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.

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the facts concerning these bills. The age of consent bill, Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, was introduced by the government on June 22, 2006. The government moved second reading on October 30, 2006, and only sent it to committee on March 21, 2007. That bill, which we offered to fast track in October 2006 and which could have been the law in December 2006, only was adopted at third reading in the House on May 4, 2007. The Senate only received that bill on May 8, 2007.

When the member says that all of the bills had gone through the House and were sitting in the Senate, he is being wilfully incompetent or he is being sheerly incompetent by not giving the actual dates. It is the same thing for Bill C-32, Bill C-35, Bill C-10 and C-27.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my hon. colleague's comments. The claim about the eight days that the bill has been in front of the Senate is simply a fallacy.

If we take a look at the precursor bills to Bill C-2 in the previous Parliament, those being: Bill C-10; Bill C-22, age of protection; Bill C-27, dangerous offenders; Bill C-32, impaired driving; and Bill C-35, reverse onus on bail for gun offences; four of those five bills had already passed through the House and had spent a significant amount of time in the Senate. The only one that had not was Bill C-27, which had been to committee and had been amended.

We were a very accommodating government, I thought. We basically bundled all of that legislation as it appeared in the previous session of Parliament, with the amendments, put it back in a bill, put it before the House and now it is sitting in the Senate.

We are not asking for anything that is extremely onerous.

My colleague also brought up the fact that she wanted to get her numbers right on something. Well, it is very clear from the information that I see, whether it is on TV or through various polls, that 70% of Canadians support tougher legislation against crime.

Is it sheer incompetence of her leader and her party, or wilful incompetence of her leader and her party, that they cannot get the Senate to pass the legislation?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-13. This bill is similar to Bill C-23, which was debated in the House.

I may be a rookie here but I remember Bill C-23 very well. We were in favour of the bill but the government decided to dissolve Parliament. So here we are, debating the same bill all over again, except that the number has changed.

The context is fairly important as we start, Bill C-13 is really Bill C-23. It contains so many important new aspects to make our criminal justice system work more equitably and to modernize it. It is why I was proud as a member of the Liberal justice team and as a member of the Liberal justice committee team to approve it and to send it on for eventual approval and royal assent.

Alas, the Prime Minister and his team decided that they were afraid of the environment. Their new Minister of the Environment had failed so miserably to act on the environment that they had to scuttle the whole Parliament because they were afraid of a couple of bills that might change things. In that mess, in that melee unfortunately, this good justice bill was killed and had to be reintroduced again.

One might ask, what difference does it make? It makes a difference to people who care about the criminal justice system. It may not mean a lot to people, but one of the biggest things we could have done in the last two years that I have been here would have been to modernize and make more effectual our criminal justice system, to move the maximum fine to be imposed for any summary conviction offence from $2,000 to $10,000.

A $2,000 fine is within the means of many people, but a $10,000 fine for a serious summary conviction offence, that does not warrant jail time, is a serious fine and might very well have a deterrent effect on those type of crimes for which a fine is appropriate.

There were many other amendments, which could be in effect and the law in the country now, that were just simply thrown away.

Language rights are very important in my province of New Brunswick which is officially a bilingual province. I represent the city of Moncton, which is an officially bilingual city. This is bread and butter for New Brunswick politicians. It is disturbing to me that the parliamentary secretary, when asked why Bill C-23, which contained many provisions to improve the delivery of justice services in both official languages was not given the priority of other bills, turned his answer to Bill C-2 and the tackling violent crime bill.

I asked why Bill C-23, which everybody agreed upon, was given second shrift to Bill C-2 and of course why was Bill C-2 killed?

This love child of the Conservative justice agenda, why was it killed by the Prime Minister? Was he so afraid of other bills which showed the incompetency of his own ministers?

It seems shocking to me. It included: Bill C-10, involving mandatory minimums which was a bill improved upon at committee and which had passed the House; Bill C-22, which modernized issues surrounding the age of consent and the age of protection, and provided for the first time a close in age exemption which made the bill very palatable in protecting young people; Bill C-32, for which Mothers Against Drunk Driving had been clamouring for some time; and, Bill C-35, a reverse onus on bail provisions which in effect codified the existing treatment of the law by jurists in the country, jurists who are exceptional jurists.

I have said this for two years. It seems like I just got here but I am here again defending judges and saying that they were enacting the provisions of Bill C-35 long before we had to make it law. Finally, there was Bill C-27, with respect to dangerous offenders.

Those were all bills that were moved along and would be law now had the government not pulled the plug on its own agenda. It euthanized its own criminal justice program.

In light of the Conservative vote on the capital punishment issue today, it is not surprising that Conservative members believe in terminating things. They have terminated their own hopes and dreams for criminal justice.

However, we want to move Bill C-23 along, which is now Bill C-13. It is an important bill that will deliver a lot of valuable aspects to the criminal justice system.

However, as I move to what is probably bread and butter for me as a New Brunswick politician, the language of the accused, I want to highlight what the bill will do and what it has done in the past. It is important to note the existing context.

At the request of the accused, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry, a pre-trial procedure, and trial before a judge without jury, or judge with jury, who speak the official language, one or the other, which may be the language of the accused.

If the accused speaks neither English nor French, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry or trial, without a judge and jury, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony. The court is also required to provide interpretation services. That is the existing set of laws.

What Bill C-13 does to improve upon that, in clause 18 of the original bill, is to suggest that once the accused appears in court, the judge is required to advise him or her of the right to trial in the official language of his or her choice, but this requirement, as it exists now, is only if the accused is not represented by counsel.

What Bill C-13 does, which Bill C-23 did and which we all agree on, is take away the issue of representation and says that the judge must advise the accused, whether represented or not, it was a false barrier, to his or her right to have a trial in the language of his or her own choice. That was a good change and it leads me into some of my further debate points when I say that the judge was required to advise the accused of his or her languages rights.

I know the member for Beauséjour is a member of the bar. He is experienced in certain criminal proceedings and would know, coming from a francophone milieu, that it is critically important that the gatekeeper for language rights in that context, the provincial court judge in most instances, has that positive duty to inform a judge of his or her right to a trial in the language of his or her choice. It is important to know that the judge is already doing that.

With respect to preliminary inquiries and the trial in both official languages, clauses 18 and 21 changed it so that they became more accessible. Trials in the proper language of the accused, either French or English, would be improved by this bill.

I might add, as an aside, that the translation of documents would be ameliorated certainly by these amendments and we are all in favour of that.

I guess where the rubber hits the road is what to do with the amendments presented by the Senate. My friend, the parliamentary secretary, discussed at length some of the amendments, and I want to counter on the two on which we might have a more elaborate discussion.

We know that this bill is aimed at modernizing our criminal justice system and making it more effective. That goes without saying. My party had indicated that it would support the passage of this bill when it was first introduced before prorogation. It was the bill that I mentioned earlier, Bill C-23.

In the context of this modernization, it is important that the rights of all Canadians be respected with regard to the use of official languages in court proceedings.

Canadians, particularly those in minority language situations, know they have certain rights under the Criminal Code, but it is the federal government's responsibility, and I suggest our responsibility as lawmakers, to ensure the application of those rights is clear and that the judicial process is not delayed.

The way the government presented its view of language rights in Bill C-13, a justice of the peace or court judge would only be charged with finding some way to ensure that accused persons are informed of their language rights. That is really not enough.

One of the amendments that we proposed should be supported. We are in argument with the government on this, at least according to the parliamentary secretary's speech. It is important to say from the outset that the judge already has a duty to advise the accused of his or her rights. The language says that the judge must ensure that the accused knows of this option.

I have witnessed many first appearances and I am very confident in the ability of our judges to advise accused persons of their rights. It is commonly done throughout the province of New Brunswick and in any federally appointed court system where official languages are important.

The amendment proposed by the Senate would ensure that the federal government takes on its responsibilities through its agents to inform any accused persons of their right to proceed in the official language they understand. The Senate amendment simply takes out any potential middleman in the administration of justice. The judge would inform the accused of his or her rights.

I do not think that it is an undue burden for a judge. If there is clear communication during court proceedings, we are simply providing for clear access to justice for all those involved. It falls in line with our democratic society's pledge to have an expedient judicial process and it takes out the aspect of appeal.

I think the government wants efficacious legislation but I cannot be sure sometimes because some of the legislation it presents is so poorly written and so hastily delivered, only for the purpose of a television spot on the news, it is not always clear. In this case, however, if the government would only support this Senate amendment, it could have efficacious and fair language policy through the Criminal Code.

Sadly, the other Senate amendment respecting the reporting on official language requests is not one that the opposition can support. We cannot agree with it because it would require the Minister of Justice to report on the language of proceeding or testimony in criminal matters across this country.

There can be no way that all attorneys general in all provinces and in all territories would have the means to uniformly report on this. As the parliamentary secretary rightly commented, it is not the minister's mandate. In saying this, I do not mean that the Minister of Justice is not competent. I mean that he is not competent in the law to do such reporting. For that reason, we support the government in its opposition to that Senate amendment.

I understand the Senate's concern with ensuring that there is accountability in respecting language rights but we can surely do a more effective job in ensuring this by using the other resources that are in the community.

I know well-known jurists and hard-working jurists in my own province.

They are Sacha D. Morisset and Christian Michaud, who are both members of the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick. They often highlight the statistics with regard to French language trials in our province. If it can be done in New Brunswick, I am sure it can be done in Canada.

Again, we do not support that Senate amendment.

In short, we are very happy to get moving with this important legislation. We are happy the Senate took the time to improve the bill by suggesting that judges, who are the gatekeepers in our system, have the duty to inform an accused of his or her rights respecting language in this country.

It is bedrock in this community and this country that we offer services in both languages with respect, at least, to the Criminal Code of Canada and the criminal justice system.

On this one amendment from the Senate, I urge members of the government to agree with the Senate and with the Liberal Party and its justice team that it will make the situation with respect to the delivery of language rights in this instance a much better thing.

I am very proud to suggest that we support the bill and one of the amendments suggested by the Senate, which is one of the two that are excluded from the government's list in the final motion.

I want to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “agrees with Amendments No. 2, 4, 5 and 6” and substituting therefore the words “agrees with Amendments No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6” and by deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “disagrees with Amendment No. 1”.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this House on a subject to which I have devoted most of my professional career. When I left university, I became a crown attorney, first at the provincial level, then at the federal level. Then I became a defence attorney. I was even the president of the Association des avocats de la défense. I was the Bâtonnier of the province of Quebec, and then minister of justice and minister of public safety. As you can see, I have long thought about crime in general and effective ways to fight it. I have also thought about the bogus solutions that are sometimes proposed and that have produced disastrous results in neighbouring countries. I would not want this country to follow in its neighbour's footsteps only to end up with the same results.

From the outset, I would say that I think we all share the same goal, and that is to fight crime. Where we differ is in how to go about it. I give my opponents credit and they should give me credit as well, especially since my past has shown that, in situations where I really had power, I could fight crime effectively. Our major victory over the Hells Angels in Quebec is a very clear example of that.

Nevertheless, I often heard from the other side that we were filibustering on Bill C-2. I do not know whether the people who said that know what a filibuster is. In French, the word is “filibusterie”. The word “filibuster” comes from the French word “filibustier”. This tactic was first used in the U.S. senate by an elderly senator who had serious objections to a bill. At the time, there was no limit on speaking time, as there is now in all legislatures, thanks in part to him. To express his disagreement with the bill, he decided to speak without stopping. He even took the Bible and read long excerpts from it, and he kept on speaking.

Today, we have measures to prevent filibusters and systematic obstruction. We have a set amount of time to present our arguments. Filibustering means using every possible procedural means to prolong a debate.

Bill C-2 groups together five bills that were introduced during the previous session, including the bill on bail. The motion at third reading was adopted unanimously, without a vote, on June 5, 2007. I therefore do not see how we could have delayed that part of Bill C-2.

Bill C-32 on impaired driving died on the order paper, even before the report stage. Once again, I do not see how anyone could accuse us of filibustering.

Bill C-27 on dangerous offenders also died on the order paper, in committee. What does it mean when a bill dies on the order paper? It means that ordinarily we should have resumed the deliberations that were interrupted in late spring, but the session was prorogued. The government prorogued it. It was the government that aborted the process these bills had to go through before becoming law. As a result, these bills could not be discussed any further.

The same is true of Bill C-22. Even worse, this bill had been adopted at third reading. Once again, it had received unanimous approval.

We voted in favour of these four bills. Where, then, is the filibustering, this tactic where members try to prolong the debate so that a bill they disagree with goes nowhere?

One major bill remains, Bill C-10, which provides for minimum sentences for offences involving firearms.

We were against it for a number of reasons, but the bill was passed at third reading on May 29, 2007.

The government decided to group these five bills together for one reason: none of the bills elicited systematic opposition. Knowing that we have some objections to Bill C-10, which I will discuss shortly, the government is trying to say that if we vote against Bill C-2 because we are against this part, we are also against all of the other parts.

This argument keeps coming up in this House, and I do not think it is well founded. I cannot understand why all of the parties keep using this argument. I myself have never used it and probably never will. However, when we vote in favour of blocks of legislation—such as the throne speech, which contains numerous measures—that means we support some measures, but are against others.

We weigh the measures we support against those we oppose. We explain why we vote as we do. For a throne speech, when the negatives outweigh the positives, we vote against it even though we support some of the measures it contains. It is utterly unfair to say that since we voted against a group of measures, we must oppose all of the measures in that group.

The same goes for the budget when they criticize us for voting against measures that we actually want to see in place. We voted against the budget because the cons, the measures we did not support, outweighed the pros. The same applies when we vote for a budget, which does not necessarily mean that we support every single measure in it.

The argument is a faulty one, but the government has come to rely on this tactic to influence public opinion during the coming election, an election that the government seems to want as soon as possible. For example, they will say that we are against changing the age of consent, even though the bill passed unanimously, and so on.

Let us get to the heart of the matter: minimum penalties. We have some objections in principle to minimum penalties. Based on my personal experience, I believe that minimum penalties do not influence crime rates. I think many people who have long been studying crime would agree with me.

First, I think that no member in this House would be able to tell me how many minimum penalties there are in the Criminal Code. People do not know the minimum penalties. In Canada, the most glaring example is marijuana. I passed the Bar exam in 1966. I started working as a crown attorney at the provincial level, and that was the first time I heard talk of marijuana. There was not much at the time. Throughout university, I do not remember hearing about anyone smoking pot. I did not even know that expression, and I was obviously not the only one.

I then became a crown attorney at the federal level and I started to work on cases related to these issues. Let us talk about marijuana and hashish from Indian hemp. The Indian hemp growing here had no hallucinogenic properties. So at the time, all marijuana, hashish and Indian hemp that people have been smoking since the late 1960s to the present day came from somewhere else.

Does anyone know what the minimum penalty was for importing marijuana into Canada? I am sure that people do not know, just like people at the time did not. The minimum penalty was seven years in prison for importing marijuana. It is one of the harshest sentences in the Criminal Code. But it was while we had that minimum penalty that marijuana use started growing, reaching peaks in the 1980s.

Since that time, levels of marijuana use have remained very high. We can clearly see that minimum sentences had little effect. The problem is that people do not know what the minimum sentences are.

On the other hand, we have an example of success, but it still needs to be taken a little further. I am referring to impaired driving. The minimum sentences have not been increased, but we have seen awareness campaigns and increased education. People know that it is a crime to drive while impaired. I remember when I finished my studies and I was buying my first car, no one talked about it. Our attitude was to consider if the person was capable of driving and we did not really see it as a criminal act. This is no longer the case.

The public has become much more aware and we have seen a decrease in impaired driving charges. In fact, they have decreased significantly. When authorities began conducting the first tests on our roads to see if people were driving while impaired, it was not uncommon to stop about 10% of drivers. When road tests are done today, with the same sample chosen in the same manner, less than 1% of drivers are found to be impaired. People have become more aware. I think of my children who drive and who, when they go to parties, have a designated driver, everyone taking their turn. These are habits they have learned without the fear of prison.

Thus, as we can see, the simple fear of a sentence does not have an impact. Plus, people do not know what the minimum sentences are. We must know a little about how the criminal mind works. I practised criminal law long enough to know a little about the subject. Does anyone really believe that criminals think seriously about the sentence they might have to serve if they are caught? First of all, most crimes are committed on impulse. What people want to avoid and what prevents them from committing crime is not the penalty, but rather the fear of getting caught. If there is a good chance they will be caught, people change their behaviour.

I also had another experience in my personal and professional life. When I began practising law in Montreal, it seemed to be the capital of armed robbery. Some of those listening may remember the famous movie called Monica la mitraille. It was a very good movie. I do not remember her real name, but I did see her in court. She was the leader of one of the groups who committed armed robberies in Montreal. There was about one a day at the time.

Does anyone remember the last armed bank robbery committed last year? I am convinced that almost no one does. Is it because thieves are now more afraid of the sentence than back when it was harsher? Why did they do it? Why has the number of these robberies decreased considerably? It is because of intelligent preventive measures. Banks are built differently and there is no longer access to large amounts of money. The risk of being caught in relation to the anticipated profits is not worth it. Furthermore, all kinds of measures have been put in place in banks and the efforts of bankers has also decreased the menace of armed bank robberies.

Putting in place a series of measures resulted in a true decrease in crime. Fear does not stop people from committing crimes.

The third example I can give is the death penalty. We abolished the death penalty in Canada 25 years ago. Since then the number of homicides has declined steadily rather than increasing.

I am not saying that we should not have sentences. We must have sentences and for certain crimes in certain circumstances they must be severe. However, the use of minimum sentences does not work.

I have another philosophical problem with minimum sentences and it is worth talking about. A judge hears a case and arguments, then weighs all the factors that need to be taken into consideration when handing down a sentence, such as individual and general deterrents, the seriousness of the charge, the seriousness of the crime, the circumstances under which the accused committed the crime, his involvement in the crime, recidivism if any, his home life, his responsibility or the influence others may have had, and so forth.

Implementing minimum sentences forces a judge, who went over all these circumstances in his heart and soul, to conclude that, even though that person should get 18 months in jail, the minimum sentence is 3 years. He is required by law, in that case, to commit an injustice. I have heard judges say that when they hand down minimum sentences.

We often forget that when we want to impose minimum sentences we are thinking about the worst offenders. When I listen to the examples given by the members opposite who defend this bill, I know full well they are thinking about the worst cases. We have to realize that minimum sentences do not apply just to the worst cases, but also to less serious cases.

I will give an example that I witnessed in my career. This will show that, although the members opposite claim that seven-year minimum sentences are not being handed out, a number of people have, at one point, served seven years in prison for importing marijuana.

I remember a young woman whose capacities were diminished after an accident. She had a daughter and her husband had left her. She met a charming, smooth talking American fellow with an education, like her, and she fell for him. He was willing to live with her handicap. He was very attentive towards her. They were in love. He seemed to have a income, without being very wealthy. One day, he left, saying that he would be sending her parcels. It was not immediately clear to her what he was talking about. Parcels did start arriving. Based on telephone conversations between them, it is obvious that she suspected that the parcels contained something illegal, because he asked that she not open them. She did not import anything. She simply stored parcels in her home. But because she suspected that there was something illegal going on, under the doctrine of wilful blindness, she was undoubtedly guilty, like him, of importing narcotics.

I wonder what sentences my colleagues in the House would hand down to that man and that woman respectively. Does it not seem profoundly unfair that the same sentence be imposed on both of them just because the minimum sentence prescribed is seven years? Since the offence involved relatively small amounts of hashish, the least dangerous drug, he may not have deserved a seven year sentence and she certainly did not. This goes to show how minimum sentences result in unfair situations. Different situations have to be considered.

In addition, the examples of cases raised in the House often appeared very serious, based on the two or three reasons for which the judge imposed such sentences. I doubt, however, that this was the case. The judge probably cited 10 reasons or so, which are not listed, for coming to the decision which is described to us as unacceptable. It is entirely possible that a few of the thousands of sentences rendered every day in Canada seem too heavy handed. In the case of a truly unacceptable sentence, the potential remedy would not come from Parliament, as is suggested by our discussions, but from the appeal courts.

In none of the arguments put forward in support of increasing sentences was an unreasonable decision by an appeal court ever mentioned.

Finally, the most important thing to know concerning firearms: in the United States, they incarcerate seven times as many people as we do, and guns roam freely, so to speak. As a result, three times—

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest this afternoon to hon. members and I would like to thank the members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc and, of course, our member for Windsor—Tecumseh for their thoughtful comments.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh has had 27 years experience as a lawyer and understands the system. Therefore, I have full confidence in him when I ask him what he thinks of this or how should we do that. He always has very good answers that have been well researched.

I want to let everyone know that when we talk about crime prevention and the justice system, we are doing that from very well researched sources and very thought out policy. I want to make sure that people are aware of that.

On the other hand, I did not have a chance today to listen to any members from the Conservative Party, which is probably a good thing.

Before we came back, people in my riding were asking about this crime stuff. They wanted to know what we were doing and what was going on. I basically said that the government had postponed the session and I then explained the whole idea of prorogation. I said that it did not make any sense and that it was a waste of money. I told them that everything that had been done will need to be restarted again. I said that all the work will need to be rekindled again and all those wages for the committee will need to be paid again. As a matter of fact, the agriculture committee just went back to work this week.

This is a symptom of what has happened and the whole idea of a delay. As my colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh said, at least four bills were already in the process before the delay and two bills may even have been law today. We might have had a couple of good crime bills, which everyone had worked on together and other parties had a chance to make amendments. We could have been going forward but instead it is almost as if we are being held, and I hate to use the word, hostage.

I heard arguments today that if we do not support the bill why did we vote for it. A lot of us voted for the bill because we felt that there was no alternative. Some good amended bills, which were worked on, discussed and should have been law, are part of this package and we should not delay them any longer.

We are at the stage now where we have this omnibus bill and we are in the process of debating it. I want to make it clear that I agree fully with what my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh said about Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders bill, which is that we tried to amend one part of it relating to dangerous offenders upon a third conviction and would place the reverse onus on the convicted person to prove that he or she should not be considered a dangerous offender. Apparently there will be challenges and problems with it but the bill will be passed and I guess we must to live with it.

I would like to share with the House an article from the Penticton Western News, which touches on my riding and on the riding of the Minister of Public Safety. The editorial, “Legislation plays on public fears”, states:

Canadian jurisprudence -- once an example of moderation -- is changing for the worse. This is the conclusion we draw from the Tackling Violent Crime Act now winding its way through the House of Commons.

