is that the administration of justice falls within provincial jurisdiction. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government to impose statutory duties on provincial prosecutors. We cannot step in and control how justice works in the provinces and regions, particularly where those duties are meant to influence the prosecutor's discretion.

In the view of the legal experts, that could make a significant part of the bill unconstitutional and, by making this unconstitutional, we are putting victims at risk.

Unfortunately, I predict that rather than working with the Liberal Party to fix these problems, the Conservative Party will instead try to say, with its usual bluster, that we are gutting the legislation and being soft on crime.

I would say, first, that this is an issue that the citizens of Canada expected a far more serious dialogue from their elected representatives; and second, that if the Conservative Party tries to push this legislation through without taking the very serious concerns raised with respect to the charter, not only will this demonstrate that it is soft on charter rights, it will potentially put the entire section of the Criminal Code, which it is seeking to amend, in jeopardy.

What does that mean? It means that more victims will get shortchanged. I can tell the House that when I speak to my constituents of Newton—North Delta, that is not what they want. They want a real, effective crime prevention strategy but that is not what they are seeing in the present government's agenda. They want to toughen the laws to keep the violent and career criminals off the streets.

It is not just my constituents of Newton--North Delta. All Canadians are looking for tougher measures to stamp out crime, but not flawed legislation that puts this aim in jeopardy.

I hope the justice committee will work in a diligent and bipartisan manner to ensure that this flawed legislation is amended to take into account the concerns of my constituents, Canadians and the legal experts across the country to make the toughest and most effective crime legislation in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his vote of confidence in the bill but I do have some problems with his criticisms of the bill.

Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale is part of the amalgamated city of Hamilton. In Hamilton we have a secure release facility where some of the most dangerous offenders are housed.

Years ago, one of those dangerous offenders walked across the road to a shopping mall in downtown Hamilton, one of these places where the member previous to that member spoke about one of those unusual stories happened, and repeatedly stabbed a young woman. It took the crown attorney in Hamilton almost two full years, under the existing legislation, to build a case to finally have this man labelled a dangerous offender and put him away.

It is necessary for us to have this reverse onus so that our crown attorneys have the capability of building the case required in order to accomplish this with what both the last two Liberal members said, effective law enforcement legislation.

What does the member mean by lack of effectiveness when this would clearly give a tool to the crown attorneys to put these dangerous offenders away much more effectively?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to being tough on crime, the member needs only to look at my record. I have always been an advocate for tougher laws.

What we are proposing is that after the third offence, if the criminal who is committing the crimes is a dangerous offender, there should be an automatic hearing and that person should be put behind bars.

On the other hand, the way that member is thinking, the criminal might go to the appeal courts which might lengthen the trial and put the victims in jeopardy.

We are saying that after that third offence, the person should automatically be tried as a dangerous offender while, on the other hand, the member is saying that we should put the onus on the criminal to prove that he or she is not a dangerous offender.

I personally feel that our amendment to the legislation is much stronger and I know Canadians and the people of Newton—North Delta feel the same way.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns is that when any government at the federal level brings in tougher legislation on crime there is usually a financial cost to it in terms of who pays for this.

We know that legal aid itself is a provincial responsibility but when the federal government brings in an initiative such as this it adds more cost and burden to the provinces.

Does the hon. member not think that if the government wishes to do this, which, in many ways it is correct in doing to ensure the safety of our citizens, that it should first negotiate with the provinces to include more funding in terms of legal aid services for all victims in that regard?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree more with the member when it comes to giving the funds to the provincial governments. In fact, my leader of the Liberal Party has committed to providing more funds to the provinces to take care of the legal aid situation .

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

With this bill, the government purports to make it easier for crown attorneys to obtain dangerous offender designations. I will support the bill so it can go to committee.

Unfortunately, the bill is not tough enough on dangerous offenders, and I am surprised. We always hear from our Conservative colleagues across the floor that they are the group that will get tough on crime.

This is a pretty weak bill. It does not deal with the issue of dangerous offenders completely enough. I will come back in a moment to the reason why I say that and why I will support our party's proposed amendments if it does get to committee. Our amendments would strengthen the bill and make it more difficult for dangerous offenders to create havoc in our communities and make our streets unsafe and our communities less secure.