I might add that this is not some kind of a left wing newspaper that is always constantly attacking government policy or the mainstream way of life.

It goes on to state:

This broad, sweeping piece of legislation threatens to inject Canada's legal DNA with alien elements that may not only be unconstitutional, but also unconscionable because they fan private fears by exaggerated public threats.

We have seen this topic discussed among members of the opposition parties today.

The article goes on to state:

While the provision to raise the age of consent to 16 is a welcome measure to bring Canada in line with the rest of the developed world, the rest of the act -- which actually includes five bills -- is nothing short of demagoguery.

Its tough language implies that we live in a crime-ridden society, when nothing could be further from the truth. National crime statistics have declined to the lowest levels in 25 years.

Other members have mentioned the United States, our neighbour to the south, which has an incarceration rate of over 700 people per 100,000 people, the highest incarceration rate in the world, followed only by Russia with something like over 400 people per 100,000, and China. The Canadian rate is something like 100 people per 100,000 people.

When I ask people whether they would feel safer in a country that has an incarceration rate of 700 per 100,000 or in a country like Canada which has an incarceration rate of 100 per 100,000, they obviously say Canada. Something is not quite right here.

The article goes on to state:

Yet, in spite of all the available evidence, [the] Prime Minister...has convinced many that our streets and communities are indeed not safe. What we need instead, he argues, are tougher penalties for criminals and more prisons to hold them for longer, if not indefinitely. Once again, this approach contradicts all the available evidence about the effectiveness of long prison sentences.

While criminals need to be punished, they also need to undergo rehabilitation, so they will not return to their old ways once they are out of prison.

Yet this government has failed has failed to support such programs, prompting complaints from guards, whom one might expect to support a larger prison system.

The article goes on to state:

But that is not the worst part of this act. It creates an unnecessary atmosphere of fear, paranoia and suspicion.

Earlier, the NDP agenda was discussed. It is based on the same philosophy as the Bloc Québécois', that is, that prevention and protection must be emphasized alongside punishment. Together, these three fundamental principles are effective at fighting crime. This bill, however, is only about punishment.

I would like to pick up on the article about the report “Unlocking America”, which my hon. colleague talked about earlier. The article reads:

Due largely to tough-on-crime policies, the Unlocking America report says, there are now eight times as many people in U.S. prisons and jails as there were in 1970.

In fact, the U.S. states with the lowest incarceration rates generally have the lowest crime rates, it says.

I asked that question earlier and I would like to ensure this is on the record. The article goes on to state:

U.S. taxpayers now spend more than $60 billion a year on corrections, says the report. “The net result is an expensive system that relies much too heavily on imprisonment, is increasingly ineffective and diverts large sums of taxpayers' money from more effective crime control strategies.”

Interestingly enough, the government promised to increase the number of officers on the police force. We have not seen those numbers so far and yet the government is willing to build more prisons with our money to put more people in jail. Something here does not make sense.

The article continues:

Much of the burden has fallen on disadvantaged minorities. Blacks and Latinos make up 60 per cent of the U.S.'s prison population. According to the report, eight per cent of American black men of working age are now behind bars. “In effect, the imprisonment binge created our own American apartheid,” it says.

My hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh gave me an interesting statistic. He said that as far as dangerous offenders go in our country, although 3% of our population is made up of first nations people, in the dangerous offender category, 20% of the prisoners are from first nations communities. There is something not quite right. The danger is that if we implement a lot of the provisions of this new act, this will increase even more.

In talking about the United States, the report states:

“At current rates, one-third of all black males, one-sixth of Latino males and one in 17 white males will go to prison during their lives. Incarceration rates this high are a national tragedy.”

U.S. prisoners receive sentences that are twice as long as British prisoners, three times as long as Canadian prisoners and five-to-10 times as long as French prisoners, the report says. “Yet these countries' rates of violent crime are lower than ours.”

Since the early 1990s, U.S. crime rates have fallen sharply and are now about 40 per cent below their peak. The report says it's “tempting” to conclude that this decline occurred because incarceration rates soared during the same period.

However, this is not, according to the article, true. It states:

“Most scientific evidence suggests that there is little if any relationship between fluctuations in crime rates and incarceration rates.”

In fact, in many cases, crime rates have risen or fallen independent of imprisonment rates, it says.

What are we to conclude as we debate this bill? The first conclusion, in summary, is that we have wasted time. A lot of these bills could have been in effect now but, as I mentioned earlier, we have been held hostage, for lack of a better word. If we support part of this bill, then we must vote for the whole bill. If we see a flaw in Bill C-27 that has not been corrected, then we must leave it up to the courts to do it.

I believe I have expressed the concerns that I have and the concerns of a lot of citizens in my riding.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this bill. It is a bill that has a number of problems as well as a number of positive elements. I want to take us through this kind of bizarre situation where we are being forced to accept the bad in order to get the good. That is the problem with an omnibus bill. If a whole bunch of things are put into legislation, we have to take the bad with the good.

It is even more bizarre in this particular situation when the government has threatened that it is a confidence motion. Canadians being told that they have to accept this bill with all the bad in it or there will be an election even if they do not want one.

I am going to go through the problematic parts of the bill as well as the good parts and explain how, in spite of our efforts to get a number of provisions through that could have been law by now, they have been held up a number of times by the Conservatives.

This bill is a compilation of five old bills. I will go through each of the particular clauses of the bill and mention some of the good and bad parts.

I will start with Bill C-27, which is really the only part of the bill that had not been through the House before. The rest could have been law now had the Conservatives not used the mechanisms they did in proroguing the House and in not bringing back the rest of the bills at the stages they were in Parliament.

The minister suggested today in committee that he was concerned or upset about the problems I had with this part of the bill. Of course, the problems came from concerns that experts had with Bill C-27. The minister should be concerned. When he brings forward a bill that many experts say has a very high probability of being unconstitutional, he should be concerned.

Let us look at the parts of the bill the experts were talking about. First, they suggested it could possibly be unconstitutional as related to section 7 of the charter. Under the old system, there were four reasons, I think, which my colleague brought up today, whereby a person could be declared a dangerous offender. Under the old system, the Crown or the prosecutor would say for which of the four reasons one would be a dangerous offender.

Now, under the reverse onus, they say people are guilty until they prove why they should not be categorized as dangerous offenders, but they do not specify which of the four items they mean. In spite of my colleague's efforts to get this into the bill, there is no explanation as to which of the four items the prosecutor or the Crown thinks makes a person a dangerous offender. It is like putting the onus on people to defend themselves when they do not know what the charge is or what the reason is or what they have to defend themselves against.

The other item in this particular part of the bill that the expert said contradicted a number of points government members were making is that the government says this is only for the most vicious of vicious criminals, only for the most dangerous offenders, but the expert legal witnesses once again outlined how the offences in the bill could easily lead to people who are not the most dangerous of dangerous offenders being caught in this particular mechanism inappropriately.

The third problem, which was not brought up specifically that I can remember, although I am not sure if it was brought up by the experts, is the whole philosophy of proportionality in the justice system. According to the theory or principle of proportionality, the penalty should match the crime in severity. It should be a reasonable match. If, under the mechanisms I just mentioned, people are given a life sentence for what are not the most serious offences, there would certainly be a good chance of going against that principle.

When we talk about taking away people's liberty for the rest of their lives, it is a very serious matter. If Parliament has erred in that area, I recommend that the courts look at that aspect of cases. Indeed, many of the legal expert witnesses said that would actually be the case.

I also said I would talk about some of the good elements in this section. There is a clause whereby the Crown has to say in court whether it will proceed with a dangerous offender hearing. There actually was an amendment from the NDP. I did not quite understand why that would be taken out, because I thought it was a good element in this part of the law. It would stop someone from falling through the cracks. It stops a procedural missing of that opportunity. The prosecutors have to say whether or not under the evidence they are going to proceed. Certainly when there is a potentially dangerous offender we would not want the opportunity to fall between the cracks.

Let us go on to the second element that is pushed into this huge omnibus bill: mandatory minimums. Of course we have supported some mandatory minimums, but certainly not to the degree that is in the bill. Once again, expert after expert came to the committee and showed how mandatory minimums, under certain extreme circumstances, indeed could easily make Canada a more dangerous place, not a safer place. We would have criminals who are learning from other criminals. They are less adjusted. Of course people always forget that virtually all of them come back to society so in essence we would be making Canada a more dangerous place.

That was not just evidence during committee. Let me repeat what was in the Ottawa Citizen today to corroborate that. The article states:

Most legal experts agree with retired judge John Gomery's criticism of new mandatory minimum sentences being proposed by the...government, calling them simplistic and likely to produce unjust outcomes.

Also, in the same article, Ed Ratushny, law professor at the University of Ottawa, called the growing reliance on mandatory minimums to fight crime “simplistic and naive”.

In the same article, William Trudell, head of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, said, “What it says is, 'we don't trust you, judge'.”

In the same article, David Paciocco, a former crown prosecutor, said that apart from the human misery they impose, mandatory minimum sentences generate huge costs for taxpayers.

Once again the government seems to be ignoring any sense of respect for the committee process. I have never seen such a barrage of complaints against bills as there was against Bill C-10 and Bill C-9 , yet where were the amendments from the government? They were non-existent in terms of trying to bring in a just law based on the knowledge that we received at the committee stage.

Once again I will talk about the good parts in that old Bill C-10. There were new offences. One was an indictable offence for breaking and entering to steal firearms. There was an indictable offence for robbery to steal a firearm. We certainly agree with those two, but the mandatory minimums were pushed through in the last Parliament by the Conservatives with the help of the New Democratic Party and were certainly in excess of what we believed was appropriate.

Going to the third of the five bills included in this new version, it was Bill C-22, which would increase the age of consent from 14 to 16. It is another example of a bill that had passed the House already. The delay was incomprehensible to us. Parliamentarians wanted to get it through. Why did the Conservatives, either the justice minister and/or the House leader, delay the bill on three different occasions? On October 26, we offered to fast track seven different bills, I think, including this bill. Yet the bill was debated at second reading on October 30 of that year and did not go to committee until March 11, which was 11 weeks later. The government totally ignored our offer of fast tracking.

The second time, the government delayed the age of consent bill by proroguing Parliament. I do not know if there has been a time in history when justice was set back so far by a prorogation of Parliament. Which department had more bills stopped when Parliament was prorogued, more than any other department? It was the justice department. What a way for the government to slow down its own agenda needlessly.

Some of these bills are those that the minister kept saying today in committee he so wanted to get through quickly. Then he prorogued Parliament. Once again, a number of those bills easily could have been through by this time.

The third time the Conservatives delayed the age of consent bill by not reinstating it. It had already been through the House. It could have been reinstated to where it was instead of going back to square one and being thrown into an omnibus bill with problems from other bills that had not yet been debated, particularly Bill C-27. That component of it could actually have slowed down and sabotaged something that people wanted to get through Parliament.

Finally, in what seemed to be even a fourth method of trying to stall the age of consent bill, the Conservatives started suggesting that a lot of bills would be confidence motions. Fortunately they have withdrawn this, I think. So they were trying to find some way of getting an election, when once again all the bills on the order paper would die and we would lose the age of consent bill.

I want to go now to the fourth part of this bill. It is related to impaired driving. This is another bill that has already gone through committee. Again, it could have been reinstated. After a prorogation of Parliament, bills can be brought back with the consent of Parliament to the stages where they were, so four of these bills could have been brought back in far more advanced forms. Some of them could have been through now.

Of course they would have been through if we had not prorogued Parliament and if the Conservatives had not slowed down the process, but the Conservatives could have brought these bills along faster and put them through instead of putting them into a huge bill where any one of a number of things could slow them down.

It was the committee's duty to spend time in committee and call witnesses to go over the items that they had not yet dealt with in those parts of the bills, particularly Bill C-27, which had not been through committee yet, and of course it was good to do that because of the very serious reservations that were raised in committee during those hearings.

Once again, I would highlight some of the good parts of the old bills. In this one, the impaired driving bill, one of the good parts is that it will make it easier to catch people who are impaired not only by alcohol but by drugs. We are making advances in making the streets safer by being able to have a mechanism for detecting and keeping off the roads people who impair themselves by the use of drugs. As members know, we already do that in relation to alcohol.

However, once again there is a questionable part in that section. In trying to close a loophole, the government added a section which suggests that only scientifically valid defences can be used as evidence. At what other time would a person go to court and only be allowed to use scientifically valid defences? When people go to court, they hear all sorts of witnesses on various things, and now the government is limiting their defences in this particular bill to only scientifically valid defences.

We also heard some disturbing testimony about the occasional lack of rigorous maintenance of machines used to determine abuse and about there being no regular schedules and no independent evaluation, all of which brought up concerns that should be dealt with by committee.

Members can see, with the number of concerns that I have talked about so far, and I have only done four of the five sections, that there are a number of major concerns. People's rights could be taken away. Constitutional rights could be abrogated. People could not bring evidence forward because it would be prohibited by a section of this bill.

This is a major undertaking so it is very important that the committee does its work and is not rushed, yet when I asked the justice minister this morning whether he believed in the committee process where we bring forward witnesses and then make some changes, he assented and said that he did believe in the committee process.

However, last week when the youth justice bill was in committee for one day the House leader complained that opposition parties were stonewalling. There was only one day for the committee to hear from all the witnesses, the minister, and departmental officials.

This particular bill is going to affect youth and the public in very serious ways. The Nunn commission did a comprehensive review of the bill and made a number of recommendations. The government took only one and then added something that did not come from that report at all and will totally change the way youth are sentenced.

Did the House leader expect one day of committee debate to be sufficient? When he was asked about this, he said it may not have been sufficient, but he would know on the quality of the debate. That is pretty weak.

The government House leader did not put in the bill the recommendation of the Nunn commission regarding the protection of the public to sentencing. One would think that victims in Canada would want to be protected. The public wants to be protected. A major recommendation was left out of the youth justice act, and yet the government House leader thought it was so simple that it only required one day of committee debate.

All parties in the House have to deal with the serious situation of the serious omissions and the things that have been put into this legislation without any rationale. We will find out from the witnesses their concerns about that.

Old Bill C-35, which dealt with reverse onus for bail and firearms, has been incorporated into this omnibus bill. Liberal members agree with this. We have been trying to rush it through. It could have been through a lot faster. Problems were raised in committee. There is the potential charter issue again about reverse onus.

In Canada, the general philosophy is that one is innocent until proven guilty. There are an uneasy number of provisions, as Bloc Québécois members mentioned this afternoon, where the onus is being reversed. The Conservatives are saying to Canadians that one is guilty unless proven innocent.

What do the experts have to say about reverse onus? What do the experts have to say about making this serious abrogation of a fundamental principle of Canadian law?

The experts have said that this reverse onus is not needed because it is going to make very little difference. This section has serious consequences. For the serious offences listed, where individuals would be denied bail, they are already being denied bail in the court system. This part of the bill would have little effect.

Liberal members have a number of problems with Bill C-2, but we do support its good elements. We certainly have problems with the way the Conservatives have forced bad things on Canadians by putting all the old bills into one omnibus bill.

We have problems with the Conservatives saying that we have to accept this bill, including the bad parts, or there will be an election. That is not a good way to develop policy. That is not a good way to get the trust of Canadians. Not allowing any amendments and not allowing any changes after having heard from knowledgeable experts is not a good way to develop legislation.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-2. I hope that my colleague from Wild Rose will remain with us so that we can have the kind of discussion that we had during our review of some other bills that have been adopted.

To begin, I wish to pay tribute today to the hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and probably one of the greatest criminal lawyers that the Canadian legal profession has known. As a criminal lawyer myself, I had the opportunity to get to know Mr. Justice Lamer, not at the Supreme Court, unfortunately, but through studying, analyzing and relying on decisions he had handed down. We know that in the years between 1980 and 2000, Mr. Justice Lamer and the Supreme Court rendered decisions taking into account the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that came into force in 1982. I pay heartfelt tribute to the hon. Justice Lamer. He played a significant role in the interpretation of the legislation that we must debate here and that will eventually be applied to the people of Canada, and in particular, of Quebec.

To return to Bill C-2, this is a strange bill called an omnibus bill. It brings together Bill C-10, dealing with minimum penalties for offences involving firearms; Bill C-22, which deals with the age of protection; Bill C-27, concerning dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace; Bill C-32, on impaired driving; and Bill C-35, concerning reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences.

That said, the government wants to put together a package of bills into a single omnibus bill and have it passed. Right away, I should say that several of those bills, three in particular, had already reached the Senate but died on the order paper when the Conservative government decided to produce a new Speech from the Throne.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour and will be in favour of the principle of Bill C-2. We feel that former bills C-10, C-22 and C-35 have already been debated in this House. I myself have spoken against one of those bills. Nonetheless, as a great democrat, I am respecting the decision of this House and we will respect the democratic choice that was made to move forward with these bills.

However, I want to point out that a number of these bills, Bill C-27 on dangerous offenders in particular, deserved and still deserve a more in-depth review. The problem is that when a person commits a third offence from a list of a dozen very serious offences, there will be reverse onus of proof. Personally—I talked about this with my party and here in this House—I have always been against the reverse onus of proof because this implies that the accused has to incriminate himself and provide explanations or be held responsible.

Nonetheless, Bill C-2, and former Bill C-27, resolve part of the problem. Once criminals have to be monitored, there are reasons they have to appear before the court and the court has reasons for asking them why they would not be considered dangerous criminals who have to be monitored for a long time, in light of the offences they committed.

The Bloc Québécois wants to be very clear on this. We need to deal first and foremost with poverty, social inequality and exclusion, a fertile breeding ground for frustration and its outlets, which are violence and criminal activity. There is no point to just passing legislation; one day we will really have to think about how to attack crime. If we do not attack it by dealing with poverty and exclusion, some people will see no other way out except crime. Crime is not a solution of course, but some people see it as one.

The measures we introduce will really have to have a positive impact on crime and go beyond mere rhetoric or campaigns based on fear. They will have to be more than a weak imitation of the American model, which has had less than stellar results.

The crime problem in Canada cannot be solved—and I say this with great respect for the House—by imposing minimum prison terms or reversing the onus of proof but by dealing instead with a problem that has festered for far too long: criminals get out of jail too soon. Canadians are genuinely shocked that people sentenced to 22, 36, 48, or 52 months in jail are released after 5, 6 or 7 months.

Our friends across the aisle will have to understand some day that we cannot reduce crime by passing tougher laws but by ensuring that criminals who have been sentenced actually serve their time. This is the key factor and one of the obvious problems in Canadian society. Tougher laws will not ensure that people serve longer sentences. This is what will happen: the judges and courts will probably revise their decisions thinking that they are too onerous and tough. Contrary to what the Conservatives say, section 2 of the Charter applies and if a law is too harsh or a sentence almost too tough for a criminal, the court can revise this decision.

There are a number of objectives therefore. We know what Bill C-2 is all about. It strengthens the provisions on offences involving firearms by creating two new firearms-related offences and increasing the minimum prison terms. However, even increased minimum prison terms will not solve the problem. People are not frightened off by the possibility of long-term imprisonment but by the likelihood of being caught. We will have to check how judges and the police apply it.

I do not have a lot of time left. I would therefore like to say quickly as well that we need to do something about impaired driving. We hope that the police will find ways of determining the presence of drugs in the bodies of drivers. We still do not know how. When I sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, all the experts who came to testify said that no machine could detect whether someone had consumed cocaine or smoked marijuana and whether it was influencing his driving.

This is an important bill and I hope that when the House passes it, the Senate will also quickly do so. I know that some of the provisions to be amended by Bill C-2 will be studied by the courts and probably the Supreme Court over the next few years.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the truth can be stretched, the Conservatives stretch it as much as possible.

Why was there a need to combine all of the bills? Those bills themselves were complex in nature. If the member wants to blame the Senate, in almost every case the Senate dealt with the bills faster than this House did. Of the six justice bills that were not passed before the summer break, only four had even reached the Senate. The two bills that were in the Senate were Bill C-27 and Bill C-32. Of the four bills that were in the Senate, they had all only been sent in May or later.

Let us have some fairness and some truth.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-2. The bill, which is an omnibus bill, combines five previously introduced Conservative justice bills into one, Bill C-10, Bill C-22, Bill C-27, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

Canadians need to know what exactly this omnibus bill is really about. It is an omnibus bill that tries to combine five pieces of legislation together. Why is it necessary to combine all these bills and how will it affect legislators?

What is the intent of the Conservatives in getting all these bills together when they were fast-tracked previously? They were debated in committee thoroughly, amendments were made, and these amendments strengthened the bill and the legislation.

We, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility, and the responsibility is to be cognizant--

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate at report stage of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Briefly, on October 18, the Minister of Justice tabled omnibus Bill C-2, which regroups the main “law and order“ bills that were introduced by the government, during the first session of the 39th Parliament.

Indeed, Bill C-2 includes defunct Bills C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

Those who are listening to us should know that this government bill provides nothing new. During the last session, I had the opportunity to take part in the debate and to express Quebec's vision on justice, as it relates to several of those bills.

In fact, before prorogation, three of those bills were already before the Senate, namely Bills C-10, C-22 and C-35. As for the other two, that is Bills C-27 and C-32, they were in the last stages of the parliamentary process in the House.

However, all these bills died on the order paper, when the Conservative government itself decided, for purely partisan motives, to end the parliamentary session and to present a new Speech from the Throne.

Today, we find ourselves debating again the work that has already been accomplished in the House. This is why, when the government pretends to be the only one going to bat for innocent people through rehashed and amended legislation, I cannot help but wonder about such a preposterous claim.

The people of Quebec deserve that crime be tackled seriously, without playing petty politics with fundamental rights, and, above all, they deserve to be presented with the real picture. For those interested in politics, I point out that the Bloc Québécois was fully involved in the review process for Bill C-2, in spite of the very tight timeframe, to consider all aspects of that bill. My colleagues and myself believe that any bill of such importance, which could have such a significant impact on the people, has to be thoroughly examined.

It would, however, be somewhat tedious to examine again amendments made previously. With respect to former bills C-10, C-22 and C-35, in our opinion, the parliamentary debate has already taken place and the House has already voted in favour of those bills. We therefore respect the democratic choice that has been made. As for former Bill C-32, which died on the order paper before report stage, we had already announced our intention: we would be opposing it. This brings me to the part stemming from former Bill C-27, about which we expressed serious reservations at the time but which we nonetheless examined in committee so that it would be reviewed responsibly.

In short, the provisions in Bill C-2 which stem from former Bill C-27 amend the Criminal Code to provide that the court shall find an offender who has been convicted of three serious crimes to be a dangerous offender, unless the judge is satisfied that the protection of society can be appropriately ensured with a lesser sentence.

At present, the dangerous offender designation is limited to very serious crimes, such as murder, rape and many others, and to individuals who present a substantial risk to reoffend. An individual may be found to be a dangerous offender on a first conviction, when the brutality and circumstances of the offence leave no hope of the individual ever being rehabilitated.

We have some concerns regarding Bill C-27, particularly the impact of designating a greater number of dangerous offenders and reversing the onus of proof, two processes that definitely increase the number of inmates and that are contrary to the wishes of Quebeckers as to how offenders should be controlled.

We are not the only ones who have expressed concerns with regard to this aspect of Bill C-27. My colleague for Windsor—Tecumseh is proposing an amendment today that would remove the reverse onus of proof found in this bill. He believes it would not survive a charter challenge. Even though we realize that this amendment could lead to improvements in Bill C-2, we will reject it because the Conservative government, in attempting to govern with contempt for the majority in the House of Commons, would link this amendment to a confidence vote.

With regard to amendments, I repeat that the Bloc Québécois is aware that many improvements must be made to the current judicial system and that changes to the Criminal Code are required. The government must intervene and use the tools at its disposal enabling citizens to live in peace and safety. In our own meetings with citizens we identified specific concerns as well as the desire to change things by using an original approach. We wanted to make a positive contribution meeting the aspirations of our fellow citizens.

We therefore proposed a number of amendments that my colleague the member for Hochelaga, right here, worked very hard on with the caucus. We prepared a series of amendments to improve the bill and the justice system. These are complementary measures that will strengthen its effectiveness.

We proposed, among other things, realistic amendments to eliminate parole being granted almost automatically after one-sixth of a sentence has been served and statutory release once two-thirds of a sentence has been served, by having a professional formally assess inmates regarding the overall risk of reoffending that they represent to the community.

Another amendment was aimed at attacking the street gang problem—with which my colleague from Hochelaga is very familiar—by giving the police better tools, in particular, by extending the warrants for investigations using GPS tracking.

We put forward many other amendments. Unfortunately, none of them was accepted, even though some amendments are unanimously supported by the public security ministers of Quebec and other provinces. Consequently, Bill C-2 was not amended in any way during committee review. It is a shame that the Conservative government once again preferred an approach based on ideology rather than democracy. It preferred to combine bills that, for the most part, had already been approved by the House of Commons, rather than focusing on some others that deserved very close examination. Above all, it is refusing to improve Bill C-2 with respect to practical priorities.

In putting forward its amendments, the Bloc Québécois has remained consistent with its objective of using effective and appropriate measures to evaluate the relevance of each bill. It has also demonstrated its concern for prevention of crime, which should be high priority. Attacking the deep-rooted causes of delinquency and violence, rather than cracking down when a problem arises is, in our opinion, a more appropriate and, above all, more profitable approach from both a social and financial point of view.

That must be very clear. The first step must be to deal with poverty, inequality and exclusion in all forms. These are the issues that create a fertile breeding ground for frustration and its outlets, which are violence and criminal activity.

However, it is essential that the measures presented should actually make a positive contribution to fighting crime. It must be more than just rhetoric or a campaign based on fear. It must be more than an imitation of the American model and its less than convincing results.

I mention the important fact that for the past 15 years criminal activity has been steadily decreasing in Quebec, as it has elsewhere in Canada. Statistics Canada confirmed just recently that for the year 2006 the overall crime rate in Canada was at its lowest level in more than 25 years. What is more, Quebec recorded the smallest number of homicides since 1962. Indeed, in violent crimes, Quebec ranks second, just behind Prince Edward Island. Quebec also recorded a drop of 4% in the crime rate among young people in 2006, which was better than all other provinces. Those are solid facts which should serve as an example to this government and on which it should base its actions.

I will close by saying that we will be supporting Bill C-2 at third reading, on its way to the Senate. However, I remind the House that we were in favour of four of the five bills that are now included in Bill C-2 and those bills would have already been far advanced in the parliamentary process if the government had not prorogued the House for purely partisan reasons.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate the amendment that has come forward from the NDP.

I congratulate the member for Windsor—Tecumseh who is our justice critic and who moved this amendment to delete this particular section of the bill. He has been outstanding in his work, not only on the justice committee but in the House. In fact, he was acknowledged by his peers in the recent award as the most knowledgeable member in the House. I think there is no question about his work on the justice file and the rational and intelligent arguments that he has brought forward to counter some of the absurd rhetoric, the political spin that has been put out by the Conservative government on its so-called crime agenda.

It has been refreshing to see how the member for Windsor—Tecumseh approaches his work and how he really puts forward, not a partisan interest but a public interest in terms of what should be the justice agenda and how the Criminal Code should be amended.

There is no better example of that than what was originally called Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act, and is now all wrapped up in this omnibus bill called Bill C-2, in which Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act, is still a part.

In the early days of debate on that bill, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh pointed out that there were certain aspects of the bill that would likely not survive a charter challenge. He also made it very clear in the House and in committee, and tried to gain support from other parties, that the so-called reverse onus provision for dangerous offenders or offenders who had been convicted for a third time and placing the onus on them to show why they should not be designated as dangerous offenders was a dramatic change in our justice system and was something that likely would not survive a charter challenge. The member brought forward very clear and intelligent arguments as why it was going down a blind alley, why it was a false lead.

It is very interesting to note the response of the government. In actual fact, it could not care less about that. It could not care less whether this was actually something that, from a legal point of view, from the point of view of upholding the long-established Criminal Code of Canada and the direction and the precedents that have been set over the years, could be reconciled and be credible in that tradition.

I think we all know now, and there is a gaining understanding across Canada, why the government could not care less. It is because this so-called crime agenda is nothing more than political optics. It is nothing more than pushing people's buttons. It is nothing more than trying to create a climate of fear in Canada about crime.

On behalf of the NDP, I am very proud of the fact that we take this issue from the point of view of protecting the public interest, but not going down this crazy road of creating a climate of fear and bringing forward proposals that the government knows are doomed to fail.

We brought forward this amendment today to once again put on the record that although we have supported other provisions of the bill as being something that are needed, this particular provision is something that should not be sanctioned in Parliament.

I know I will hear a great deal of rhetoric from the Conservative members saying that the NDP is weak on crime, the NDP is this or that, but let it be said that the NDP is here to stand for reasoned arguments and for amendments that will actually be effective in dealing with dangerous offenders. The NDP is here to protect that public interest and to hold the government to account for failing to deal with all of the preventive measures that are needed in our society to build safe and healthy communities, which is why we put forward this amendment--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the ruling on this amendment indicating that it is within the proper scope of the rules and admissible.

The amendment deals with the specific section of a very large bill, an omnibus crime bill, and specifically with that part of the bill that deals with the dangerous offender designation in the Criminal Code.

Just quickly, the balance of Bill C-2 encompasses five separate pieces of legislation that were before this House in the previous parliamentary session. The dangerous offender section at that time was Bill C-27. It has now been incorporated into Bill C-2.

We had commenced work on that in a special legislative committee prior to prorogation. The prorogation by the government of course ended that bill, as it did the other four, three of which by the way were in the Senate, and the fourth one was out of committee at report stage in the House.

So now, because of what I think is a very foolish decision but a very political decision on the part of government, we are having to go back through all of those four bills and we have wasted a significant amount of time.

The government is historically very proud to stand in this House and accuse the opposition parties of delay. Of course, what has happened here has been entirely on its desk and it is something of which the Conservatives should be ashamed.

To come back to Bill C-27, as it was then and now that part of Bill C-2, the dangerous offender section of the Criminal Code has a history going back in this country to 1978 at which time it was incorporated.

I do not think there is any disagreement about this no matter which political party one belongs to, that there are individuals in our society that we are not able to cope with in terms of rehabilitating them. They commit serious, oftentimes heinous, violent crimes against other residents of Canada. When we use our traditional attempts to deal with them by way of prison terms, oftentimes psychiatric or psychological treatment programs, they are not successful.

Our psychiatrists, our psychologists and our best experts admit there is a very small number of individuals that we simply, as a society in terms of our psychological and psychiatric treatment modalities, are not able to treat and rehabilitate to the point where they are no longer a risk to society once released from our prisons. The dangerous offender section was introduced into the Criminal Code to deal specifically with those individuals.

Based on some very good research from the Library of Parliament, since 1978 we have had 384 individuals, up until the spring of 2005 so it is a bit more now, all male, designated as dangerous offenders. It is interesting to note that of those 384, 333 as of April 2005 were still in custody, still in prison. Only 18 had been released and were on parole. The balance of approximately 33 died in prison. I think this is the point that we need to recognize.

This designation, unlike a conviction for first degree murder and a life sentence, is in fact a life sentence in the 90 percentile of the cases. These individuals never get out. It is a recognition that we are not capable of dealing with them. They stay in custody, in prisons, for the balance of their lives and literally, as I have said, die in prison. That is what we are dealing with when we are dealing with a dangerous offender designation.

As I indicated earlier, there are no women who have been designated, up until April 2005. There are a couple of applications outstanding against women currently.

One of the other points that I would make that comes out of the research done by the library is that a full one-fifth, 20%, of all the individual criminals who have been designated are from the aboriginal population, from our first nations.

There is no question, and we see this more when we look at statistics in the United States, that subgroups within our society often times are individuals who are more targeted and receive greater punishment.

I am not going to suggest for a minute that the designations in those cases were inappropriate; they may or may not have been. However, that is the reality, given that our aboriginal population in this country is roughly 3% of the population but slightly over 20% are designated as dangerous offenders.

We know that this is a section of the Criminal Code that we would use, obviously, very sparingly. The issue of the constitutionality of this section has been to the Supreme Court on a number of occasions and reviewed also by a number of our appeal courts at the provincial level.

The message that comes out very clearly is that it is to be used sparingly, that it is to be used with extreme caution, that the individuals who are confronted with this are to be given the greatest amount of doubt as to the usage against them because of the consequences.

I want to repeat that the consequences in more than 90% of the cases are that these individuals, once designated as dangerous offenders, will stay in prison for the balance of their life. They will never get out.

Faced with that, if we look now at the bill that is before us, Bill C-2, the government has introduced into clause 42 a provision for a reverse onus. For those in the public who do not have a law degree and do not fully appreciate this, that is saying, under these circumstances, to the individual criminals, “If you meet this criteria, you have to prove to the judge who is hearing the case for the designation of dangerous offender why you should not be held in custody in prison until the rest of your life”. That is really what they will have to do.

That flies in the face of the charter. This section will not survive a charter challenge. Under those circumstance, and Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling that I have only a minute left. I thought these were 20-minute sessions. No. That is unfortunate because I had a lot more that I wanted to say.

My amendment, pure and simple, would delete the reverse onus from this bill because it would not survive a charter challenge. We are going to have tremendous litigation on this and at the end of the day one of our superior courts, or even the Supreme Court of Canada, will strike this section down. The amendment would take care of that right now and we could save all that trouble.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, but I would hope that my colleague understands that pretrial detention means that sentencing has not yet occurred.

I would repeat that the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-2, which included the provisions that were previously introduced in Bill C-27 concerning dangerous offenders.

An individual cannot be declared a dangerous offender until after sentencing. That is not the issue here. The reversal of the burden of proof is extremely broad in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

We will see what people have to say in committee. However, I hope that my colleague understands that the bill before us deals with the period prior to sentencing.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by calling for calm, just as you did. I do not think that it is useful to shout insults during a debate on this subject.

I was in this House in 1999, when three ministers of justice—Anne McLellan, Allan Rock and Martin Cauchon—introduced the early amendments to what was then the Young Offenders Act, which had been in place since 1907 and is now the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I am sure that members of this House have fond memories of our colleague from Berthier, who is now putting his talent and experience to work on the bench, and who was in charge of this issue for the Bloc Québécois. At the time, we introduced some 2,700 amendments, which led to changes to the Standing Orders to limit opportunities to introduce amendments in committee at the report stage.

At the time, there was a broad coalition that included the Government of Quebec and hundreds of youth services groups that were concerned about the fact that young people aged 14 or 15 could, in some cases, be tried in adult court and sentenced as adults. That was at the heart of the reforms proposed in 1999.

At the National Assembly, youth justice stakeholders criticized elements that contradicted established practices in Quebec. Not only did the province believe in rehabilitation, its watchword for intervention practices was “the right measure at the right time”. That was our slogan. That means that when intervention is necessary, rehabilitation should be the first choice. We were supposed to abide by that slogan. Quebec's National Assembly and stakeholders in the province have never denied the fact that in some cases, under specific circumstances, pre-trial detention, incarceration and even other penalties may be necessary.

When the minister made the bill public, some of the government members were quick to draw parallels with street gangs. The Bloc Québécois is not complacent. We do not have an idyllic or unrealistic view of youth. We know that young people are involved in crime, and I will talk more about this later. We also know that sometimes tougher measures are needed. However, we must stop comparing action taken under the Youth Criminal Justice Act with the issue of street gangs.

Street gangs are a real phenomenon in all large Canadian cities. Montreal, where my constituency is, is no exception. Neither is Quebec City or other cities, such as Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax. As recent statistics show, individuals involved in street gangs, or at least the well-known leaders who might find themselves in court, are not 12- or 13-year-olds.

My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine sat on the justice committee with me when the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion to invite Randall Richmond, a civil servant in Quebec City with the Organized Crimes Prosecution Bureau, also known as BLACO, who has thoroughly examined this issue. He told us the average age of individuals who had recently been arrested and brought before the court. At the time, there was much talk about the Pelletier street gang in Montreal and the arrest which first established a link between street gangs and criminal organizations. The average age of these individuals was 19 years and 2 months.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is very concerned about this bill and will not support it. We will use our energy to speak out and take action to show the public that the government is on the wrong track. We have two main concerns.

First of all, in the 1999 reform, we wanted to amend this legislation, which we had criticized. We disagreed with one of the provisions, namely, the widespread use of pretrial detention.

Once again, we are not saying that pretrial detention should never be used. Section 515 of the Criminal Code already set outs circumstances in which adults must be detained before their trial. First there are the serious offences listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code: murder, attempted murder and the most serious offences. Of course, an offender is remanded for pretrial detention when it is believed that he or she may not report for their trial, that evidence could be destroyed or when the offender is not a Canadian resident.

In some situations, pretrial detention is of course necessary in order to ensure the proper functioning of the legal system and the administration of justice. This is also true for young offenders. We understand this.

I was speaking with my colleague from Pointe-aux-Trembles earlier about the consultation paper. Last night, I read the consultation paper released by the Department of Justice in June 2007, which gives an overview of the situation since the act was proclaimed in 2003. The document indicates that, before 2003, under the Young Offenders Act, police and other law enforcement agencies incarcerated young offenders before their trial in 45% of cases. When we look at the most recent statistics available, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, pretrial detention has risen to 55%. Thus, a trend that we wanted to reverse is actually increasing.

Why is widespread pretrial detention not desirable as a general rule? As we all know, this is the period before sentencing and before the trial. The presumption of innocence must therefore apply.

Yesterday I was talking to Mr. Trépanier, a leading expert in Quebec, who has studied this issue the most. He is a professor in the criminology department at the Université de Montréal. I was talking to him about statistics. He has, by the way, been contracted by various government departments to study this issue. He told me that pretrial detention is not desirable. First, because even if that detention could offer some form of support, youth will never engage seriously in treatment and rehabilitation, or measures that could help them become better citizens. Second, there is the presumption of innocence. Third, there is the whole machinery that is reluctant to invest in resources before the final status of that youth is known. It is therefore wrong to want to see this principle used more widely.

Of course, in the bill, which has just two clauses, we are looking at a reverse onus of proof. Should we not be worried about this tendency toward more widespread reliance on the reverse onus of proof?

The Bloc Québécois has accepted that this is for the toughest criminals. I am thinking, among other things, of the former Bill C-27, which was incorporated in Bill C-2. We are talking about dangerous offenders—not even 500 people across Canada. These are people who have committed serious crimes.

In section 753 of the Criminal Code there is a very specific definition. We have accepted it, even though it flies in the face of a principle important to the Bloc Québécois when it comes to the administration of justice, and that is not to reverse the onus of proof. We realize that in some situations, there are people who are a true threat to public safety.

In my opinion, even though three paragraphs in the first part of Bill C-25 suggest reverse onus of proof, and although they are serious, they are too general. I am anxious to see what the experts will say about this in committee.

Obviously, we are talking about a young person who is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and who has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt. However, you will agree that the list of potential offences is extremely lengthy. I have even heard some people say that in Bill C-25, reverse onus was even more in evidence than in Bill C-27. This first issue makes us extremely skeptical about this bill.

There is a second issue, which is the most important. Do we believe that at 13, 14 or 15, an individual can be treated as an adult? Do we believe that the life of a youth of 12, 13 14 or 15 can be the same as that of a person of 38, 39, 40 or 45? This was the logic behind the call for a criminal justice system tailored to young people. Such a system recognizes that people are entitled to make mistakes and calls for individualized treatment.

Once again, we in the Bloc Québécois are not soft on crime. We know that some young people commit crimes that are so serious that they need to be isolated from society. We agree with that. But we should be guided by a basic principle: treatments and help for young people must be available as early as possible and for as long as possible.

That is why, until this bill was introduced, this sort of obligation was not among the principles in section 3 of the Young Offenders Act. The act does not call for deterrents, which set an example for others. Such penalties tend more toward incarceration. Why does the act not call for such an approach? I cannot provide a better quote than the one I found in a judgment of the Supreme Court, which had heard two cases. As you know, the full names of individuals under the age of 18 are never given; offenders are always identified by their initials. Consequently, the Supreme Court had handed down decisions in Her Majesty v. B.W.P. and Her Majesty v. B.V.N. An aboriginal youth had killed another person. These young people had committed a serious crime. I am not denying that. The court handed down a unanimous decision, and Judge Chars, on behalf of the majority, wrote the following:

The application of general deterrence as a sentencing principle, of course, does not always result in a custodial sentence; however, it can only contribute to the increased use of incarceration, not its reduction. Hence, the exclusion of general deterrence from the new regime...

This refers, of course, to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Continuing on:

The exclusion of general deterrence from the new regime is consistent with Parliament’s express intention—“Parliament” referring to us, and I was also a member in 1999—to reduce the over-reliance of incarceration for non-violent young persons. I am not persuaded by the Crown’s argument that the words of the preamble referring to the public availability of information indicate that Parliament somehow intended by those words to include general deterrence as part of the new regime.

I do not wish to repeat all the arguments presented by the Crown, but I think it is worth noting that the Crown basically wanted to restore the principle and logic that existed in the Criminal Code, but through the back door. Anyone can consult section 718 of the Criminal Code and see that deterrence is one of the objectives pursued by judges during sentencing. There are other as well. I would also remind the House that there is a specific provision for aboriginal offenders, when it comes to sentencing.

To sum up, this government is making a very serious mistake and that is the subject of the second clause. The bill before us is such a small one, but so very important, given its devastating potential.

Clause 2 of this bill seeks to amend section 38 of the legislation in order to include, in matters of youth criminal justice, the principles of denouncing unlawful conduct and deterring the young person.

Clearly we cannot go down this path. When any sentence is handed down—in Quebec's case in the youth court component of the Quebec court—the judge naturally bears in mind that it is desirable that the individual not reoffend. However, the desire to set down, to codify, in a bill the principle of deterrence, promotes pretrial detention and assigns secondary importance to the principles of treatment, rehabilitation, assistance, significant individuals, or community involvement, in other words, a philosophy of intervention that Quebec has adopted.

This move by the government is even more surprising given that its discussion paper, which I read yesterday, provides some very conclusive figures. They indicate how far we are, despite the 2003 amendments to the Young Offenders Act, from achieving this objective.

I would also like to say that in reading the department's document, I discovered some very interesting facts. A study of police discretion examined how law enforcement officers, thus police, who are peace officers and the first to come in contact with youth, behave when arresting youth. This study revealed three reasons why the police do not release adolescents and detain them until the hearing, that is until the trial.

The first reason is law enforcement, that is to establish the identity of the offenders and to ensure they appear, as I stated earlier. Once again, according to the code, there are situations where releasing an individual is not an option. The second reason—and I find this surprising— is that detention is for the good of the youth. The study gives the example of a police officer who arrests a homeless prostitute or other homeless individuals who do not give the impression that they will find shelter. According to this study, the police officer's usual practice is to hold them for trial. The third reason is to use detention as a means of repression.

The document states that two of these three types of reasons are illegal. Under the reform of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is prohibited to detain an individual for these reasons.

So the government has reinforced an undesirable practice. It has supported police officers or law enforcement agencies who tend not to release youth. Yet according to the Quebec code, it is much better to remand young people to youth centres so they can receive institutional support. The bill provides for the possibility of not necessarily releasing them to their parents, but to responsible adults.

Since my time will soon expire, I would like to tell the government how disappointed I am; it would have been much better to address other problems. For several months the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a review of the parole system and accelerated parole review. We would have helped the government if it had been interested. Instead, it is ideologically driven to please its voters and it encourages and promotes prejudices that are not supported by statistics or reality.

Again, the Bloc Québécois will do everything it can to ensure that this ill-advised bill never receives royal assent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The committee first observed that:

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

They concluded on this point that:

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

The committee also stated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Roitenberg.

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have three comments to make.

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

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

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

The Prime Minister must be more democratic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize we were going to be moving on this quickly, which is a good development because it will move these bills along, as opposed to the government's approach, which has been one of delay.

In that regard, I want to do a quick resumé of what has happened in this Parliament starting in roughly mid-February of 2006, at which time we were faced with a large number of crime bills by the government. I took the opportunity to go through the list of bills that have been dealt with in one form or another.

The list was quite lengthy, starting with Bill C-9, which was a bill on conditional sentencing. That went through both Houses and has royal assent. There was one on the Judges Act, Bill C-17, and it also went through all stages. Another one relating to DNA identification went through all stages. As for Bill C-19 on street racing, a particularly emotional point for the Conservative Party, we got that one through. There was one on criminal interest rates, Bill C-26, and it got through. There was one, Bill C-48, which dealt with international crime syndicates and the need to fight corruption at that level, coming out of the UN, and it got through. The next one, dealing with the illegal recording of movies, went very quickly through the House with all parties cooperating. It never even went to committee.

In addition to that, we have had Bill C-22, which actually is part of Bill C-2, the bill that is before us now, passed at second reading in the Senate. It went through the House all the way to the Senate. We have had Bill C-10, an important bill on mandatory minimums, go through this House and into the Senate, where it was at first reading.