I think of circumstances in Toronto and Etobicoke North and Rexdale in my riding. Unfortunately, there has been a long history of gun related crimes tied to drugs and gangs. Fortunately, in the last year there has been a decrease in that because of some raids by the police, in which 100 people were arrested. We cannot let our guard down. There is still a lot of work to do. I will come back to this in a moment.

One case that comes to mind happened in 2005 in Mayerthorpe, Alberta where four RCMP officers, Constable Brock Myrol, Constable Leo Johnston, Constable Peter Schiemann, and Constable Anthony Gordon, were regrettably and tragically killed. James Roszko, who took his own life, was the perpetrator of that horrific crime. That 46 year old man was a convicted pedophile and had a long history of violence and mental illness. People in the community called him a ticking time bomb. If I recall correctly, the police and the crown prosecutors had tried to have him put away as a dangerous offender or a long term offender, but were unsuccessful.

Hindsight is 20/20. If we had the provisions in this bill and the amendments, which our party will introduce to toughen it up, perhaps this unfortunate and tragic incident would not have occurred, but of course we do not know that for sure. That is why I will be supporting the bill.

I mentioned earlier that the bill does not go far enough and is not tough enough in a number of respects, and I will give the House a couple of examples. My colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, talked about a couple of them.

The bill is deficient because the decision to pursue the dangerous offender designation is entirely within the designation of the Crown. There is nothing that mandates that a crown attorney must seek a designation either for repeat offenders or for specific types of offences. We should insist on an amendment that would create a provision that the Crown must seek a dangerous offender hearing for those who have three convictions for serious offences. We should be looking at mandatory offender hearings for those who are involved in certain crimes like violent gun crimes.

That would help my riding in Toronto where we unfortunately have repeat offenders, people who are involved in gangs, drugs and have handguns. They commit offences, are taken to court, released in many cases on bail and they reoffend. Then they are arrested and convicted again. These people are not really a benefit to the community while they are engaged in that type of behaviour. For certain types of violent gun crimes, we should look at mandatory hearings as dangerous offenders, and I will support that.

Another flaw in the Conservatives' legislation is this. Some people are on long term offender supervision orders. Some will violate the provisions of that order. In other words, they might be required to report to a parole officer, or they might be required not to go to certain areas such as parks, swimming pools, public places, or there could be a whole range of provisions. If they violate the terms of their order, it is my view that we should allow crown attorneys to order a new dangerous offender hearing for those types of individual. This is an area where the bill could be toughened up to make it more difficult for dangerous offenders to create havoc in our communities.

Our party is supporting the increase in the age of consent. We support mandatory minimums for certain targeted offences. For gun crime offences, we support mandatory minimum sentences. That is why we have proposed an increase. This is in line with the changes.

When we were the government, before the last election, we tabled those types of changes to the mandatory minimums for gun related crimes from one to two years for certain offences and from four to five years. It is important to do that. We should not get carried away with mandatory minimums. The research it is quite clear that mandatory minimums do not always have the kind of results that people would like to see.

The other thing we need to do, in dealing with criminals and violent crime, crime of any sort, is to approach it in a way that is multi-faceted. We cannot only toughen sanctions. We need to toughen the penalties as well. We also need to look at how police operate. We know more visible policing in the community has an impact. We also know community policing is helpful, where the police can work closely with young people in the schools and develop relationships. That is then used to build trust and to help young people, who could find themselves getting into trouble, and to prevent crimes. We should really be focusing on preventing crime. When we formed the government, we brought in the national crime prevention strategy and the national crime prevention program, and I was pleased about that.

In my riding of Etobicoke North, we have launched a whole range of programs over the years that help young people to get out of gangs and stay out of them or to not get involved with gangs at all. They give them an alternative to guns, drugs and violence.

It is a tragic development that the Conservatives on the other side want to scrap the gun registry. That is a big mistake. All we have to do is look at the events in the United States recently where access to handguns is almost as easy as buying a pizza. We need to keep reinforcing the need for people to licence and register guns. We need this multi-faceted approach. That is why I will support the bill, to send it to committee, to toughen it up, to make it a better bill and to ensure that dangerous offenders do not create problems in our communities.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments by the member for Etobicoke North. I agree with many of his sentiments, especially expressing support for Bill C-27 and getting tough on dangerous offenders. This is the way we want to go.

However, I disagree with one comment in his statement. The member was making good sense until the very end when he talked about the gun registry, which everyone knows was a $2 billion boondoggle and has not saved one life or prevented one crime involving the use of a firearm.