Similarly, Bill C-23 went through this House and got to the Senate, but it is not part of this bill. I am not sure if the government is going to bring that one back or not. On Bill C-35, which was the bill dealing with bail reviews involving alleged gun crimes and the reverse onus being placed, again, it got through all the work in this House and went to the Senate.

The final bill with regard to work that we had done and which was almost through this House was the bill dealing with impaired driving. That had cleared the committee and was coming back to the House. It would have been back in the House if we had not prorogued in the middle part of September.

These are all the bills we have had from the government. The final bill was still in committee and we had just started on it. We had three or four meetings taking witnesses on that bill, which deals with dangerous offenders and amendments to recognizance in the Criminal Code.

In addition, there were at least four to six private members' bills, all of them coming from the Conservative Party interestingly enough, which we dealt with and passed or dealt with in some fashion. One had to be withdrawn. We dealt with those as well.

All of that work was being done at the justice committee, with the exception, and this is really interesting, of two bills that went to special legislative committees. Because the justice committee's workload was so great, we moved them into special committees. However, we worked on those bills and got them through.

All of that is work we have done in a little over 18 months, yet in spite of that, there are two things the government does. It constantly complains about the length of time it takes, in regard to which the Conservatives could have done much better by originally having omnibus bills. I have said that in the House to the point where I am almost sick of hearing it myself, and I am sure everyone else in the House is, but it is the way they should have conducted themselves. Of course, though, because of their political agenda of wanting to highlight each one of these bills, they did not put them together. They finally came to their senses and realized that it is a way of moving bills through the House more rapidly.

However, we did all of that work, and now what we are hearing, which is the second point I want to make about the government, is that the delay is the fault of the opposition. That is absolutely false.

One can see from the length of the list of bills we have had to deal with, plus the private members' bills, plus working on two legislative committees in addition to all the work that we have done at justice, that nobody in the opposition has done any delaying. The delay with regard to the five bills that are incorporated now into Bill C-2 is entirely at the feet of the government. It prorogued and that cost us a month.

It is interesting to note what could have happened in that one month's time. It is my opinion that all three of the bills that were in the Senate would have been through and ready for royal assent, which again is in the hands of the government. If the government had conducted itself with any kind of efficiency, those bills probably would be law today.

The fourth bill, the one dealing with impaired driving, which again is part of Bill C-2, would have come to the House in the middle part of September when we came back. There was not a great deal of debate, and although I and my party have some reservations about it, we in fact would support it.

The bill would have had some debate in the House at report stage and third reading, but it would have been through the House and at least at first reading in the Senate now, perhaps at second reading. It is not beyond the pale to think that the bill also would have cleared the Senate and would have been ready for royal assent.

This bill bothers me. Of all the ones we have, this one bothers me the most because of the conduct of the government in dealing with the individuals, including the police officers and police associations, who lobbied really heavily to get this legislation, and in particular the families and supporters of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It bothers me that the government would have misused the loyalty and the support that those groups had given to the bill by leading them to believe that somehow it was the opposition that was holding it up, when in fact it was prorogation. Now there is this tactic of combining that bill with the other bills to actually slow down its passage. Otherwise there is a reasonably good chance it would have been law by now, and if not, it would have been in its final stages at the Senate and it certainly would have been law by the end of the year.

That is much less likely to happen now. It is more likely that this bill will not get final approval and royal assent until well into the spring, no matter what the government tries to do. Quite frankly we will do whatever we can to be cooperative in moving these bills forward.

Our party was quite prepared to have all four of those bills that I have mentioned which form 80% of Bill C-2 back at their original stages, again so they would be law or on the verge of becoming law, that is, receiving royal assent today, as opposed to what is likely to happen now. It is going to be into the new year and maybe well into the spring before these bills become law, assuming of course that the government does not collapse and there is an election, which is another problem.

The government has delayed it, and in addition, it has clearly pushed it back at least until the new year, with the real possibility of an election intervening and a number of these provisions never seeing the light of day until after the election, when we would come back and start the process all over again.

That is reprehensible conduct on the part of the government. The only reason the Conservatives are doing it is so they can stand up in public and say, “We are tough on crime”. They do the macho thing. They beat their chests. They do the King Kong thing as if they are coming out of a jungle. The reality is that the delay is all at their feet.

I am really angry when I think of all the work that so many groups have done, the victims of crime in particular, and now are being misused by the government in such a way.

I am not going to take up much more time but I do want to address the final bill that was at committee. Former Bill C-27 is now part of Bill C-2. It deals with two amendments to the Criminal Code. One would be on the provisions relating to dangerous offenders and the other is with regard to recognizance.

With regard to recognizance, I think I can safely say that all the opposition parties are in support of those provisions. They give additional authority to our judiciary to deal with people who are out in the community on their own recognizance, but we can put additional conditions on them.

The bill provides for things such as requiring them to wear a monitoring device. There is a number of other provisions that would substantially improve security in our communities regarding people who have now been released from charges and who have already served their time. It is a substantial step forward and one that has been needed.

I have said this in the House before, that when I started practising law back in the early 1970s we needed it at that time. Successive governments have tended to shy away from it. Our judiciary has attempted on a number of occasions to introduce these types of control devices, if I could put it that way, in terms of sentencing or conditions imposed on people and it has consistently lost in our courts of appeal. It required legislative intervention. The provision is in this bill and we need to pass that and get it into play so our judges can do a better job of helping protect Canadians, which they want to do.

The other part in this provision, the old Bill C-27 now part of Bill C-2, is with regard to dangerous offenders. We have significant problems with this. Originally when the bill came before the House as Bill C-27, all three opposition parties indicated that on principle they had to vote against it because it has a provision of reverse onus with regard to the dangerous offender.

All of us believe that that part of the bill would suffer a charter challenge that would be successful in striking it down. What I do not think the government has ever understood is that not only would it be struck down, but perhaps the whole dangerous offender section would be struck down. Just as we saw with the security certificates where the Supreme Court said that if it could not be fixed, they were all going down, the same type of thing could happen in a ruling on dangerous offenders. The government has never understood that.

Ultimately, the opposition parties decided that there were perhaps ways of amending this in committee to improve the use of the dangerous offender section, because we know we need to do that, and at the same time make sure that the section was not jeopardized by a successful charter challenge at some point in the future.

We were working on that when we ended in June. We fully expected that was one of the bills for the special legislative committee and that we would be back and working on it in September, that we would complete the witness testimony and improve the bill by way of amendment and if not, then I suppose we would have been faced with a conundrum of whether we could support it or not. That is where we are at this point.

That bill needs significant work in order to be sure that we do not lose the entire dangerous offender section of the Criminal Code. We will be doing that work as soon as we can get the committee up and running again and the bill into the committee.

It is very clear that the government, and I do not say this about the opposition parties, is prepared to play politics with public safety. The Conservatives want to be seen as the champions and they are prepared to take these kinds of manoeuvres of delaying these bills by incorporating them all into Bill C-2 so that they can do that. They want to stand up in the House and in the media and out on the hustings and say “we are the champions of it”, when in fact the truth is just the opposite. They were guilty. They are guilty of delay. The opposition parties are not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in the debate on Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

As the Minister of Justice noted when he spoke in reply to the Speech from the Throne, safe streets and secure communities are the Canadian way of life. This is what I would like to focus my remarks on today, how we are building a stronger, safer and better Canada, beginning with Bill C-2.

I have had many opportunities, as probably all members in the House have had, to talk with my constituents, parents, community leaders, police, lawyers, and many others about their concern with crime and what we should do about it.

What I have heard has likely been heard by all hon. members as they have travelled throughout their ridings and indeed across Canada. Canadians are clearly expecting their government to take concrete and effective action to tackle crime.

Unlike previous governments on this issue, the current government listens. We share these concerns and we have made tackling crime a key priority for our government. We have made it a key priority for our government because it is a key priority for Canadians, but there is so much more that needs to be done.

We know what crime looks like in Canada. Crime statistics have been recorded since 1962 so we have 45 years of information. Statistics Canada reported last July that the overall national crime rate has decreased for the second year in a row.

We all want to see a lower crime rate. So this is the good news. But the national crime rate is an average and does not tell us about some of the more serious problems or localized problems.

The long term trends over the last few generations show us what we all know in the House, that crime has increased drastically. Since the 1970s, for example, the violent crime rate has increased 98%, but the national crime rate does not tell us what may be going on in individual communities. Community leaders, victims groups and law enforcement know their particular challenges, and we are listening to them.

Many Canadians have lost confidence in the criminal justice system and question if it is doing enough to protect them. They know that violent crime is all too common. They dread hearing statistics like those released on October 17 by Statistics Canada.

Those statistics tell us that 4 out of 10, or 40% of victims of violent crimes sustained injuries. They tell us that half of violent crimes occurred at private residences. They tell us that firearms were involved in 30% of homicides, 31% of attempted murders and 13% of robberies committed. They tell us that one out of every six victims of violent crimes was a youth aged 12 to 17 years old and children under 12 years of age account for 23% of victims of sexual assaults and 5% of victims of violent crimes.

Canadians are looking to the federal government to work with them to restore community safety. The government understands the need for leadership in criminal justice and this is what our tackling crime priority, and our commitment in this regard is all about. It is about reducing all crime and providing an effective criminal justice system. Our plan is ambitious, but Canadians can count on us to get it done. As they have seen on other issues, we have been able to get things done for all Canadians.

In the last session of Parliament the government tabled 13 crime bills. This is proof of our commitment to address crime and safety issues in our communities. It is interesting to note that it was 13 crime bills as it was 13 years of Liberal governments that have left us with a revolving door justice system in which Canadians have lost faith, a justice system that Canadians feel puts the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of everyday, law-abiding Canadians. This is what our government is going to address.

Six of these crime bills, of the 13, received royal assent and are now the law or will soon become the law. For example, one of the government's first bills and first priorities was to curtail the use of conditional sentences or house arrest for serious violent crimes.

We all know the issue of house arrest. In all of our ridings we have heard cases where someone has committed a very serious, sometimes violent, crime and there is an expectation in the community that there will be a severe consequence for someone who commits a severe crime. All too often the community is outraged when it hears that criminals will be serving out their sentence from the comfort of their own home.

Bill C-9, which received royal assent on May 31, 2007, and will be coming into force on December 1, 2007, makes it clear that conditional sentences or house arrest will not be an option for serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences, and organized crime offences where the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

This change was a long time coming. It is well past due and Canadians will be better served by a justice system that does not allow, for these serious offences, criminals to serve a sentence in their own home. Canadians wanted this change.

Bill C-18 strengthened the laws governing the national DNA data bank. This will facilitate police investigation of crimes. Bill C-18 received royal assent on June 22, 2007. Some provisions are already in force and others will soon be proclaimed in force.

Bill C-19 made Canada's streets safer by enacting new offences to specifically combat street racing. These new offences built upon existing offences, including dangerous driving and criminal negligence, and provide higher maximum penalties of incarceration for the most serious of street racing offences.

As well, mandatory driving prohibition will be imposed on those convicted of street racing. In the most serious cases involving repeat street racing offenders, a mandatory lifetime driving prohibition can now be imposed.

We also took concrete steps to protect users of payday loans. Bill C-26, which received royal assent on May 3, 2007, makes it an offence to enter into an agreement or an arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate or to receive payment of an interest at a criminal rate. The criminal rate of interest is defined as exceeding 60% per year.

We also took further measures to combat corruption. Bill C-48 enacted Criminal Code amendments to enable Canada to ratify and implement the United Nations convention against corruption on October 2, 2007. By ratifying the convention, Canada has joined 92 other state parties committed to working with the international community to take preventative measures against corruption.

Our bill to stop film piracy or camcording, Bill C-59, received widespread support. It was quickly passed and received royal assent on June 22, 2007.

Unfortunately, none of our other important crime bills progressed to enactment before Parliament prorogued. That is why the tackling violent crime act reintroduces the provisions of the following bills that died on the order paper.

The bill imposing mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for firearms offences, Bill C-10, is included in Bill C-2 as passed by the House of Commons.

Bill C-22, which increased the age of protection against adult sexual exploitation, has been included, as passed by the House of Commons.

Bill C-32, addressing drug impaired driving and impaired driving in general, has been introduced as amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and reported to the House of Commons.

Bill C-35, imposing a reverse onus for bail for firearms offences, has been included in this new bill, as passed by the House of Commons. This bill will make it tougher for those who have committed a firearms offence to received bail and be back out on the street.

Bill C-27, addressing dangerous and repeat violent offenders, as originally introduced, is included in this bill, but with some further amendments, which I will elaborate on shortly.

The tackling violent crime act respects the parliamentary process and includes the bills as amended by committee or as passed by the House of Commons, and in the same state that they were when Parliament was prorogued. As a result, these reforms are familiar, or should be familiar, to all members of this House, and so I would call on all hon. members to quickly pass the tackling violent crime act.

Indeed, many hon. members have already stated that they support these reforms. There is therefore no need to further debate these reforms or for a prolonged study of the provisions that Parliament has already debated and committees have already scrutinized. It is time for us all to demonstrate our commitment to safeguarding Canadians and for safer communities, and to quickly move this bill forward.

For those who need more convincing, I would like to reiterate that the tackling violent crime act addresses a range of serious issues that put Canadians at risk: gun crimes, impaired driving, sexual offences against children and dangerous offenders.

We know that Canadians expect their government to take action and to protect them from these crimes. To do so, we need the support of all hon. members, as well as Canadians, our partners in the provinces and the territories, and law enforcement and community groups.

Time does not permit me to address each of the equally important elements of Bill C-2. I know that other members will rise to speak to the reforms that are of most concern to them. I propose to highlight a few of the issues that have been raised repeatedly with me by my constituents, and I am sure by constituents in ridings held by all hon. members, in particular, about impaired driving, the age of consent and dangerous offenders.

Alcohol and drug impaired driving have devastating effects for victims, for families and for communities. Impaired drivers are responsible for thousands of fatalities and injuries each year, not to mention billions of dollars in property damage.

Once the tackling violent crime act is the law, impaired drivers will face tough punishment, no matter which intoxicant they choose, and police and prosecutors will have the tools that they need to deal with these offences.

Although drug impaired driving has always been a crime, until recently, police have not had the same tools available to stop those who drive while impaired by drugs that they have to address alcohol impaired driving. Under this bill, they will.

The tackling violent crime act strengthens the ability of police, prosecutors and the courts to investigate, prosecute and sentence those who endanger the safety of other Canadians through alcohol or drug impaired driving. I know that all hon. members recognize the pressing need to ensure the safety of our streets, highways, communities and our schools. By giving police the tools they need to combat impaired driving, we are doing that.

These reforms were applauded by the stakeholders and supported in the House of Commons. I am sure every member of Parliament in the House has received correspondence urging them to support the bill. There should be no impediments to making progress on this part of the tackling violent crime act.

The act also reintroduces the reforms to raise the age at which young people can consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age. The bill takes away the ability, and let us be clear on what the bill does, of adult sexual predators to rely on claims that their young victims consented.

Again, these reforms were welcomed by child advocates and supported in the House as part of former Bill C-22, so there is no need for further debate. We can move ahead.

It is worth spending a few moments to focus on the dangerous and high risk offender provisions of former Bill C-27. Some of these provisions have been modified and, therefore, hon. members may want to scrutinize these aspects more than the other reforms included in the tackling violent crime act.

The dangerous offender reforms in Bill C-2 respond to the concerns highlighted in the debates and before the justice committee, and by provincial attorneys general. I am sure that all hon. members will agree that these modifications are welcomed.

As members will recall, former Bill C-27 was tabled in the House last October. That bill included dramatic enhancements to the sentencing and management of the very worst of the worst, those offenders who repeatedly commit violent and sexual crimes and who require special attention, because it has become clear that the regular criminal sentencing regime simply cannot effectively manage the small but violent and dangerous group of offenders.

The tackling violent crime act includes all of the original amendments to the Criminal Code from the former Bill C-27, as well as two important changes which will go further in protecting Canadians from dangerous offenders.

First, let me provide an overview of the provisions brought forward into the House under Bill C-27. It includes the requirement in dangerous offender hearings that an offender be presumed to meet the dangerous offender criteria upon a third conviction for a primary designated offence. In other words, an offence that is on the list of the 12 most violent or sexual offences that typically trigger dangerous offender designations.

Second, the bill would also place a requirement on crown prosecutors to inform the court that they had fully considered whether to pursue a dangerous offender application. This is to prevent these applications from falling through the cracks. This would occur in cases where an offender had been convicted for a third time of a relatively serious sexual or violent offence.

The declaration is intended to ensure more consistent use of the dangerous offender sentence by the Crown in all jurisdictions. Although the Crown must indicate whether it has considered bringing a dangerous offender application, we are not dictating to it that it must do so. We are not attempting to arbitrarily fetter the discretion of the Crown or of the court. Rather, we are providing a way to make sure that the Crown turns its mind to the issue of a dangerous offender application.

Third, Bill C-2 would also bring forward the very significant reforms to the section 810.1 and 810.2 peace bond provisions that enable any person to apply to a court to ask for stringent conditions to be imposed against individuals who are felt to pose a threat of sexual or violent offending in the community.

We have all heard the horror stories from one end of the country to the other of someone who is known to be a threat to commit a sexual or violent offence against an innocent member of the community. There is often great frustration among Canadians at the perceived inability for government, for officials, for police, to act to protect the community from a subsequent violent or sexual offence.

Specifically, we are doubling the duration of peace bonds from one year to two years. We are also providing specific authority for the court to impose conditions regarding curfews, electronic monitoring, treatment requirements and other prohibitions as well as making it very clear that the court may impose any conditions it feels are necessary to ensure public safety.

Since the tabling of the former Bill C-27 last October, provincial attorneys general have raised concerns about violent offenders who are found to be dangerous offenders, but are not receiving indeterminate sentences. This is due to a finding that they could be managed under the long term offender designation.

The long term offender sentencing option currently in the Criminal Code allows a court to sentence an individual to a regular sentence of imprisonment, but add up to 10 years of intensive community supervision to the sentence.

Based on the interpretation of the lower courts of the 2003 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Johnson, many individuals who fully meet the designation of a dangerous offender have nonetheless been given long term offender designation instead. The Crown has been unable to convince the sentencing court that the offenders could not be managed under the less severe sentence option.

The big concern is that some of these individuals may not in fact be suitable for community supervision sentences. Yet, until they commit another violent sentence, their status as a dangerous offender cannot be reviewed by a court. I should mention, and it should be obvious, until they commit another violent offence, then it is too late for the community, for innocent victims and for families.

Given the concerns expressed since former Bill C-27 was tabled, the government has been examining the scope of this problem and developing potential solutions. It is clear that a large proportion of the individuals who meet the dangerous offender criteria, but have been given a less severe sentence, have demonstrated that they simply refuse to cooperate. The majority eventually breach one or more of the conditions of their long term supervision order. This is a clear indicator that the original sentence was based on a flawed presumption that the offender was manageable. As such, there is a real need to revisit the original sentence in order to stop the reoffending right then and there before another tragedy occurs.

The tackling violent crime act addresses this problem and includes new provisions that were not included in the former bill.

First, the tackling violent crime act makes it clear that from now on if offenders meet the dangerous offender criteria, they will always be designated as a dangerous offender first, and that designation is for life. The court must then determine the appropriate sentence, either an indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence, with or without the long term offender supervision order. Critical to this scheme is that from now on the court must impose an indeterminate sentence unless it is satisfied that the offenders can be managed under a less severe sentence.

Second, in cases where dangerous offenders are able to satisfy the court that they can be managed under the lesser sentence and are subsequently charged and convicted with a breach of a long term supervision order, they can be brought back to the court for a new sentencing hearing. At the new hearing, dangerous offenders will have to satisfy the court once again that they can still be managed under the lesser sentence. If not, the indeterminate sentence must be imposed.

The government believes that the impact of these new reforms will be significant. Because of the clarification to the sentencing provisions, fewer offenders will escape the dangerous offender designation. In addition, for the few offenders who are declared to be dangerous offenders, but given a long term offender sentence, they will know that if they do not abide by the term of their supervision orders once released, they will be returned to court for a new sentencing hearing and an indeterminate sentence will be the likely outcome.

It will not take a second sexual assault or a second violent offence to bring the offender back for a new dangerous offender sentence. This new provision would be available, for example, even if the violation were simply that the offender failed to return to his residence before curfew or consumed alcohol or drugs in violation of a long term offender supervision order.

Our government remains committed to ensuring that all Canadians live in safe and secure communities. The tackling violent crime act will protect Canadians. It is fulfilling our commitments to Canadians. The government is committed to taking action, acting on behalf of the safety of all Canadians. I urge all members to support the tackling violent crime act.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe for his question and also for his work on the justice committee.

If I might say, it is the typical Liberal attitude: homicide is down so let us not do anything about homicide. In my opinion, if there are homicides in Canada, if there are adults who are exploiting young people, if there is drunk driving causing carnage on the streets, whether it goes up or down one year to the next, our goal as parliamentarians should always be for it to go down. I and this government will continue to work to ensure that we have a reduced crime rate, that we have reduced homicides, that we have reduced recidivism. That is one of the things that the bill addresses.

The hon. member mentioned Bill C-27 on dangerous offenders. The people of Canada can read the committee transcripts. We are dealing with individuals who are repeat serious offenders of a violent or sexual nature. Sometimes when we speak of it here, we cannot fully grasp what is involved. We read these horrific stories in the newspapers. There are cases that have been in the news recently involving repeat violent offenders, repeat sexual offenders. What happens? Our system is unable to keep them where they should be, which is behind bars, due to their recidivist nature.

We all agree we want to give people a chance, but when someone has proven that he or she is a menace to society, and there is a very high likelihood that that person is going to reoffend and has met the threshold of being a dangerous offender, then we feel that person belongs behind bars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to come out of the fog, not the fog of the Bay of Fundy near where he resides, but the fog of mental obfuscation that he elicited in his comments.

He said that Bill C-27, which is part of Bill C-2, was in committee for 105 days. He was on the committee. He knows there were three days only of committee meetings before it was sent on. Will he admit that?

He knows that the age of consent bill previously introduced by private members from either party did not have the close in age exemption, which this bill does and made it quite acceptable. Will he admit that the recent Statistics Canada report indicates that the homicide rate last year was down 10%? Most important, where are the 2,500 new police officers that were promised in the throne speech last time and reiterated this time? Have they been hired? Where are they?