I will not touch on that today. I will touch on Bill C-27. I sincerely appreciate the member's support for this legislation. It is important legislation. It is the right thing to do. However, there is no unity within the Liberal caucus on the bill.

Will the member commit today to pushing this issue in his caucus, perhaps organizing some informational meetings to get people of like mind on his side and to join with us in supporting this legislation? Would he perhaps commit today to meeting with the leader of the official opposition to ensure that he is on side with Bill C-27?

While the member has indicated his support for Bill C-27, important legislation to get tough on sex offenders, the reverse onus on sex offenders, his caucus is not united on the bill. Will he commit today to pushing this issue forward and having special meetings on this issue with his caucus and a meeting with the leader of the official opposition?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a rich imagination when it comes to boondoggles. The gun registry now is operating on a very sound financial basis. The registry itself is costing less than $24 million to operate. Yes, it cost too much to build the system. We know that now. We have dealt with those questions. There is no question about a $2 billion boondoggle. The member knows that full well.

With respect to his question, I am not aware of great dissension within the ranks on this side of the House on this bill. I find it strangely ironic when the members on the Conservative side would look to the Liberals as baying sheep and following the Prime Minister and their leader. On this side of the House we have a good and honest and open debate on matters. Then we look across the floor and the Conservatives are all stacking up and voting like sheep with their leader.

I am unaware of any dissension on this bill on this side. Good healthy debate and division is not necessarily a bad thing. I thought that is what the Conservative Party had been promoting over these many years. I will support the bill and I think the vast majority of my colleagues will as well.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the debate on this matter resumes, there will be two minutes remaining for questions and comments on the hon. member for Etobicoke North's speech.

It being 11 o'clock, we will now proceed with statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27.

The bill will amend the dangerous offender and long term offender provisions of the Criminal Code 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 with 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 or more of imprisonment for each of these convictions.

The bill also removes 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.

Further, 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 where 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 provisions to make the designation are presumed to have been met unless the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.

Also, to clarify, that even when the conditions to make a dangerous offender designation have been met, a 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 this matter.

The bill will also amend sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code 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. Also, to clarify, the scope of conditions available for a recognizance is broad and those conditions may include electronic monitoring, treatment and a requirement to report to a designated authority.

I strongly support efforts to protect Canadians and punish repeat offenders who present a threat to our communities. That is why Canada already has some of the toughest dangerous offender laws. I suggest the Liberal Party is definitely committed to passing justice legislation that will protect Canadian communities.

While we support Bill C-27 at second reading, our concerns about the effectiveness of the bill are serious enough that we will definitely introduce amendments in committee.

I want to assure the House that our amendments are not designed to weaken the bill, but to in fact make it stronger and more effective by getting dangerous offenders off our streets.

The government has indicated that the purpose of the bill is to make it easier for Crown attorneys to obtain dangerous offender designations. In fact, I suggest the contrary may be true.

What will happen if the bill passes? First, the Crown attorney will have to give notice presumably after two convictions. Right now two convictions are not needed. It could be done after one conviction if it can be established the individual will be a threat to society. In fact, an indeterminate sentence can be obtained based simply on one conviction. The Crown attorney is still forced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these elements of that individual's behaviour threaten society at large.

Will the proposed law make our society safer because of a need for multiple convictions? I suggest not.

Under the current legislation, a Crown attorney can trigger an application for a dangerous offender hearing when the offender is convicted of a predicate serious personal injury offence. This is defined as being a specific sexual assault offence or an offence that was violent or potentially violent, and which carries a maximum sentence of at least 10 years or more.

Under the proposed bill, offenders who already have three previous designated offences which are listed in the bill and are facing a dangerous offender hearing will be presumed to be dangerous offenders unless they can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they are not. This reverse onus is highly controversial and many legal experts have already indicated that they feel it is unconstitutional. Officials from the Department of Justice have indicated that they anticipate that these new provisions will face a constitutional challenge.

The existing dangerous offender sections have already been found to be constitutionally valid. By grafting on sections that raise constitutional questions, the Conservative government is putting the entire regime in jeopardy.

While it is likely that a court would simply strike down the offending sections and leave the rest of the regime in place, it could choose to strike down the entire regime. By introducing sections that they know to be unconstitutional, the Conservatives are wasting the time of the police, the Crown attorneys and our already overworked courts.