The member talked about giving tools to the police. What we need are more people in the law enforcement field actively working on crime, crime prevention, the prosecution of crime. Where are the resources? The Conservative government now has $14 billion to spend and has spent not a penny on that. Where are the resources?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in this debate today in the reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I want to address what was mentioned previously by one of the members opposite. The member wondered why our government has introduced 13 bills related to justice since we came to office. Perhaps it would be because for 13 years the Liberals neglected our justice system. For 13 years Canadians had to put up with a revolving door justice system, a soft on crime justice system and a system that put the victim somewhere at the very bottom on the list of priorities.

There remains a lot of work to be done.

The member mentioned some of the bills. Bill C-10 would have brought in mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes and was stalled in committee for 252 days. Bill C-35 was stalled in committee for 64 days and 211 days between the House and the Senate. That would have provided a reverse onus on people who commit gun crimes. Bill C-27 dealt with the worst of the worst: dangerous offenders. It was 105 days in committee and 246 days in the House. Bill C-22 was to protect the young from adult sexual predators. It was 365 days in the House and the Senate.

Those members wonder why we have to work so hard. They wonder why we have to do so much.

Because they left us so much work to be done.

The government's first Speech from the Throne set clear goals and we stayed on course to achieve them. The results are evident in the improved quality of life Canadians share and the higher confidence they have in government leadership.

The new Speech from the Throne, as we heard this week, offers Canadians the same clarity and framework to build on our achievements made to date. As the Speech from the Throne notes, the government is committed to continuing to build a better Canada. We are going to do this by strengthening Canada's sovereignty and place in the world, building a stronger federation, providing effective economic leadership, continuing to tackle crime, and improving our environment.

I am pleased to stand to speak in support of our government's unwavering commitment to a balanced justice agenda, to a law-abiding society, to tackling crime, and to building safer communities, streets and neighbourhoods. I might add that in the last election this is what our constituents from coast to coast elected us to do. It is exactly what they asked us to do.

As all of us in the House know, or should know, Canadians value a law-abiding society and safe communities. The rule of law and Canada's strong justice system are defining characteristics of what it is to be Canadian.

Canadians express strong support for the law. In fact, the vast majority of Canadians responding to a set of questions on the world values survey, repeated several times between 1990 and 2006, consistently expressed a strong willingness to abide by the law. Compared to citizens in most other countries in the world, Canadians have one of the highest levels of support for law-abiding behaviour.

We know where Canadians' values lie and we share those values. As parliamentarians, we must reflect these values in all that we do.

Canadians' perceptions of crime reflect their community experience and are supported by long term and local crime statistics and news. I am sure that every member in the House, from no matter which party, could bring forward stories from his or her own riding about how Canadians have been victimized or how someone has been a repeat offender but is allowed back into the community to re-victimize innocent Canadians. Every one of us gets those phone calls and emails. Every one of us can somehow relate to that experience.

Community leaders, victims' groups and law enforcement know their particular challenges and for once they have a government that is listening to them. Every province, territory and major city has street corners and neighbourhoods where people do not want to go any more, and if ordinary Canadians do not want to live there, then neither will they shop there or play there. Businesses will leave and schools will deteriorate.

There are too many of those street corners in Canada now. It is not consistent with Canadians' expectations and hopes for their communities. And they deserve better. All Canadians should be able to walk our streets and travel to and from our homes, schools and workplaces in safety.

This is why we are standing up to protect our communities and to work with Canadians to ensure a safer and more secure Canada.

Let me give the House an example of the kind of tragedy people are reading and talking about in my part of the world. The Nunn commission arose out of a tragedy in Nova Scotia. A 16 year old boy went from no prior record to a nine month crime spree involving 38 separate charges and 11 court appearances and ended when, two days after his release, high on drugs, he killed an innocent mother of three by speeding through a residential intersection.

Commissioner Nunn, who headed the inquiry into this tragedy, stated:

We should be able to halt the spiral [into crime], through prevention, through quick action, through creative thinking, through collaboration, through clear strategies, and through programs that address clearly identified needs.

I agree with Commissioner Nunn. We should be able to do better and to stop such behaviour before it gets out of control. Canadians expect and deserve no less.

These are the kinds of real life tragedies that our communities want us to address. They are the tragedies that I know my constituents expect us to address. They are the tragedies that motivate many of us on this side of the House to do something to protect innocent Canadians.

I know that Canadians across the country and in every community have similar stories of kids who are in serious trouble and causing serious harm, stories of binge drinking, using illicit drugs, committing auto theft, property crime and other crimes, all of which are elements of this tragedy I just mentioned.

Canadians are particularly concerned about crimes victimizing the most vulnerable community members, such as seniors and children. Families worry about how to keep their children and grandchildren from becoming victims of youth crime. They also worry about their young family members being drawn into the wrong crowd and beginning a life of crime.

In the face of such tragedies, Canadians look to us for a way forward, for a way out of despair for their youth and worry about the safety of their streets. They look to us for solutions. They look to us to restore their confidence in the justice system. That is what members on this side of the House intend to do. We intend to restore their confidence in the justice system.

I want to mention a few statistics.

We know that Canadians are not always confident that the criminal justice system is doing enough to protect them. That is a major theme. We have heard about this time and time again. They know that violent crime is too common. They dread hearing statistics like those released this week by Statistics Canada.

These are just a few statistics, but they tell us that four out of 10 victims of violent crime sustain injuries and that almost half of violent crimes occurred at private residences. By the way, private residences, and I am sure all members would agree, are where we should feel most safe. These are our homes. Half of violent crimes occurred at home.

The statistics also tell us that firearms were involved in 30% of homicides, 31% of attempted murders and 13% of robberies. We are all deeply saddened to hear that one out of every sixth victim of violent crime was a youth aged 12 to 17 years old. What is worse is that children under 12 years of age accounted for 23% of victims of sexual assaults and 5% of victims of violent crimes.

Of course we know that most crime is never reported. Statistics Canada's victimization survey found that only about 34% of criminal incidents committed in 2004 came to the attention of police. When we think about it, that is really an alarming statistic. For all the crime that is reported there is that much more out there that goes unreported.

There is a reason why. I hear this in my own riding and I am sure many of my colleagues do as well. Victims do not report crime because they think it will not make a difference, because our system will not treat it seriously. It is going to take a lot of work to change that impression, but we are a government that is set on changing it.

Twenty-eight per cent of Canadians, or one in four persons, reported being victimized in 2004. When I speak with my constituents and people across this country about crime, they often tell me that the justice system does more for offenders than for victims. Our government is listening to victims, increasing their voice in the justice system and helping them play a more active role. Addressing the needs of victims of crime in Canada is a shared responsibility between federal and provincial and territorial governments. It is an issue that we are already addressing in collaboration with these partners.

New programs and services are being implemented in the Department of Justice. The victim fund is being enhanced to provide more resources to provinces and territories to deliver services where they are needed.

We have appointed for the first time ever a Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Mr. Steve Sullivan, who is a well known advocate for victims. The ombudsman will ensure that the federal government lives up to its commitments and obligations to victims of crime. I think I hear the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe applauding the appointment of Mr. Sullivan. I thank him for that. Victims expect and deserve no less.

As mentioned, we remain committed to the goal of ensuring that all Canadians live in a safe and secure community. That is why we are introducing Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

The measures in this legislation represent a clear and sustained commitment on the part of our government to deal with the crimes that weigh heavily on the minds of Canadians as they go about their daily lives. Through this bill we will address the crime of the sexual exploitation of youth by adult predators. We also are tackling the crime that takes the highest toll in death and injury: impaired driving.

We know that Canadians want us to protect them from these crimes. We know also that to do so we need the support of all hon. members as well as Canadians and our partners in the provinces and territories, in law enforcement and in community groups.

I want to speak briefly about each component. Alcohol and drug impaired driving have devastating effects on victims, families and communities. Impaired drivers are responsible for thousands of fatalities and injuries each year, not to mention billions of dollars in property damage. With this legislation, impaired drivers will face tough punishment whatever intoxicant they choose. Police and prosecutors will have more tools to use to stop them.

Statistics Canada reports that there were an alarming 75,000 impaired driving incidents in 2006 and approximately 1,200 caused bodily harm or death. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, alcohol and/or drugs lead to more fatalities and injuries than any other single crime. The total financial and social costs are immeasurable and these impacts are felt in all of our communities. Research by Ontario's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health shows that Ontario drunk driver fatalities decreased when the driving licences of impaired drivers were suspended for 90 days.

So there are good approaches that the police and courts can use once there is a conviction for impaired driving. Part of our job as custodians of the Criminal Code is to help them get those convictions. Then more impaired drivers can be kept off our roads and streets.

One reason that impaired driving remains common is that drug impairment is now a frequent factor. Until now, police have not had the same tools available to them to stop those who drive while impaired from drugs as they did to address alcohol impaired driving. With this bill, now they will.

If passed, this legislation will strengthen the abilities of our police and prosecutors to investigate, prosecute and penalize those who endanger the safety of their fellow Canadians through alcohol or drug impaired driving.

The bill will also ensure that the punishment fits the crime and the damage it causes. Chronic offenders, or what are called hard core offenders, will be targeted with appropriate measures. These chronic offenders are disproportionately a cause of death and injury on our roads. All of these provisions will help police, crown prosecutors and the courts deal with these offenders.

Impaired driving is hurting so many families and communities that there are calls on Parliament to take action. For example, earlier this month MADD urged that these reforms be passed as soon as possible. We are certainly listening.

I know that many members here recognize the pressing need to ensure the safety of our communities by providing our police the tools necessary to address drug impaired driving. It is time they had those tools in their hands and it is time for us to act.

On the issue of the age of protection, this is something that is very timely and is in the news all the time. It strikes at the core of our society's values in protecting the most vulnerable, in protecting the young. For the same reason, parents, teachers, police and communities share this government's commitment to protecting young people from sexual predation. One of the most disturbing thoughts for any parent is the thought of a sexual predator preying on their child.

I should mention that members from this side of the House have been advocating for this for years and we welcome having a government that takes the protection of children seriously enough to take this step.

The tackling violent crime act reintroduces our proposals to raise the age at which young people can consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years to better protect youth against sexual exploitation by adult predators. In short, it will take away the ability of adult sexual predators to rely on claims that their young victims consented.

The Speech from the Throne provides Canadians with a clear and achievable blueprint for criminal law and policy reforms. It will provide Canadians with safer streets and healthier communities, communities and cities where people want to live and raise their families. Community by community we will build a better Canada.

I addressed some of the bills. There is a question as to why we have introduced this bill in a comprehensive format. We did it because there is a lot of work to be done and many of the measures that were introduced in the last Parliament that are substantively contained in this bill were delayed. They were delayed by the opposition. They were delayed in the House. They were delayed in committee.

In the day and age we live in members should know that many households in Canada have the Internet. Anyone can log on to the House of Commons website and read Hansard, as we all do. Any Canadian can read from the House of Commons committee transcripts. Canadians can judge for themselves whether there was a delay.

I sat in the justice committee while those bills were being debated. I listened to the victims of crime who came forward and begged us, as they have over the years. There are many colleagues on this side of the House who have been here a lot longer than I have been here.

In the past, the member from Calgary introduced legislation to raise the age of consent. At the time, the Liberal government did not want anything to do with it. The Liberals would not take action. Now they claim that we should not be proceeding in this format. We are going to proceed because Canadians have demanded that we act to protect children, that we get serious with repeat violent offenders, that we get serious with individuals who use firearms in the commission of a crime, and that we get serious regarding drug impaired driving, a scourge on our streets.

We are taking those concerns seriously. That is why we have brought Bill C-2 forward. I look forward to support from members on all sides of the House as we move forward to make our Canadian streets, communities and homes safer for all Canadians.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and engage in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Today I rise wearing a number of hats. I am here today as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada. I am here as a member of Parliament for Medicine Hat. Also, when we talk about issues of crime and law and order, I think it is appropriate to mention that I am here as a husband and a father, because this is an issue that I think we all feel very acutely and personally.

It is a pleasure, though, to talk today about what was in the Speech from the Throne, first of all wearing my hat as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. Yesterday and in the Speech from the Throne read by the Governor General on Tuesday, the Prime Minister talked about the need for the country to finally and forever get serious about the issue of tackling crime and making our communities safer. I would argue that in order to do this an “all of government” approach is required.

I think the Prime Minister has signalled his intention to do exactly that. It was not very long ago in Winnipeg that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health talked about a national anti-drug strategy designed to steer young people away from drugs but also to ensure that those people who are addicted get the help they need.

I feel that in my portfolio we do a number of things, and I am proud of this, that are designed especially to help young people so that they do not get drawn into a life of crime, which is an easy temptation in neighbourhoods that have broken down and where families are not stable. To that end, we provide a lot of programming aimed at helping youth and in fact targeting youth who in many cases are most likely to get drawn into that kind of situation. We do that through the youth employment strategy.

We have also launched a number of new and very important initiatives. I want to touch on them briefly. We have done things like announcing in the budget new labour market agreements which allow us to work with the provinces so that we reach out to all those individuals who are not eligible for employment insurance, such as people who have been on social assistance, and people who, for whatever reason, have not been able to get into the workforce and need a helping hand from the government. This is a very significant initiative of $3 billion over the next six years. We believe this is an important way to reach out to people who left school early, for instance, and who have struggled to find work, and to give them the helping hand they need to get employment and avoid that life.

We have also announced an apprenticeship incentive grant, which we think will help 100,000 people a year get into the trades. We have doubled the size of the aboriginal skills employment program, which benefits aboriginals around the country, but certainly in the north. I point out that unfortunately we have very high levels of crime on reserve in many parts of the country and certainly north of 60. We have very high levels of violent crime, levels at nine times the national average, for instance, in places like Nunavut.

We believe these initiatives are extraordinarily important in terms of preventing crime and reaching out to people who are vulnerable and ultimately giving them some hope. As the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, I note that these are some of the new initiatives we have undertaken.

I want to highlight one other initiative that I think is important. I see a member of the opposition across the way with whom I discussed this the other day. This initiative is the homelessness partnering strategy, which is an initiative that we put in place a number of months ago. It is designed to work at a community level, whereby we have communities leading the charge in identifying how we can best help people who find themselves homeless, knowing that the best way to start to give them the help they need is to put a roof over their heads first and, even before that, to prevent homelessness.

We think this can best be done at the community level. This new initiative brings together the federal, provincial and municipal governments and certainly the not for profit organizations that on the ground are the real experts. I am proud of that initiative. I am looking forward to working with local groups to achieve some of the ends I have just discussed.

If I may, I will now change hats and, as a member of Parliament from the riding of Medicine Hat, talk about an issue that is vitally important to Canadians. I come from a rural riding not unlike those of many members in the House. It is a riding chiefly peopled by a lot of middle class Canadians who enjoy relative prosperity, but of course there is a range of incomes in the riding. Nevertheless, despite the fact that these people seem to have a pretty good situation in general, when I tour the riding and go to town hall meetings, as I did this fall, many people raise the issue of crime. They are deeply concerned about crime.

I always argue that I do not think there is a people in the world fairer than Canadians; they are fair to a fault. They believe in fairness. By extension, I believe they also feel very strongly that there must be justice in the country. I think very often they believe that we do not have a very just justice system in Canada today. I want to talk about that for a moment.

As I mentioned, I think we live in a pretty good part of the world, but when one talks to people, whether they are young people who very often themselves are the victims of youth crime, or older people who very often are afraid of the chaos they sometimes find on the streets of their communities in the form of property crime or very aggressive panhandling, or people who are worried about the rapid rise in drug use and ultimately the crime that springs from that, they are concerned.

When people see stories like the one we saw recently regarding a young constable murdered in Hay River, or when they see some of the terrible gun violence on the streets of Toronto at Jane and Finch, they are extraordinarily concerned. They wonder why we do not do more to provide police officers and crown prosecutors with the tools they need in order to bring this problem under control.

I would be extraordinarily remiss if I did not point out that as an opposition member of Parliament I certainly spoke on these issues a number of times over the years, but there are others in this place who have done far more than I to draw attention to this. I think about a couple of members of Parliament on our side who have announced that they will soon be leaving this place. They have announced their retirements. I think of my friend from Calgary Northeast, who chairs the justice committee, and my friend, the member of Parliament for Wild Rose. They both have spoken eloquently in this place for years about the need to provide precisely those tools to crown prosecutors, the RCMP and local police forces so they can do their jobs.

Our government has made this a priority since the time we came to power. We have brought forward a number of measures to attempt to address some of the issues raised by my constituents. In fact we have introduced in this place something like 13 different pieces of legislation dealing with the issues of criminal justice. The sad fact, though, is that unfortunately at almost every turn these initiatives have been thwarted by the opposition.

I have to say that I am simply required by honesty to point out that it is not the people one might suspect who are thwarting a lot these initiatives. Sometimes we have run into problems with the Bloc and the NDP in trying to get these things through, but I can say that overwhelmingly it is the Liberals who are standing in the way of delivering measures that will make Canadians safer. Unfortunately, they do this in one of the most sneaky and underhanded ways possible.

On the one hand, they stand up in this place and talk about the need to address these problems. Then, when the cameras are off, they go into committee, gut individual pieces of legislation and try to send them, hollow, back to this place. If these pieces of legislation do pass, they go to the Senate where the Liberals sit on them to the point where of course ultimately those bills do not go forward.

As a result, we are in a new Parliament. Now we are asking for the authority of this place to go ahead and pursue some of this legislation aggressively so we can do exactly what we told Canadians we would do, which is to bring in legislation and provide tools to the police and crown prosecutors so we can make our streets safe again.

There is not a member of Parliament in this place who is not touched by this every day. I get very frustrated in regard to this issue, because I do not think there is any more important role we have than that of ensuring the protection of the citizens of our country.

The throne speech speaks about this country's commitment to peace, order and good government. I can tell the House that I am never more proud as a member of Parliament than when we do something to protect the most vulnerable in this country. That is exactly what we will be doing if we start to address some of the issues laid out in the Speech from the Throne.

I could best do that by talking a little about some of the pieces of legislation we brought forward in the past that were stymied by the opposition, in particular by the Liberals, and then talk about the need to bring them forward again in a new bill, in the tackling violent crime initiative the Prime Minister spoke of yesterday.

One of the most important pieces of legislation we offered in the last Parliament was Bill C-10. Bill C-10 would provide a mandatory minimum sentence, a mandatory minimum penalty, for firearms offences. In other words, that means there would be a minimum amount of time that someone would have to serve if found guilty of committing a crime with a firearm. It would mean that judges would no longer have the latitude of allowing someone to walk away without serving any time at all. I think that is common sense to the great majority of Canadians.

Sadly, that was never observed in many, many cases. The result is that people ultimately completely lose confidence in the justice system in this country. They start to throw up their hands and say, “What is the point?” After a while, people even quit reporting crimes.

Our Bill C-10 was designed to address some of those concerns. That bill was stalled in committee for 252 days. The bill died after a total of 414 calendar days before Parliament. In other words, we brought that bill forward, the public was with us, and the opposition spoke in favour of these types of initiatives during the election campaign, but when the rubber met the road, when members of the opposition had a chance to do something to protect Canadians, they stood in front of us and blocked our way.

They should be ashamed of that, because there is not a member across the way who does not have people coming into his or her office every week and complaining about the crime they read about, hear about or experience. They want something done, but it never happens because members of the opposition stand in the way. They stood in the way of it when they were in government for 13 years. Now it is time to start to deal with it.

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

What does this mean? What does the bill do? The bill ensures that persons accused of a gun crime have to show why they should not be kept in jail while awaiting trial. That would apply to people who are accused of using a firearm to commit certain offences, including attempted murder or discharging a firearm with a criminal intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery, and extortion.

When those people are accused of those crimes, we are simply asking that they demonstrate why they should be allowed bail. The onus would be reversed. If we think about what is at stake, I do not think that is too much to ask. What is at stake is the safety of ordinary men, women and children in this country who want nothing more than to go about their lives and pursue whatever it is that pleases them.

However, again we were stymied in our attempt to bring forward this common sense legislation that was supported by the Premier of Ontario and the mayor of Toronto, jurisdictions where all too often they see the results of laws that do not adequately address the problems of crime.

Another bill that we are anxious to bring forward is Bill C-27, which deals with the issue of dangerous offenders. This bill was stalled in committee for 105 days and it died after a total of 248 days before Parliament. The bill would create a presumption of dangerousness, so that when an individual has been convicted three or more times of violent sexual crimes, it would be up to that person to prove that he should not be regarded as a dangerous offender.

I honestly do not understand why the opposition would stand in the way of what is, in my mind, very common sense legislation. If we are committed to the ideal of peace, order and good government, we must back it up with legislation and resources. I would argue that the opposition has failed us on that count, irrespective of what it says during election campaigns when it is very popular to appear to be law and order parties.

Another bill that we brought forward dealt with the age of consent, the age of protection, which was tabled in Parliament on June 22, 2006. It was endorsed by the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance and the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation. It was stalled in committee for 175 days and died after a total of 365 days before Parliament. It sought to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16, which to me is such an obvious way to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, children, but again the opposition finds all kinds of odd and strange justifications for not pursuing this.

Where is the conviction that we have an obligation as legislators to protect vulnerable people in this society? This was, I would argue, a common sense initiative that again was thwarted by the opposition.

Finally, I want to talk about Bill C-32, drug impaired driving. It was introduced into the House on November 21, 2006 and referred to the justice committee in February 2007. Despite being endorsed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Bill C-32 died after 149 days in committee and the bill died after a total of 213 days before Parliament. The bill would have given the police the tools they need to better detect and investigate drug and alcohol impaired driving and penalties for impaired driving would have been increased. Persons suspected of being impaired by a drug would be required to submit to a roadside sobriety test and, if they failed, to provide a blood or urine sample to confirm whether they had consumed a drug.

I again would remind members how often we read in the newspapers, see on TV and have people come into our offices to talk about the terrible effects of the scourge of drug and alcohol impaired driving. However, when the opposition had an opportunity to help us deal with this and make Canadians safer, it failed us at every turn.

Today I am very proud to speak in favour of the initiatives outlined in the Speech from the Throne and to speak in favour of the justice minister, the public safety minister and the Prime Minister for their unwavering stance in favour of giving police and crown prosecutors more tools. I really do believe it is our duty and our obligation as legislators to ensure we do everything in our power to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed to the motion. I would like to understand it more. Is our colleague questioning the role of the government's priorities committee, the legislation committee, the Privy Council or, like all of us no doubt, the composition of Cabinet? I would like to know which decision-making centre he's attacking more.

Second, I believe I understood that, on our return in September, we will still have to discuss Bill C-27. We still have to debate five bills, if my count is correct. I'm not opposed to this motion, if we can do the work in two or three meetings. I'm never very much in favour of the idea of adding meetings because, obviously, there's a limit to what we can productively do in committee. Perhaps we'll have completed the consideration of Bill C-32. At least that will be done. I wouldn't be surprised if the government continued its strategy of striking other legislative committees.

Perhaps the mover could tell us what decision-making centre he's attacking. If, in his mind, that can be done in one or two meetings, I'm not opposed to the motion.

[John Muise]

The onus shift is only in relation to Bill C-27 in terms of the reverse onus. What I should also add about that is that at the end of the day the onus shifts, and there are two things that happen.

One, there isn't a legal aid fund in this country that isn't going to fund somebody without means for a dangerous offender hearing. That's something I want to clarify, because I think there was some concern that, well, these people are going to be on their own, hanging. Dangerous offender hearings will always have legal aid.

[John Muise]

First, I'd like to correct the record. I think I made it clear. From where we sit, the reverse onus provisions that are contemplated in Bill C-27 are absolutely appropriate in the context of the charter. As we worked to craft the Martin's Hope recommendation, we believed that the “three strikes and you're in”--in other words, one robbery, two robberies, three robberies--would not withstand charter scrutiny. So I just want to clarify that.

I think the number one reason, the overriding reason that attorneys general haven't proceeded with dangerous offender hearings is that when they looked at--particularly pre-1997, before the long-term offender provisions--the standard that was required to meet a determination of dangerous offender, they recognized that in a lot of cases they weren't likely going to meet it. And so they weigh their resources. They don't proceed with cases that have little likelihood of conviction. When they realize they're not likely to have somebody declared a dangerous offender, they don't proceed. I think that has probably been the number one overriding reason, particularly before 1997 when the long-term offender provisions came in.

[John Muise]

Well, I agree. I know it's expensive to incarcerate somebody. I think it might be $90,000 or $100,000 a year. I get that. That's a fraction of the overall government budget. That is a lot of money where I come from. I'm a penny-pincher. I buy cheap suits. But in the overall budget of this land, I think the criminal justice budget is reasonably insignificant as a percentage.

If we're going to spend money in the criminal justice system, I would suggest that if indeed this bill identifies more people that are potentially dangerous.... I know all about Peter Whitmore. I don't know his record to the same specifics as I do Mr. Callow's. But if, for instance, the next time he goes wrong, or let's say maybe if these current offences were flashed forward post-passage of this bill--if it indeed does pass--if it captured him, then that would be a good thing.

So if we were spending $90,000 or $100,000 more a year because we were incarcerating the likes of Peter Whitmore, I think that would be an appropriate expense in the context of the overall budget. I think it's an appropriate expense in the context of the overall budget of the criminal justice system. I would go back to what I said before, which is that we can't afford not to lock up dangerous offenders, particularly people like Paul Callow.

Mr. Whitmore's previous record is a matter of public record. The current allegations are just that. But this is the kind of offender that I believe, and the CCAA believes, would be captured underBill C-27. We know Mr. Callow would, but I'm not sure about Mr. Whitmore.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Muise.

I'm new to this committee, but I do want to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague Mr. Comartin and my colleague from the Bloc on the cost, particularly the cost of incarceration.

I'm assuming that you are aware of Peter Whitmore. Peter Whitmore, of course, is a serial repeat sexual offender. I recall having this debate in the House, when Bill C-27 was first introduced, and responding to a line of questioning--or a line of debate, I suppose--from one of the Bloc members, who was stating in his terms of debate that he was opposing this legislation because of the cost of incarceration.

I pointed out to my colleague the case of Peter Whitmore, who had offended several times before. His MO was to abduct small children, small boys, and sexually abuse them. He was out either on parole or for whatever reason and came to Saskatchewan—he's not a Saskatchewan resident—abducted two small boys, one from Saskatchewan and one from Manitoba, held them captive for three days, inflicted God knows what abuse upon them, before the RCM Police, acting on a tip, finally apprehended him in a small farm house just outside of Broadview.

I asked my colleague from the Bloc if he could please come out to my constituency and to my province and explain to the parents of those young children that the cost of incarceration was more than the security of their children was worth. I do not think—and I'm not trying to embarrass anyone here—that there is any cost too great to protect our children from that type of torture, that type of abuse.

I'd just like to get your comments on that, because there seems to be a prevalent theme here about costs.

[John Muise]

Well, I have to tell you that there are always people on the front lines coming up with recommendations for change.

Certainly, I'm a person who is involved in those issues. Whether right or wrong about the right way to go about it, I certainly keep my nose to the ground in terms of looking at all these things and trying to determine the best way to change the criminal justice system to better enhance public safety.

I first heard of the provision in Bill C-27 when the bill was released. I can tell you that when the round tables were done, the people at the round tables were saying that they thought a “three strikes and you're in” law was a good way to do it, but the CCAA couldn't write that recommendation because it understood that there would be problems in terms of section 1 of the charter.

What the CCAA did was suggest a recommendation--and it's included in the report--that a judge take special notice of repetitive violations of judicial orders, including long-term offender orders. We felt that would withstand the scrutiny of the charter.

But I have to say that I had never heard about reverse onus in terms of dangerous offender legislation until the legislation was introduced. I was quite impressed.

[John Muise, Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Patry, Mr. Dupuis, and members of the committee, for this opportunity to testify on this important public safety matter.

My name is John Muise. I'm the director of public safety at the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. For those of you I haven't met before, I'm a retired police officer, having just last year wrapped up 30 years as a police officer in the Toronto Police Service.

During the last six or seven of those years, I was a seconded member of Ontario's Office for Victims of Crime, an arm's-length advisory agency to the provincial government. We provide advice on public safety, criminal justice reform, and support for crime victims to a number of attorneys general and other members of cabinet.

The CCAA is a non-governmental charitable organization that has been in place since 1993. It has tried to raise awareness about the true cost of neglect through its support of the victims of child abuse. Based in Newmarket, Ontario, north of Toronto, the CCAA is powered by a committed group of staff and volunteers, providing support to 70 partner agencies. Whether it's fulfilling a child's dream wish, assisting crime victims, developing abuse prevention programs and resources, or advocating publicly for legislative change—that's what I do—CCAA is committed to ending abuse.

A few years ago, the CCAA received a government grant to go around the province of Ontario—where I first met them, actually—to conduct a review of round tables to get a sense of how we could better improve the criminal justice system in order to enhance public safety and protect children. When they went around the province, they spoke to 150 front-line criminal justice professionals, crime victims, abuse survivors, and other stakeholders.

From this, a report was completed. It was named the Martin's Hope report in memory of Martin Kruze, an adult survivor. He was an innocent child victim of the Maple Leaf Gardens sexual abuse scandal. In a courageous move, Martin publically disclosed the abuse he had suffered at the hands of his perpetrator. Convictions were subsequently registered for numerous child sex abuse offences, but just four days after one of the accused was sentenced to just two years less a day in a reformatory, Martin tragically took his own life. Although it was too late for Martin, the sentence of the offender was later increased to five years on appeal.

This proved to be the turning point for the CCAA. They did their review, and out of it came the Martin's Hope report, with 60 recommendations for change—39 directed at the federal government, and 21 at the Ontario provincial government. The report was released in November 2004 at Toronto police headquarters.

We welcome the opportunity to provide these submissions. As indicated in the preface, CCAA's Martin's Hope report makes 60 recommendations. Included in the report are recommendations with respect to dangerous offenders, long-term offenders, and section 810 orders, or recognizance to keep the peace.

Seven of the recommendations in our report have relevance, and we have reprinted them in a brief that I provided to the clerk, Mr. Dupuis, electronically last night. I suspect once it is translated, it will be made available to you. I'm relying on that brief today.

Three recommendations in particular have specific applicability to the amendment proposed in this bill; several others are ancillary, and we have included them in the brief.

Our recommendation 8-5 was that the federal government amend sections 810.2 and 810.1 of the Criminal Code to extend the duration of the order for up to five years, also providing for a process whereby the person required to enter into the recognizance can seek a court review of the need for continuing or varying the order on an annual basis.

We also made a recommendation 8-6 to include specific conditions in the recognizance orders, including residing at an approved location; where necessary, residing in a community facility; and complying with electronic monitoring.

One other recommendation that is specific to this bill is 8-9, and our recommendation was that the federal government amend section 753.1, the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code, to ensure that the court takes special notice of any pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender of violating conditions of a court order, including any kind of conditional release, including long-term offender releases, and for the court to take special notice where those violations resulted in direct victimization.

As you can see in that recommendation, the CCAA's proposed amendment would require judges to take special notice of any repetitive behaviour. We are heartened that an amendment of this kind with respect to violations of long-term orders is being proposed by certain parliamentarians, including members of this committee, and we would encourage this committee and its members to pursue an amendment of this nature either now, as part of this bill, or in the future.

We note that some provincial Attorneys General have called for an amendment of this nature, and additionally that the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice, in his testimony before this committee, indicated that his department is actively exploring this possibility.

Several of the participants, during our round table, had originally called for a “three strikes and you're in” amendment, whereby three serious crimes that resulted in serious time would result in an automatic dangerous offender designation. To be frank, we hadn't thought of a reverse onus provision as set out in Bill C-27, so the recommendation that I just read to you, as set out in 8-9, was what we felt was an appropriate fallback, consistent with section 1 of the charter. We hadn't considered the reverse onus provision as contemplated in this bill, so our compliments for the creativity displayed by this government and the Department of Justice in crafting this particular suggested amendment.

For the CCAA, amending the dangerous offender legislation is simple. We hope to expand the reach of the legislation to capture more dangerous offenders than are currently designated as such and, of course, to do it in a way that would pass constitutional muster.

It is our position that the section 1 charter justification for the amendment proposed in Bill C-27 could come from the Oakes case, Supreme Court of Canada, 1986--I don't think it's a case that's been referenced yet before this committee, I'm not sure--wherein the court stipulated that the measures used must be fair and not arbitrary, proportionate to the objective, and ultimately the least intrusive to accomplish the objective.

Let's look at those words in the context of Bill C-27.

Is it fair? Bill C-27 defines a narrow set of serious offences, primary designated offences, where the offender has been convicted twice already, sentenced to federal time on both occasions, and is now being sentenced for a third time for another primary designated offence. This is serious enough. Most, if not all, of these offenders will have long records that often include many more convictions. The CCAA believes that Bill C-27 in this regard passes the fairness test.

Is it proportionate? The goal of the legislation is to incarcerate indefinitely offenders who pose a danger to society. The bill, according to the justice department, would put approximately 25 more offenders per year into this process, possibly doubling the current 25 offenders estimated, more or less. Out of a population of approximately 30 million people, half of whom are men--and men are the people who are declared dangerous offenders--this is but a tiny sliver of the population. It is also a tiny sliver of the criminal population, and indeed, the inmate population. The primary designated offence list ensures that no pizza slice thief will get caught up in this measure.

Is it arbitrary, and does it serve the principle of least restrictive intrusive measure? If the reverse onus provision led to automatic dangerous offender status, much like a “three strikes and you're in” law, then one might be able to make that case. In our opinion, the safeguard in Bill C-27 is the fact that subclause 3(2) treats this proposed amendment the same way as the existing dangerous offender legislation, wherein the onus is placed on the judge to decide if the offender could be managed in, for instance, a long-term offender setting. Therefore, I believe the principle as set out in the Johnson case, that the judge must consider less restrictive measures if appropriate, applies to this amendment.

In addition, the Mack case confirms that proof beyond a reasonable doubt only applies with respect to the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused, and in the Lyons case, the right to be presumed innocent doesn't apply with regard to dangerous offender hearings. These men are, after all, already guilty.

Who are these offenders who might be captured? For the most part, these offenders will have numerous and varied convictions, likely over a long number of years, with the large majority of them being sex offenders.

A recent case that has been in the news, and for which much of his criminal history is a matter of public record, is the Paul Douglas Callow case. Mr. Callow is known also as the balcony rapist.

Mr. Callow has a record dating back to the early 1970s that includes a number of convictions for property and violent crimes, including break and enter and assault. Mr. Callow also has a conviction for loitering by night, or peeping.

He has a rape conviction, which as most of you know is a historic conviction for sexual assault involving penetration. It would be included as a primary designated offence—so that's number one—for which he was sentenced to four years in prison. It is an offence for which he was subsequently recommitted as a mandatory supervision parole violator, now known as statutory release.

Finally, he was sentenced in 1987 for five counts of sexual assault with a weapon, which is primary designated offence applicable, and he received a total of 20 years in prison for those five convictions. In light of the danger posed, he was held until he had served every last day of his sentence, with release when he reached warrant expiry in February of this year. Since his release, he has been on a section 810.2 order, and very much in the news.

There are more than just a few people wondering why this offender has not already been declared a dangerous offender, but he hasn't been. The next time he commits another sexual assault, which would be an applicable primary designated offence, the reverse onus provision of Bill C-27 in his particular case would kick in.

I think that's a good thing. The CCAA believes this would be entirely appropriate. We believe Mr. Callow is fairly typical of the kind of offender who would be captured by this legislation.

What about the provision regarding recognizance to keep the peace of Bill C-27? As was detailed earlier in my presentation, CCAA has called for both an extension of the time period and for Parliament to identify in statute the kinds of conditions that are appropriate for use in crafting these orders. Our experience with the kinds of offenders placed on these orders, particularly sex offenders and child sex abuse offenders, led us originally to recommend in our Martin's Hope report a period of five years, rather than the two years that was proposed, with the opportunity for the subject of the order to return and have the order shortened or changed if he no longer posed a danger to the community or if the danger lessened. In addition, we suggested a number of specific conditions to include in the statute, with electronic monitoring as one of those.

We are very satisfied with the specificity of the list of conditions as proposed and see no requirement for change. When one considers that these orders are for the most part reserved for offenders like Paul Callow—and wouldn't it be nice if he had an electronic monitoring bracelet on—including a broader range of conditions, particularly electronic monitoring, could, like the dangerous offender portion of this bill, have a positive impact on public safety.

It is our understanding that significant support exists for this section of Bill C-27 at this committee and amongst parliamentarians. For that reason, we will not dwell on its legislative or constitutional validity.

In conclusion, the CCAA supports Bill C-27 as written. We believe it is reasonable and proportionate and will enhance public safety. As we have previously recommended, a breach of a judicial order, including long-term offender orders, should be a factor for which a judge should take special notice in determining whether to declare someone a dangerous offender.

We certainly welcome the conversation that has been had at this committee and elsewhere about making that a potential trigger to bring somebody back before a judge to be declared a dangerous offender. We are heartened that you share that view. Again, we would encourage you, either as a complementary addition to this bill, or in a future bill, to consider this sort of amendment, but not as a replacement for the section as written.

As for the length of the so-called section 810 orders, we would urge you to consider a five-year term, up from the two currently proposed.

Either way, it is the position of the CCAA that Bill C-27 should pass, and although we welcome amendments that strengthen the bill, they shouldn't slow its passage or compromise its integrity by inserting the discussed triggering amendment to replace the current reverse onus amendment.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with the business of supply.

Tomorrow we hope to conclude third reading of Bill C-52. In answer to the question on priorities, I would point out that Bill C-52, the budget implement bill, is the number one priority of this government. We can talk about other priorities after we see an indication that it will be heading for royal assent. If we do not have it, it will result in the loss of $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year end measures which include: $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for the provinces; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for Canada Health Infoway; $200 million for protection of endangered species; $30 million for the Great Bear rain forest; $600 million for labour market agreements for the provinces; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $100 million in aid for Afghanistan; $100 million to Genome Canada; and so on. It is a long list of important priorities financing that will be lost if the bill is not passed by the end of this session in June. That is obviously our number one priority.

Next week will be getting things done for all of us week when we consider a number of bills that are in their final stages of the legislative process.

The following bills will be placed under Government Orders for debate: Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which the Senate reported with amendments and which is now back before the House to receive the approval of the members, and Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

We are awaiting the Senate's report with amendments on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act and Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, will probably be passed by the House at third reading.

Discussions have taken place with the opposition parties, and there may be consent to fast-track some or all of the following bills: Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie), Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act and Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

There is also a possibility of quick passage of a new bill entitled “An act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trademarks Act”, which appears on today's notice paper.

There are a number of other bills I am still hoping we could get included in getting things done for all of us week, provided that they get reported back from committee, in particular, Bill C-6 aeronautics; Bill C-27 dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 impaired driving; and Bill C-44, the bill to grant first nations people the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. First nations people expect the House to get things done for them as well, so I urge the aboriginal affairs committee to stop delaying Bill C-44 and report it back to the House early next week. It is a priority for this government.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Okay. Given that, are you in a position to comment on the impact...? You've just said that the research shows clearly that dangerous offenders who have been designated as such are clearly a high risk and are a completely different population, in terms of characteristics, from long-term offenders, and then again from the general population within the correctional system.

In that case, is the reverse onus that is created under Bill C-27...? It states that if the prosecutor makes an application for an expert assessment, and an order is given, then once the assessment report is filed, if the Crown applies for a dangerous offender hearing and designation, the offender is automatically presumed to be a dangerous offender. And the court shall deem that offender to be a dangerous offender unless the offender shows, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she is not a dangerous offender.

Are you in a position to say that this would then create a danger that we would have offenders who normally, under the current system, would be, for instance, designated long-term offenders, but because they don't have the resources or whatever, they will not necessarily be in a position to overturn the presumption that they are dangerous offenders? Therefore, they would have a designation that is in fact an incorrect designation.

[David Griffin]

There are two benefits of those amendments. First is the extension, obviously, the greater time period. I guess you could always debate what an appropriate period of time is or how long it would be, and it may depend on individual cases, but one would assume that if somebody has gone through that period of two years after the end of their warrant expires, it would become more difficult to prove that there's a need to continue that indefinitely. The fact that the person has been back in the community for two years seems like a reasonable period of time.

Also, there is expanding the different conditions that could be placed on some of these offenders when they're put back in the community. We were pleased to see those expanded in Bill C-27 as well.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much for your explanation. I have a couple of other questions, if I still have time in my seven minutes. Goodness, I have four minutes left.

If Bill C-27 were adopted entirely now with no amendments, the prosecution would still have no obligation to apply for a remand and assessment order. If it's ordered by the judge, when the assessment order is filed, depending on the conclusions drawn within that assessment report, it provides the prosecutor with the possibility of applying for a dangerous offender hearing.

Under the current system, once an application for a dangerous offender hearing has been filed and the assessment has already taken place, if the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the statutory criteria for declaring the offender a dangerous offender have been met beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge must look to see whether or not the threat and risk the dangerous offender poses to the community can be controlled within the community.

I've also spoken with prosecutors, and they've basically said that as a result of R. v. Johnson, the courts are more and more requiring the prosecution to prove a negative so the individual is not declared a long-term offender: the risk and control cannot be controlled in the community for X, Y, and Z reasons. So Liberals are looking at the possibility of bringing an amendment that would place the burden on the offender to prove that he can be controlled in the community, and therefore the long-term offender designation is appropriate.

We believe that would not be a problem constitutionally, because the criteria for designating the person as a dangerous offender has already been proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. We believe that would be more effective than the amendment the government is bringing, which says neither party bears a burden in the matter.

If it's not something that the CPA has had an opportunity to look at, I would appreciate your looking at it and getting back to us.

[Tony Cannavino, President, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if this is the last meeting before the break or whether we're going to have more during June and July. We hope you have your break.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear before the Legislative Committee on Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

The CPA is the national voice for 56,000 police personnel serving across Canada. Through our 170 member associations, CPA membership includes police personnel serving in police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages, as well as those working in our largest municipal cities, provincial police services, members of the RCMP, railway police, and first nations police associations.

Our goal is to work with elected officials from all parties to bring about meaningful reforms to enhance the safety and security of all Canadians, including those sworn to protect our communities.

For over a decade police associations have been advocating reforms to our justice system in Canada. In particular, we have called for changes to bolster the sentencing, detention, and parole of violent offenders.

The Canadian Police Association has been urging governments to bring an end to Canada's revolving-door justice system. Chronic and violent offenders rotate in and out of the correctional and judicial systems, creating a sense of frustration among police personnel, fostering uncertainty and fear in our communities, and putting a significant strain on costs and resources for the correctional and judicial system. We welcome the changes introduced in Bill C-27 to strengthen provisions dealing with dangerous and long-term violent offenders and sexual predators.

Bill C-27 makes the following amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. First, an offender convicted of a third violent or sexual offence, a primary designated offence for which it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of two years or more, is presumed to be a dangerous offender and may therefore be subject to incarceration for as long as the offender presents an unacceptable risk to society. A recognizance to keep the peace may be ordered for a period that does not exceed two years in the case of a defendant who has previously been convicted of a violent or sexual offence. The conditions of a recognizance to keep the peace in relation to a violent or sexual offence are broadened to include participation in a treatment program, wearing an electronic monitoring device, or requiring the defendant to observe a curfew.

Currently, applications for Dangerous Offender designation are infrequent, as Crown Attorneys perceive the thresholds and onus to be high. A dangerous offender designation automatically provides for an indeterminate prison sentence in a penitentiary. While not eligible for statutory release, a dangerous offender will be eligible for day parole after four years' imprisonment and for full parole after seven years.

After that time, the Parole Board must reassess the offender's file every two years. Dangerous offenders who are paroled are subject to parole for the rest of their lives. If the Parole Board determines that they continue to present an unacceptable risk for society, they could stay in prison for life.

Bill C-27 does not alter the sentencing and parole provisions. An offender may appeal the dangerous offender designation.

In the interest of time, I will refrain from explaining the process of a dangerous offender application since it is well outlined in the Library of Parliament's legislative summary and in our brief. However, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered several decisions that uphold the dangerous offender applications process.

In Mack in 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only where the issue is the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In Lyons in 1987, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada was of the opinion that the right to be presumed innocent did not apply in the context of a dangerous offender application.

In Lyons, the Supreme Court of Canada held that imprisonment for an indefinite period was not cruel and unusual treatment.

In Lyons, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the rules governing dangerous offenders did not violate section 9 of the charter, protection against arbitrary detention or imprisonment.

The Supreme Court of Canada held in Johnson in 2003 that before considering finding that an offender is a dangerous offender, the judge must consider whether the risk presented by the offender can be adequately controlled in the community and thus whether it would be appropriate to apply the long-term offender rules. The court said the imposition of an indeterminate sentence is justifiable only insofar as it actually serves the objective of protecting society.