I suggest that the implications have not been well thought out. If the entire section was struck down, would this lead to current dangerous offenders being given an open door to challenge the grounds of the indefinite incarceration sentences they are already serving? Could we see the likes of Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson back on the street? Are the Conservatives willing to take that risk? I urge and implore the Conservatives to consider a reference to the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of these proposed changes. We do not need a flood of monsters back on our streets.

The new legislation could also lead to a series of unintended consequences. Due to the reverse onus which comes into play on a third conviction, both defence lawyers and Crown attorneys will approach earlier convictions in a different manner. Defence lawyers in particular would be less likely to seek a plea bargain for their clients if it starts them down the road toward three convictions.

Fewer plea bargains mean more trials and more trials lead to more backlog in our already overworked provincial courts. The bill does not provide for any additional resources for the provinces that are primary administrators of the justice system in our country.

Many of these flaws, I suggest, could have been avoided had the government held specific and widespread consultations with the provinces and key stakeholders in advance of introducing this bill, as is the common practice. The Liberal Party would not oppose legislation that makes the dangerous offender sections of the Criminal Code stronger, provided it was done in a constitutional manner and that provinces receive the assistance they require to effectively handle the new provisions. This has not happened.

I strongly support legislative efforts to protect Canadians and to punish offenders who represent threats to the safety of our communities across Canada. When changes are made to the current working system, they should be done in a manner that would not jeopardize the system that works now. Changes proposed must respect the constitutional standards and not risk successful constitutional challenges which could undermine the protections we already have in this country.

I would like to turn briefly to a consideration of the long term offender designation. The former Liberal government in 1997 created a long term offender designation, which was targeted at sexual and violent offenders in response to concerns that many sexual and violent offenders required specific attention, even if not meeting the criteria of a dangerous offender. A change was needed as now we have over 300 offenders under the long term offender designation in Canada.

This long term offender designation allows individuals convicted of a serious personal injury offence, who on the evidence are likely to reoffend but who can likely be managed through a regular sentence with a specific term of federal supervision in the community, to be given a long term offender supervision order of up to 10 years after their release from serving their original court imposed sentence. Once released, the offenders are subject to any number of supervisory conditions ordered by the National Parole Board.

There has been developing case law in the areas of both dangerous offenders and the long term offender designation. In September 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a sentencing judge must consider fully the prospects of controlling an offender under a long term offender designation before a dangerous offender designation can be made. This is part of Regina v. Johnson. If the court had a reasonable belief the risk that the offender poses to the general public can be controlled under a long term offender designation, then the offender must be given the lesser sentence, even if he or she otherwise meets all criteria for a dangerous offender designation.

It is important to codify the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Regina v. Johnson. Reforms must ensure that offenders who should be designated as dangerous or long term offenders do not slip through the cracks of the judicial system, while at the same time the reforms must in no way violate the rights of fundamental justice ensured to all Canadians. To do so would have the unfortunate effect of being more messaging to a law and an order imperative of the current minority Conservative government rather than governing responsibly for all Canadians. Victims themselves will not be happy when they discover a flawed law, not a strong one.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member, as usual, has provided clarity for the entire House about some of the key provisions of the legislation before us and some of the challenges we have as legislators to come forward with constructive amendments to ensure that we do make good laws and wise decisions.

The member referred briefly to a question of constitutionality or a constitutional challenge with regard to this piece of legislation. I understand that prior to a piece of legislation coming to the House that the government must do a proper review with the Department of Justice and have an opinion that this legislation is in fact constitutional.

I wonder if the member could explain how it is that the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice could opine that the bill would be constitutional when there are still some questions about its constitutionality.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. The Minister of Justice in his role as the Attorney General of Canada must certify that every bill that comes before the House meets charter challenges. He may have done so in this case.

I suggest that in view of the growing evidence and growing concern by many judicial minds and many professors that the “three strikes and you're out” provisions, the reverse onus provisions of this bill, do in fact violate our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My concern is that if in fact the bill does pass the House with these flaws that there will be court challenges costing time and money, and costing delay in other cases going forward until there is a final determination of whether it is or is not constitutional.