Bill C-27 does not alter this situation. The court retains discretion not to make a dangerous offender finding in a case where another sentence would adequately protect the public and impose a less severe sentence, such as a long-term offender finding, or impose a sentence for the underlying offence as described in subclause 3(2) of the bill.

The CPA would, however, support an amendment to this provision that would require the onus to rest with the accused to establish that the public would be adequately protected by either a finding that the offender is a long-term offender, or a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted. We submit this is consistent with the reverse onus for the dangerous offender designation for repeat offenders.

The CPA supports Bill C-27, with the proposed amendments, as a reasonable and proportionate approach to repeat violent offenders who present a significant threat to reoffend.

One, the dangerous offender amendments contained in Bill C-27 deal specifically with offenders who have already been convicted of a number of serious offences.

Two, in order to protect society from violent repeat offenders, it is necessary to impose a reasonable limit on the offenders' rights and freedoms.

Three, Bill C-27 provides protective measures, as previously mentioned. Bill C-27 does not alter the regime that applies to long-term offenders other than with respect to the assessment process. Bill C-27 amends the assessment process for both dangerous and long-term offender consideration.

The CPA would support an amendment to Bill C-27 that would address breach of long-term offender supervision orders. Currently a conviction for the criminal offence of a breach of a long-term offender supervision order, punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment, cannot lead to a dangerous offender application by the crown prosecutor. The CPA would support the inclusion of the criminal offence of breach of a long-term offender supervision order in the list of designated criminal offences found under clause 1 of Bill C-27 definitions. If adopted, this would ensure that a long-term offender who is found guilty of breaching his supervision order could become subject to an application for a dangerous offender hearing.

The CPA has long been on record concerning the problem of the release of high-risk offenders in the community at the time of warrant expiry. The high-profile release of Karla Homolka and Clermont Bégin brought significant public attention to this issue.

Current mechanisms are inadequate to adequately address the protection of the public from persons who are identified to pose a significant threat to society, who are about to complete their full sentence without a successful parole period, and who were not designated as a dangerous offender at the time the sentence was imposed. While the CPA would support the creation of a process that would enable such a designation to be reconsidered prior to warrant expiry, this poses significant charter concerns.

Recognizances to keep the peace have been utilized, to some extent, to maintain supervision and preventive restrictions on individuals who are identified as presenting such a risk.

Bill C-27 deals only with those recognizances that deal with certain sexual offences in respect of a person under the age of 14 and with serious personal injury offences.

Bill C-27 extends the maximum period of recognizance for these offences from 12 months to two years, and it expands the scope of conditions that may be imposed by a judge in these cases. The CPA supports the proposed amendment set out in Bill C-27 with respect to recognizance supervision.

In conclusion, Bill C-27 is a proportionate and justifiable measure to protect Canadians from repeat violent offenders and safeguard communities. The Canadian Police Association supports the bill and urges Parliament to amend and pass this bill without delay. The CPA also supports the dangerous offender proposals contained in Bill C-27, with the proposed amendments, as a reasonable and proportionate approach to repeat violent offenders who present a significant threat to re-offend. The CPA would support an amendment that would require the onus to rest with the accused to establish that the public would be adequately protected by either a finding that the offender is a long-term offender or a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted. The CPA would support the inclusion of the criminal offence of breach of a long-term offender supervision order in the list of designated criminal offences found under Clause 1 of Bill C-27. The CPA also supports the proposed amendments set out in Bill C-27 to extend the maximum period for a recognizance for these offences from 12 months to two years, and expand the scope of conditions that may be imposed by a judge in these cases.

Thank you very much.

[Lorne Goldstein]

As a practitioner, not a researcher, I can't speak across the board or for different communities. I can only tell you what I've read in the case law and with regard to the practice I have.

I can indicate from case law—and I'm certainly referring now to R. v. Neve as one of the cases that jumps to mind—that when we're looking at aboriginal offenders and other things and young women caught up in the system, Bill C-27 and the reversal of the onus would have a wholly detrimental effect on anyone who was in any way classically marginalized at the beginning of the process. Aboriginals, people of any kind of ethnicity, people who are not the linguistic majority in their communities, and anyone who's marginalized at the beginning is going to find themselves hopelessly lost when the onus is placed on them and they are acting and not reacting, with the balance of their lives as the stakes in the game.

I'm happy to send you any material I can find in respect to that first part.

[Lorne Goldstein]

The honourable member says he trusts the crown discretion and goes on to talk about applications falling through the cracks. I fail to see where Bill C-27 advances us in that regard. He further states that applications would look the same. If the applications are going to look the same and be the same, then why table this aspect of Bill C-27 at all?

If they're going to be the same, let's exist with the system that is presently working. If the honourable member is worried about applications falling through the cracks, he can speak to the crown attorneys about creating a policy. But he need not table legislation in Canada's Parliament to make sure they're doing their job.

[Lorne Goldstein]

Thank you.

I trust the discretion of the crown, insofar as it has been exercised for literally hundreds of years, to engage in a process that is then reviewed by a judge and to which there is an adversary, the defence bar. I cannot say the same in a situation that has never risen to date, which is the power to engage in a process that reverses everything onto the defence bar. In other words, it's not the discretion of the crown to commence an application that he knows will tax his office, the police, and the court, to prove what they have to prove. If Bill C-27 passes, the discretion will be whether or not to task me, the accused, with all of that.

It's not the same discretion by any means, because one has the price of the effort as a balance, and under Bill C-27 it's whether or not to engage in the process. That latter discretion is much too broad, in my respectful submission.

[Lorne Goldstein]

I believe you are, yes. If the crown is seeking a dangerous offender designation in the first instance, or even contemplating one, the number of times that that crown needs to exercise his or her discretion is of no comfort. Whether this is the first or second time, before or after the assessment, prior to the application—

I see nothing in Bill C-27 requiring a threshold. The way the system exists now—and I wanted to say this at the very beginning, when the first question was posed—it works. Cases are identified, crowns make applications, judges sit in judgment, and people who are dangerous are designated dangerous offenders. Those who fall below that threshold are designated long-term offenders.

I'm not happy to say, but in the cases I've done, I've lost in some instances. Why? Because there was evidence, and I had recommended against an appeal. Why? Because it was appropriate.

So the tinkering that Bill C-27 seeks to do serves no purpose, as far as I'm concerned, from a legal perspective. From a political perspective—and I don't want to comment on the political perspective—I can see where it might have some efficacy. But from a legal perspective, it does nothing except create potential for charter scrutiny, and create an almost unbearable burden on the defence. This will deplete the legal aid resources and quite probably create a very invasive situation to prior victims and other people in the community who will be touched by such a broad defence onus.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes. This follows the question that my colleague Mr. Murphy asked.

As it stands right now, the crown has the discretion—and we're very concerned about the whole issue of the reversal of presumption—to make an application for remand and assessment. Once the assessment report is filed, and copies given to both the crown and the offender's counsel, the crown then has to make an application for a dangerous offender hearing.

So in the case you're talking about, I don't believe that even if the crown exercised his or her discretion to apply for the assessment, it would appear with the convictions that you're using. The assessment report would come back and not support that the offender is a dangerous offender, given the examples that you gave.

At that point, the crown would have to exercise his or her discretion again to file the second application of a dangerous offender. I'm talking about if Bill C-27 becomes law.

So you might want to rethink your example, because it's not automatic. Even with my concern about the reverse presumption, I still want to have solid fact. I don't think your example is a good one, because there's no mandatory assessment on third conviction.

Once the assessment happens, if the crown exercises his or her discretion to make an application for remand and assessment, and the judge believes there are reasonable grounds that the offender might be a dangerous offender, the judge orders the remand and the assessment. Once the report comes in, the crown again has to exercise his or her discretion to apply for an application.

Am I correct?

[Professor Ian Lee, Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me here to speak today and to testify today.

I just want to bring to your attention that I'm not a lawyer; I'm not trained as a lawyer. I'm a professor at Carleton University in the business school. However, I did my doctorate in political science in Canadian public policy and my minor field was political philosophy. So I'm much more interested in the logic of the public policy and the underlying values expressed in that. That's the level at which I am focusing.

What I'm presenting today is based on an article that's being published August 1, in just over a month. It's the annual edition of How Ottawa Spends, published through McGill-Queen's University Press. My article is entitled “Righting Wrongs: Tory Reforms to Crime and Punishment—Locking Them Up Without Losing the Key?” The article really focuses on Bill C-9, Bill C-10, and Bill C-27.

One of the premises of the article is that Bill C-27 contemplates incapacitating violators of human rights—that is, repeat, violent, dangerous offenders—because I make the assumption in the article, following the late Dean Lederman from Queen's Law School, that criminal justice concerns human rights and that, as in his famous phrase, the most fundamental human right is the right to be left alone in peace. So violence against a human being is a violation against their human rights. That's the premise that drives through the entire article.

I have some background information in front of you. Some of it you'll be familiar with. I have the principles of sentencing reproduced from the Canadian Sentencing Commission because I think it's clear that the second-last, the incapacitation, is the basis for Bill C-27. I testified last fall before the justice committee, and there was some debate about the amount government spends on prisons, so I put that in the slide, showing that the government spends a very small amount—it's about $1.7 billion annually. I also have the crime funnel there, just as background, and we can talk about that later.

However, one thing I did want to bring out before I talk about the California example as a case study—essentially three strikes and you're out—is I did provide data from Statistics Canada and I called it “the industry of crime”. I have the data there, showing that—this is 2003 data—the annual data cost of crime is about $80 billion and the victims carry the burden of about 65%, so about two-thirds. This is something that is quite serious and people don't always focus on that.

I also have the stats, again from Statistics Canada—and I'll come back to this—showing that the majority of victims of violent crime are under 30 years old, while most of the people who analyze crime, such as academics, criminologists, and parliamentarians who pass the laws, tend to be middle-aged, affluent, middle-class people who aren't bearing the price. They have the lowest levels of victimization. There's something that I want to bring up later on that issue.

I have some stats in there about the average offence, the average length of sentence, and the changing profile of the federal offender. Of all offenders now in a federal penitentiary, 75% are there for violent crimes. I noticed that in the previous debate you were debating what the number of annual designations were under dangerous offender, and I have the chart on slide 18 showing that it was a low of eight in the last 20 years, and peaking at 29 in 2001. So there's a very small number of people designated under the dangerous offenders. Of course I have the overall incident rate of violent crime per 100,000.

I'm very aware of the fact that I only have a few minutes, so I just want to pick up on a couple of things dealing with rehabilitation and recidivism and then deal with California, and then I guess we'll go to questions.

I do have some interesting data from the Correctional Service Canada showing the rehabilitation metrics for the last five years, and these are the number of offenders in our federal prisons who are completing their rehabilitation programs. It's only about 60%, which means four out of ten—40%, almost half—of all offenders are not even completing their rehabilitation programs. I did discuss this more extensively in the article, because it points to some serious problems. In terms of the recidivism, my colleague here suggested that there aren't stats. CSC, in the 2005 report, estimated that 36% of all federal offenders will be convicted with a new crime within two years of being released from a federal penitentiary. So that's there.

I'll just finish up now on California, because I know this subject has been debated in the media. I think your committee has discussed it, and I would like to suggest to you that there's an enormous amount of misinformation and disinformation about the California three-strikes laws.

I think I read that one member of Parliament said someone could go to jail for stealing pizza three times in California. This is false. This is absolutely false. Jennifer Walsh was a district attorney in California, in Los Angeles. She went back to school, to Claremont College, got her PhD, and wrote her thesis on this. She has the data in there. There's an amazing set of empirical data.

There are two things about the California law. Two of the strikes must be for a designated serious felony, a violent act. The third crime that can trigger the life sentence can be any felony, but she actually wrote an article called “In the Furtherance of Justice”, because the California law has a sentence saying that the judge or the DA cannot count the third offence if it was not a violent offence.

As it turns out, in her thesis she found that 98% of all the people being convicted under California's three-strikes law are in fact going to jail for really violent, vicious acts—murder, attempted murder, rape, and so forth. They are not going to prison for life for stealing bubble gum. That's a great urban myth in our country. It feeds into, I suppose, the anti-Americanism in Canada that I talk about in my classes.

So I really want to put that on the table, into the debate today. You have the data from California showing the impact of ten years of three-strikes. Regarding violent crime only, it collapsed; it went down by half. This wasn't a mistake. This has been studied over and over. Jennifer Walsh has done, I think, the most empirical research on that. So the data is there.

Finally, I just want to conclude, because I'm probably going to be out of time any minute. I'm arguing, and I argued in my article in “How Ottawa Spends”, that if Bill C-27 passes, it will incarcerate the worst human rights violators in our country, those who violate the human rights of the most vulnerable members of our society. Those are defined by Statistics Canada as people who are young, female, and with low income. If we're not concerned about that, then maybe this bill isn't such an important bill. But if we are concerned with the rights of the most vulnerable members of our society, it's something we have to take heed of.

I just want to close by reminding everyone that the late Prime Minister Trudeau, who was a political scientist, by the way, did say that societies are judged by the way they treat their most vulnerable members. When we don't incarcerate these violent people who are preying on young, female, low-income, vulnerable people, we are not looking after those people.

Thank you.

[Lorne Goldstein, Barrister, Webber Schroeder, As an Individual]

First off, if I may, I thank the chairman of the committee for the opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation.

The brief that's before this committee was actually prepared as an article for the Criminal Lawyers' Association, to be published in their newsletter. Please accept the article in that light.

Permit me to set out the limits of the evidence I'll be giving today. I did not come prepared to speak at large to the constitutionality of this piece of legislation, although I would certainly be happy to return to do so.

As I said in the article, and as I'd happily expand on if you have any questions, it's my opinion that this provision, these amendments to the Criminal Code, are subject to significant frailties, perhaps not under section 11 of the charter, but under sections 7 and 12. I note of course that most of the comments from the preceding witness refer to the presumption of innocence. That of course is enshrined in section 11. My greater concerns are with respect to sections 7 and 12, but I did not come prepared today to expand on that at large with an analysis of Lyons and Johnson, etc.

Today, what I hope to speak to are the practical applications in respect of this legislation. The chill effect is the way I've characterized it in the paper, and I'll be talking about that very briefly and then I hope to answer all of your questions as completely as possible.

I know of course that this committee is well aware of the history of this legislation, dating back to 1947, but of course there's preceding legislation dating back to the previous century in other countries. We have a great deal of experience, then, with respect to this type of preventative detention legislation.

As I say, dangerous offender legislation is considered to be one of the very few pieces of law that provide for preventative detention. That is to say, not detention or incarceration for wrongs done, but detention and incarceration for wrongs that may be done, wrongs that are predicted to be done. The sentencing provisions allow for incarceration, detention for wrongs done. But only this piece of legislation—only part XXIV and the bail provisions—contemplate putting a person in jail for things that we believe they may do. That concept, the concept of putting someone in jail for something that they may or may not do at some point in the future, is reprehensible to a fair-minded society. It is entirely un-Canadian. It is, however, necessary in certain circumstances.

In some circumstances, the nature of the individual justifies the concept of preventative detention. The most common of this, indeed, contemplated in every single charged individual, is the concept of bail. Under section 515 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a person can be detained in jail pending the disposition of their case. This is preventative, since it detains not as punishment nor as correction, but it incarcerates to prevent flight or the commission of a further offence, or in the tertiary ground, if the offence is such that the conscience of the community requires it.

There should be no comfort for this committee in the fact that the bail provisions permit preventative detention. You see, in the bail situation, the period is necessarily finite. The passage of time is governed by section 11 of the charter, which makes both reasonable bail a constitutional right and the reasonable time for trial, so we know that the bail is coming to an end. At the end of this case, the person will either be released back into the community as acquitted or sentenced. This is not the case for part XXIV of the Criminal Code. Indeed, we look further and we see that where the bail is such that the person has been incarcerated, there is a detention order and the trial is delayed, there's an entirely separate section dealing with a detention review. I note, for your consideration, that the detention review is a crown onus, even if the person is incarcerated and a detention order is made by a justice of the peace or a judge, for the detention review the onus rests on the crown, even in the situations where the onus had earlier rested on the accused. That is how seriously we take the concept of preventative detention.

Part XXIV is not preventative detention as a form of punishment; it is a preventative detention for unknown acts, things that we think the person will do.

It's very important to look behind the legislation at the way in which these dangerous offender hearings occur. People from the National Parole Board testify; people from Correctional Services Canada testify; psychiatrists and psychologists testify. These medical experts do so with a view towards predicting the recidivism of the individual, and we always get into this wonderful game: What is the statistical probability of this person recidivating? If they do recidivate, will it be violent or non-violent? If it is violent, what scale will it be on? Is it the simple push, or is it the homicide that everyone fears? When will this person recidivate? Within the seven years, within the fifteen years, within the lifespan of that person? None of these answers are available by any of the psychiatrists, by any of the CSC or National Parole Board personnel. None of these answers are available at all. The preventative detention under part XXIV is for something the person may do, or may not do, at some future point.

What Bill C-27 seeks to do is strip the criteria that I've just set out for you from the process. If Bill C-27 passes, and the person has these preceding offences, and the onus shifts on him, now the National Parole Board does not testify; Correctional Services does not testify; a psychiatrist may or may not testify. The judge is left with nothing but this presumption.

How does the judge then satisfy himself that this person is a risk? Is he a risk because of the legislation? Has the legislation taken the place of the doctors who testify and the statisticians who can explain the patterns of behaviour? The criteria are what have saved part XXIV from charter scrutiny in the past, because the person has the right to respond; the person has the right to full disclosure; the person has the right to his own psychiatrist; the person has the right, not so much to the presumption of innocence—because he's been convicted—but to a fair trial proceeding. Bill C-27 takes away the fair trial proceeding.

As I indicated earlier, I'd be happy to talk about section 7 and the fair trial rights, cruel and unusual punishment, but for today I would turn to part three of the article that I provided to the committee, which is what I've titled “The chill effect”. This is going to be more of a pragmatic approach to what happens when you're in a dangerous offender proceeding.

I've had the privilege of appearing for the defence either as lead counsel or co-counsel in ten of these proceedings. I've met with, dealt with, all of the experts who were called in these matters, both by the crown and by the defence, and of course with the offenders themselves. I've had the opportunity, then, to look at Bill C-27 from the perspective of how this is going to impact upon my job. While I realize that the crown attorneys have been consulted, and the Department of Justice has done its analysis, the people who are actively engaged in defending these applications do not seem to have been mentioned in any of the honourable minister's recitations of those with whom he's consulted.

If the onus is reversed, it suddenly becomes my application. One of the things that I'm going to set out for you today—and take your questions on, of course—is how I would go about executing my obligation on what would become my application to try to keep my client out of jail for the rest of his natural life.

I present for you a hypothetical situation at the second paragraph. I chose a very interesting, I hope, charge, and that's a sexual assault. Unlike in the United States, where offences are graded—you have first- and second-degree assault, first- and second-degree battery, etc.—in Canada we've chosen to characterize offences more broadly. So a sexual assault, for instance, under section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada could be anything from a simple touching—colloquially referred to as groping, if you will—to what had been in the old code referred to as a rape. That's how broad section 271 is.

In the example that I've given, of a sexual assault trial, which might have been a plea—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

It's meeting number 3 of the legislative committee on Bill C-27.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference for Thursday April 5, 2007, the committee is considering Bill C-27, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

Today we have, as individual, Mr. Lorne Goldstein,

who is a barrister from Webber Schroeder, and Mr. Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University. Welcome, both of you.

We'll start with Mr. Goldstein, please.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Jennings.

Of course we look very carefully at the constitutionality of all the provisions of Bill C-27. As I indicated in my opening remarks with respect to the change of presumption, it's very narrow in the sense that it's only at that third conviction. It's after the individual has already been found guilty. As I indicated to you, the indication we have from the Supreme Court of Canada is that, among other charter protections, the presumption of innocence is not offended at the sentencing stage. I'm confident, having looked at this, that changing the onus as to who has to prove what at the dangerous offenders application is drawn narrowly enough from a narrow group of offences that it would withstand that scrutiny.

You indicated that if there was a problem with that with other sections in the dangerous offenders...it seems to me this is a refinement of that. Again, we not only had a look at that in terms of its constitutionality, but we codified the provisions and the remarks and directions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the R. v. Johnson case, so I'm prepared to believe, in terms of the advice I have received, that this will withstand a constitutional challenge.

You referred as well in your comments to why we don't bring an amendment with respect to those out on long-term offender designation who have breached the terms of their release. I guess I fairly briefly indicated to you that there may be some constitutional issues. Of course that's very important any time there are constitutional issues, but in addition to that, this is the subject of a number of discussions between the federal Department of Justice and our provincial counterparts. While I'm very sympathetic to making sure individuals who don't live up to their court-ordered sanctions are meted out with the proper response, I would ask you, rather than going ahead with an amendment at this time, to withhold that. Let's get this part of it through and we'll continue to follow up in the other area.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for your presentation.

We Liberals have a few concerns about the reverse onus clause in Bill C-27. At present, the burden of proof usually rests with the Crown when a hearing is conducted further to an application to declare a person a dangerous offender. Further to your bill, the burden of proof will now rest with the offender who has been convicted of a minimum of three offences.

Firstly, has this provision been put to the proportionality test set out in section 1 of the Charter?

Secondly, if the bill is eventually adopted and passed into law and down the road, someone challenges the reverse onus clause, if the court were to find the challenge well founded, would this put all, or part, of the dangerous offender regime at risk?

Thirdly, why does the violation of a long-term supervision order not automatically result in a hearing to declare the offender a dangerous offender? The fact of the matter is that many offenders have already been declared dangerous offenders at a hearing on the basis of prima facie evidence presented by the Crown. However, because of jurisprudence, the judge is required to assess whether the risk and threat that this offender represents can be controlled in the community by means of supervision orders.

Can you explain to me why that is? The Liberals are very tempted to bring in an amendment which would ensure that violating such an order would allow the Crown to request a hearing to declare the offender a dangerous offender.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to be here with Mr. Doug Hoover from Justice Canada. He has been looking at this piece of legislation and this particular area of law for quite some time. He is an expert in the area and I'm pleased to have him join me today.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to come before this legislative committee to talk about some of the significant reforms to the Criminal Code, in particular to section 810.1 and section 810.2, the peace bonds; and to part XXIV of the Criminal Code dealing with dangerous offender provisions.

This bill was tabled last October as a response to the concerns of Canadians and all provincial and territorial governments that the existing provisions of the Criminal Code that target the most dangerous and high-risk offenders in the country required some changes to respond to the emerging issues in the courts. The government indicated previously that it was committed to reforms in this specific area, as we believe that repeat predators sometimes escape dangerous offender designations and are then released into the community without adequate supervision and management.