I am suggesting that because of the concern about this that we should have a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada before the law comes into effect. I say this with all due respect to our Attorney General. I doubt his position, but I am not the final arbiter. That would finally determine it and we could proceed one way or the other based on that determination. It would be much more prudent to do it that way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am curious about the most recent conversion of Liberal members to getting tough on crime, or at least they like to take on the language. Now Liberal members are expressing these big concerns, but they are apt to do that.

Surely, the Supreme Court of Canada would guarantee the freedom of person to Canadians to not be threatened by serious criminals. We have people who use explosives and firearms. We have people who sexually exploit a person with a disability. We have people who procure sexual activity, especially with children. These are very serious crimes.

I would like to recommend to the Liberal Party that it is time that we, as parliamentarians representing our constituents, stand up and stand up strongly for putting away serious offenders for the protection of society. We need to start pushing on that. We need to make sure that Canadians recognize what is being done here. It is time that we stop hiding behind the charter in our quest for protecting the rights of the charter for law-abiding citizens.

I am really perplexed by all of the different reasons those members come up with for not supporting this bill in its present form.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have always been tough on crime, but we are also smart on crime, which is a different position than the one taken by our Conservative friends.

I take no issue with a firm approach on those sections which the member opposite set out. However, it is the process involved in this bill that will come under the threat of a charter challenge. It is the process of three strikes--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that the Liberal Party will be supporting Bill C-27 at second reading to get it to committee and for the very good reason that it is important that we allow the committee to do its work. We want the committee to consider a couple of important amendments that we believe will improve this legislation, which is a bill to amend the Criminal Code as it pertains to dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace.

The member for Welland has very succinctly outlined the principal provisions of the bill and I will not repeat them. I would like to bring to the attention of the House and all Canadians the two areas which we will be seeking to amend. We hope the committee will seek expert testimony and consider why we believe these amendments would be important to pass at committee to improve the legislation.

One amendment has to do with dangerous offender hearings for violations of long term offender orders. Currently, when a judge is making a determination as to whether or not a dangerous offender designation is appropriate, one alternative at the judge's disposal is the long term offender designation.

Someone designated as a long term offender is subject to a supervision order that can last as long as 10 years after he completes his prison sentence. However, if the long term offender violates a term of his supervision order, he cannot then be compelled to face a new dangerous offender hearing. He can only face a dangerous offender hearing if he commits a new and serious criminal offence.

We believe that the bill should include a new provision that would allow crown attorneys to order a new dangerous offender hearing for those who have violated the terms of their long term offender supervision order.

The other amendment that we will be proposing at committee, should this bill pass at second reading and I believe it will, has to do with mandatory dangerous offender hearings. Currently, the decision to pursue the dangerous offender designation is entirely within the discretion of the crown. There is nothing that mandates that the crown must seek a designation either to repeat offenders or for specific types of offences.

We believe that we should insist on an amendment that would create a provision that the crown must seek a dangerous offender hearing for those who have three convictions for serious offences. This could be positioned as a reasonable alternative to the contentious reverse onus provisions.

I believe there will be support in the House for Bill C-27. Canadians should be assured that the Liberals are very supportive of being tough on criminals who commit serious crimes, but when legislation comes forward, it is important to do the proper due diligence to make sure that in practice and in the application of the legislation, the laws are of the most effective form and provide the greatest latitude and opportunity for justice to prevail.

I want to conclude by saying that every now and then there are some statements in the House about who is tougher on crime. Canadians understand that it is not simply a matter of being tough on criminals. Canadians also want us to do everything possible to reduce crime from happening in the first place.

The criminal justice system really requires a balanced approach. It is about being tough with those who commit serious crimes that warrant serious penalties. There is ample evidence that on a case by case basis there are circumstances which require judicial independence, which require latitude. We have to take into account things such as addictions. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse came out with a report in the past few weeks which indicated that 42% of criminal offences involve alcohol and another 8% involved the use of drugs. There are a lot of people with addictions out there.

We also know about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and the fact that many of the people who suffer from this mental disability are not subject to rehabilitation. These people commit crimes but they do not know right from wrong. We must be absolutely sure that, within the penal system, within the judicial system and the process that we go through, every case has the flexibility and the availability of judicial discretion to take into account mitigating or exacerbating circumstances, which is why there is such latitude within the Criminal Code for sentencing provisions.

Having said that, I am pleased to lend my support and to indicate our party's support for Bill C-27 at second reading and to get it to committee so we can consider important amendments to ensure this is a very good bill for all Canadians.

[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.