This bill tackles the problem by giving prosecutors the tools they need to achieve dangerous offender designations against offenders who clearly present the threat of serious injury to the general public. It also toughens the peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code that allow attorneys general to place strict conditions on individuals released into the community, often after serving their full sentences, even though there is clearly a high risk of their reoffending violently or sexually.

I wish to emphasize that these reforms were in large part based on ongoing consultations with our criminal justice partners in the provinces and territories. Most of these measures were the subject of extensive review and recommendation by senior justice officials from every jurisdiction in Canada. At the same time, we have taken every step to ensure that the constitutional rights of individuals are protected. In my view, this bill achieves a proper balance between the rights of Canadians to be safe from violent and sexual offenders, and the fundamental rights of an accused facing a lengthy prison term.

As I indicated, Bill C-27 focuses on reforms in two areas of the Criminal Code, which I would like to explain in greater detail.

First, this bill introduces a number of important amendments to section 810.1 and section 810.2, peace bond provisions that impose conditions on high-risk sexual and violent predators released into the community. The maximum duration of these conditions will be doubled from 12 months to 24 months. This reform will allow police to avoid having to return to the courts to renew peace bonds in the appropriate circumstances. This will give police and justice workers a much greater degree of flexibility in the long-term ability to monitor and supervise these individuals.

The bill further enhances society's ability to control these individuals under peace bonds by making it clear that a court has the ability to consider and impose any reasonable conditions necessary in the circumstances to ensure the safety of the general public from future harm. The bill also stipulates that a number of specific types of conditions are available that many courts in the past have refused to consider. These include electronic monitoring, medical or psychiatric treatment, residency conditions, and drug or alcohol prohibitions. These new provisions respond to a number of recent court cases that had the effect of limiting the range of conditions under the current wording of section 810.1 and section 810.2. Bill C-27 will therefore improve the way we manage the risk to the general public posed by individuals in the community.

The second major area of reform that Bill C-27 targets is individuals who are at the highest risk of offending sexually or violently, to ensure that they are not released into the community unless and until they can demonstrate that they no longer pose a threat to public safety. The bill accomplishes this by giving crown prosecutors the tools they need to secure dangerous offender designations against these individuals, which result in an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with no opportunity for parole for seven years.

The reforms also encourage crown prosecutors to be more vigilant in using the dangerous offender sentencing option.

Bill C-27 accomplishes these objectives through four significant amendments to the dangerous offender provisions in part XXIV of the Criminal Code.

First, crown prosecutors will be required to consider and declare in open court whether they intend to bring a dangerous offender designation whenever an individual has been convicted of a third prerequisite violent or sexual offence. This amendment ensures that the dangerous offender provisions will be used more consistently in all jurisdictions.

I note that since the bill was tabled, some provinces have expressed concern that this amendment would fetter prosecutorial discretion in sentencing decisions. Therefore I wish to emphasize that this amendment does not force a provincial prosecutor to make the actual dangerous offender application. It requires only that the Crown consider and indicate to the court whether they have considered the dangerous offender option.

If the reform went so far as to make the hearing automatic, in such cases the provinces would have a very strong case that the bill intrudes on their traditional and important discretion to seek appropriate sentences.

Secondly, section 753 is amended so that any offender convicted for a third time of a short list of serious violent or sexual offences will be presumed to fully meet the dangerous offender criteria. The onus will then shift to the offender to rebut that presumption. This change will make it easier for crown prosecutors to obtain dangerous offender designations in the very worst cases of violent and sexual misconduct. I believe this provision will withstand any constitutional change, as the presumption does not go to the issue of presumed innocence, given that this offender has already been found guilty.

While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection regarding the right to be presumed innocent is a basic right entrenched in paragraph 11(d), it does not extend to the offender once found guilty. This view is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Regina v. Lyons, where the court held that the right for a trial by jury does not extend to a dangerous offender hearing as, again, the individual subject to the dangerous offender application has already been found guilty.

Thirdly, section 753 is amended to codify the need for the sentencing judge in every dangerous offender hearing to consider whether or not there is a lesser sentence available that can adequately protect the public. This amendment is required to properly respond to the landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Regina v. Johnson.

As it currently stands, there are varying interpretations of that decision being applied in different jurisdictions, resulting in confusion and uncertainty and what amounts to a handicap against crown attorneys in some provinces in dangerous offender hearings. This amendment will ensure that prosecutors in all jurisdictions are not necessarily handicapped due to varying interpretations of the principles in Regina v. Johnson. Consistent with that decision, this amendment will stipulate that when the requirement to consider whether a lesser sentence can protect the public is applied, the burden is in fact not on either the Crown or the offender.

Finally, the bill introduces two amendments to section 752.1 to provide procedural relief regarding the filing of part XXIV psychiatric assessments. These amendments are intended to respond to specific concerns that forensic psychiatric resources in many jurisdictions are often stretched thin by the requirements of dangerous offender hearings. By extending the time periods for the filing of the mandatory psychiatric assessment under section 752.1, crowns will be better able to meet the prosecutorial requirements of a dangerous offender application.

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address concerns that have arisen recently in regard to this bill.

I'm aware that a number of jurisdictions have requested an amendment to allow for a dangerous offender rehearing when an individual who has been found to meet the dangerous offender criteria, but who was sentenced as a long-term offender, breaches a condition of the supervision order. I would note that on this issue my officials are currently engaged in consultations with senior officials from all provinces and territories to identify a viable and constitutional methodology that can be supported by all attorneys general across Canada.

So while I'm supportive of that process, I am aware that there are a number of concerns that must be considered, not the least of which are some serious constitutional issues, such as the potential paragraph 11(h) charter challenges, regarding the right not to be punished twice for the same offence. Having said that, it is imperative that we continue to move forward with Bill C-27 while we continue to develop options to address the new and emerging views of the provinces and territories.

In closing, I wish to thank honourable members for allowing me the opportunity to come before you today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have, as time permits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good morning. This is our second meeting.

This is the Legislative Committee on Bill C-27. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 5, 2007, we are studying Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

Appearing in front of us now we have the pleasure of having Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; and from the Department of Justice, Mr. Doug Hoover, senior official. Welcome to both of you.

Mr. Nicholson, please give your introductory remarks.

Criminal Code

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, residents of Surrey are dismayed by the arrival of Paul Callow, the balcony rapist, in our community. Citizens are left with no choice but to accept into their midst a serial rapist deemed too dangerous for Ontario.

Last night, more than 1,000 people rallied at a local gym to express their outrage and seek answers from elected officials. People are scared. Even though the National Parole Board deemed Callow a high risk of reoffending, Canada's present laws left the government powerless to keep Callow behind bars.

Canada's new government is committed to making our streets safer by getting tough on criminals. That is why we introduced Bill C-27, which seeks to fix the dangerous offender process. Our amendments would place greater constraints on repeat offenders like Callow and help to ensure dangerous offenders who are not rehabilitated are kept behind bars indefinitely.

We must put aside our partisan differences and pass Bill C-27.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last point, we have already addressed that.

However, with regard to the balance of Thursday's statement, I am pleased to respond that today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-55, the expanded voting opportunities bill; Bill C-14, the adoption bill; Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and Bill C-45, the fisheries act.

In the last Thursday statement, we indicated that we were hoping to have this week as “enhancing the quality of the life of first nations people week” but this was cancelled by the opposition parties when they did not release Bill C-44 from committee, the bill that would give the first nations protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Not only is it being held up now but, as early as this morning in this House, the opposition obstructed our efforts to get the bill dealt with forthwith so that first nations people could have the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. We know that if all parties would agree to proceed with that, as we saw when we sought unanimous consent, it could proceed, but some would prefer to obstruct it.

Next week will be welcome back from committee week, when we welcome business that has been at committee, including some that has been stalled there for some time. We will deal with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will begin report stage on Monday and, hopefully, we can get third reading wrapped up by Tuesday.

Following the budget bill, we will call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, bail reform. After that, we will call Bill C-23, the Criminal Code amendments. I hardly remember when Bill C-23 was sent to the committee by this House. That took place long before I was even House leader 228 days ago.

Thursday, June 7, shall be the last allotted day. There are a number of other bills that we would like to include in our welcome back from committee week. I still hope we can see Bill C-44, the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to which I just referred; Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act; Bill C-27 dealing with dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 dealing with impaired driving; and Bill C-33 dealing with foreign investment, if the opposition parties will release those from committee.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I would not do that.

Tomorrow is an allotted day.

Next week is constituent consultation week, when the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings and meet with constituents to share with them the activities of Parliament since the last constituency break.

For the interest of members, I will quickly review our plan for the context of our overall legislative agenda.

As he requested, this is currently strengthening the economy week, where a number of financial bills moved forward. The budget bill was sent to committee and, hopefully, it will be reported back tomorrow, or soon, so we can deal with it at third reading when the House returns after the break.

Bill C-40, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, was read a third time and sent to the Senate. Bill C-53, an act to implement the convention on the settlement of investment disputes, Bill C-33, the sales tax bill and Bill C-47, the Olympics symbol bill were all sent to committee and we all would like to see those back in the House for report stage and third reading.

In an earlier week, Bill C-36, the bill that makes changes to the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act, was made into law after receiving royal assent.

Strengthening accountability through democratic reform week was a success with the consideration of Bill C-43, Senate consultation. We had three new democratic reform bills introduced that week: Bill C-55, to expand voting opportunities; Bill C-56, an act to amend the Constitution Act, democratic representation; and Bill C-54, a bill that would bring accountability with respect to loans. We hope to continue debate on that particular bill later today.

Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, was given royal assent and is now law, which I think is the cause of the commotion now in all the committees where Liberals are using procedural tactics. Now they feel they can do it with a free hand.

Two other democratic reform bills are in the Senate, Bill C-31, voter integrity, and Bill S-4, Senate tenure. I really would like to have the term limits bill from the Senate for an upcoming democratic reform week if the opposition House leader can persuade his colleagues in the Senate to finally deal with that bill after 352 days. We may get 352 seconds in a filibuster, but they have had 352 days so far. They have been stalling for a year.

During the consultation week, I will be interested in hearing what our constituents think of the plight of Bill S-4 and the irony of those unaccountable senators delaying it.

We dedicated a good deal of our time focusing on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime. Now that we have had the help of the NDP, we restored the meaningful aspects that the Liberals gutted in committee to Bill C-10, the bill to introduce mandatory penalties for violent and gun crimes. We are continuing to debate that bill today at third reading.

Bill C-48, the bill dealing with the United Nations convention on corruption, was adopted at all stages.

Bill C-26, the bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to interest rates, was given royal assent.

Bill C-22, the age of protection, was given final reading and sent to the Senate, although it did spend close to, if not in excess of, 200 days in committee where the Liberals were obstructing and delaying its passage.

We made progress on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. We would like to see that back in the House.

Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) and a host of other justice bills are working their way through the system.

Members can advise their constituents that when we return, we will be reviving two themes, back by popular demand. Beginning May 28, we will begin again with strengthening accountability through democratic reform with: Bill C-54, political loans; Bill C-55, additional opportunities for voting; and Bill C-56, democratic representation.

Up next is a second go-round on strengthening the economy week with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will be called as soon as it is reported back from committee.

In the near future, we will have the improvement of aboriginal people quality of life week with Bill C-44. This bill will grant first nations residing on Indian reserves access to the Canadian charter of human rights. They have been denied this right for 30 years. Unfortunately, Bill C-44 is being delayed by the opposition. This is another bill being delayed by the opposition in committee.

After Bill C-44, I intend to debate Bill C-51. The agreement establishes the use and ownership of land and resources and will foster economic development. This bill illustrates Canada's commitment to the North and to settling land claims.

I wish all members a productive constituent consultation week and look forward to more progress on the government's legislative agenda when the House returns on May 28.

Criminal Code

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

moved that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to lead off the third reading debate on Bill C-10.

During the last federal election, the Conservative Party of Canada laid out clear plans to make our streets and communities safer for Canadians. We promised to target criminal enterprise and the gangs that profit from violence, drugs and fear and undermine people's sense of personal security and their confidence in the Canadian criminal justice system.

Canadians listened to our message of hope and responded by granting us the privilege of forming the government, so today I am very proud to stand in the House as Minister of Justice to follow through on our promises to deliver on our core promises to tackle crime.

In order to make our communities safer, we introduced several criminal justice bills aimed at getting violent, dangerous criminals off our streets.

We introduced Bill C-22, the age of protection bill, to protect 14 year olds and 15 year olds from adult sexual predators.

We introduced Bill C-27 to improve the process for keeping violent and repeat offenders in prison, and Bill C-9, which aims to put an end to house arrest for serious and violent offenders and which, I am pleased to say, has passed this House.

These are just a few of our recent initiatives.

Bill C-10, the bill that we have before us at third reading, is an important piece of legislation that specifically targets gun and gang violence.

I am very pleased that we have received the support of a majority of members of the House to restore the bill, and while the bill we debate today is amended somewhat from its original form, it still contains tough mandatory minimum penalties for serious offences involving firearms.

More specifically, Bill C-10, as amended, proposes escalating penalties of five years' imprisonment on a first offence and seven years on a second or subsequent offence for eight specific serious offences involving the actual use of firearms. Those offences are: attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to injure a person or prevent arrest, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery, and extortion.

I should point out that these tough penalties will apply when the offence is committed in connection with a criminal gang or if a restricted or prohibited firearm is used.

Who can be against that? Who can be against those provisions? This is what we talked about with the Canadian public in the last election and I believe there is widespread support for a bill of this nature.

Bill C-10 defines what will constitute a prior conviction with respect to these use offences, that is, the use of firearms. This means that any prior conviction in the last 10 years, excluding the time spent in custody, for using a firearm in the commission of an offence will count as a prior conviction and will trigger the enhanced mandatory penalty for repeat offences.

Also, I should point out that Bill C-10 now proposes penalties of three years on a first offence and five years on a second or subsequent offence for four serious offences that do not involve the actual use of a firearm. Those offences are: illegal possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm with ammunition, firearm trafficking, possession for the purpose of firearm trafficking, and firearm smuggling.

For the non-use offences it is important to note that the prior convictions for both the use offences and the non-use offences will trigger the higher mandatory minimum penalties applicable in repeat offences.

The bill, as amended, also creates two new offences dealing specifically with the theft of firearms. Breaking and entering to steal a firearm and robbery to steal a firearm now are made indictable-only offences, subject to life imprisonment.

Therefore, as we can see, this bill targets serious gun crimes with a particular focus on when such crimes are committed by criminal organizations, which of course includes gangs.

It sends a very clear message to the public that this Conservative government is serious about dealing with this type of crime. I am very pleased and proud that we are introducing this piece of legislation and seeing it through to its conclusion.

I should point out the manner in which Bill C-10 was amended at report stage is an example of this government's willingness to make this minority Parliament work. Together with members of the New Democratic Party we dealt with a problem and we found a solution that responded to our respective concerns and priorities. I am pleased that we had their support and that of several other hon. members of this House.

I saw, I believe, about five members of the Liberal Party who broke ranks with their own party. I want to tell the House how much I welcomed that and certainly appreciated their support. I think they received the message on this. I am very pleased to have that support at third reading. I would welcome more support from other members of the opposition.

I should point out that Bill C-10 has the support of other important stakeholders as well. Police officers and prosecutors are supportive of this government's attempt to pass this tough on crime legislation. They have said that tougher mandatory penalties are needed to target the specific new trend that has emerged in many Canadian communities, and that is the possession and use of firearms, usually handguns, by street gangs and drug traffickers.

In that regard, I point out the support that this approach received from the attorney general of Ontario. He pointed out in a Globe and Mail article on March 6 that he liked this approach of getting tougher. He called on his federal colleagues in the Liberal Party to get behind legislation of this type because he believed this was the way to go.

Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians are not partisan matters. If we want to see progress in tackling gun crime, we will all have to do our part.

Police officers have to do their part in investigating and apprehending those who commit crimes. Crown attorneys have to do their part in ensuring that accused persons are effectively prosecuted, and of course, judges have their part to do in imposing sentences.

As parliamentarians we have a strong role to play as well. We set the laws. We signal to the courts what we consider to be appropriate penalties for specific crimes.

There are a number of opposition members who say they cannot support Bill C-10, but many of these same members have already supported mandatory penalties in the past, and particularly for firearms offences. In fact, it was the Liberal government that introduced a number of mandatory penalties in the mid-nineties and proposed a very modest increase to some of the gun-related crimes in the last Parliament.

This government does not believe a one year increase is going to make enough of a difference. We want to send a clearer message. We need to ensure that the appropriate stiff penalties are imposed on gun traffickers and gang members who use guns in such serious offences as attempted murder, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

We believe that the proposals in Bill C-10, as amended, are both tough and reasonable. As I have already indicated, the proposals are restricted to the key areas that are a growing concern to people across this country.

There certainly is evidence to support the problems associated with the current level of gun crime. Crime statistics, police, and several other experts in this area, point to a growing problem with respect to guns and gangs. While the national trends show an overall decrease in some crime over the past few decades, it is not the case with violent crimes such as homicide, attempted murder, assault with weapons, and robbery, especially in larger urban areas across the country.

Statistics also show that while crimes committed with non-restricted guns are down, handguns and other restricted or prohibited firearms have become the weapon of choice for those who use firearms to commit crimes.

Toronto's rate of firearm homicides in recent years has frequently been reported by the press. Statistics Canada data shows that it is not just a problem unique to central Canada. The rate in Edmonton has also recently increased and Vancouver has consistently had higher rates over the last decade.

Gang-related homicides and the proportion of handguns used in violent crimes have become a major cause for concern and gun crime with restricted weapons or guns used by gang member is an increasing problem in urban communities.

Organized criminals are fuelling much of the crime problem and the government's justice agenda aims to curtail this problem by increasing the mandatory minimum penalties for crimes committed with guns, ending house arrest for those convicted of serious violent crimes and sexual offences, and other significant crime, such as major drug offences.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-10 includes a number of sentences for both use and non-use firearms offences with the stiffest penalties. The bill targets serious gun crimes committed by gangs or organized crime and the prohibitive weapons that they use.

In addition to this legislation, the federal government of course has a role to play in making funds available to help prevent crime before it happens. I am happy that the government has made investments in crime prevention and specifically to help at risk youth from becoming involved in criminal gangs, guns and drugs.

Funding is available to allow communities to examine issues surrounding gang involvement, create awareness of youth gang recruitment, prevention and intervention strategies, identify service gaps and best practices, and develop program responses.

Several activities have already started to fulfill the government's commitment to work with the provinces and territories to help communities provide hope and opportunity for our youth and end the cycle of violence that can lead to broken communities and broken lives.

I would like to speak for a moment on how the bill is consistent with the sentencing principles provided in the Criminal Code and charter rights. The Criminal Code provides that it is a fundamental principle of the Canadian sentencing regime that a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

It also provides that the purpose of sentencing is to impose sanctions on offenders that are just, in order to contribute respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

Accordingly, the objectives in sentencing are to denounce unlawful contact, deter the offender and others from committing offences, and separate offenders from society where necessary, as well as assist them in rehabilitating and accepting responsibility for their actions while repairing the harm they have caused to victims and their community.

The manner in which the higher mandatory penalties will apply under Bill C-10 is intended to ensure that they do not result in disproportionate sentences contrary to the charter. The higher levels of seven years for using a firearm and five years for non-use offences are reserved for repeat firearms offenders.

If an offender has a relevant recent history of committing firearms offences, it is not unreasonable to ensure that the specific sentencing goals of deterrence, denunciation and separation of serious offenders from society are given priority by the sentencing court.

The government considers that the mandatory penalties proposed in Bill C-10 are not only just but are also appropriately targeted at the specific problem which they seek to address; that is the new trend that has developed with respect to guns and gangs.

At the beginning of my remarks I mentioned that the government is determined to make Canadian streets safer, communities safer and to stand up for victims. The good news on this front is that we are only just getting started.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Yes. We're not changing the room tomorrow. We'll have witnesses tomorrow.

When we come back on Tuesday, we'll go to clause-by-clause for Bill C-35 You'll also receive notice that the minister will appear on June 5 for Bill C-27.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his continuous efforts to fight crime in this country.

As Attorney General, I do not comment specifically on a case, but I want the House to know that this government is absolutely committed to the best interests and protection of children. That is why we introduced Bill C-22, the age of protection legislation, to protect 14 and 15 year olds from sexual predators. That is why we have introduced Bill C-27, to improve the process by which violent and repeat offenders will be kept in prison. That is why we introduced Bill C-9, to ensure that violent and serious offenders do not get house arrest.

We are absolutely committed to the best interests of children, victims, reducing crime in this country and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Does everyone agree with the comments from Ms. Jennings that we are going to start Bill C-27 after we finish Bill C-35, and that we feel we're going to finish by Tuesday, May 29, and on May 30 there will be no committee because justice has a meeting on Wednesday afternoon on May 30?

Yes, Mr. Moore.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

If i understand correctly, Mr. Ménard is moving that our committee not start its meetings on Bill C-27 until the legislative committee on Bill C-35 has completed its proceedings. As we have decided to meet normally on Tuesdays and Wednesday afternoons, theoretically, the first committee meeting would be held on June 5, at 3:30 p.m. There would also be another meeting on Wednesday, June 6, at 3:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Okay. The clerk asked me if the standing committee could meet for half an hour to discuss all the witnesses, but I'm not sure it's necessary. You could all send the lists of witnesses all parties want to appear in front of us for Bill C-27. I'll have no problem with this; everyone is here today. It's up to every party to send a list, and we're going to choose from the lists at that time. Sometimes the same witness could appear. You'll remember that this is what happened on Bill C-35.

Go ahead, Madame Jennings.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I imagine the government didn't think we'd finish with Bill C-27 before the summer recess. I officially move that we meet in the same time slot once the study of Bill C-35 is completed.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm pleased you said that because it seems to me we should try as far as possible to start our proceedings on this bill once we've completed the study of Bill C-35. We were a bit scared. On the opposition side, they're the same people, with a few exceptions. As for the rest, we have three committees that are sitting twice a week. That's starting to be a lot.

Do we agree on how things will operate? We can keep the same slot, Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, following question period. We would start consideration of Bill C-27 once Bill C-35 is complete. Are you telling us we're going to the end of May?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

The meetings are scheduled right now. Next week they will be Tuesday, May 15, and Wednesday, May 16. We're finishing Bill C-35, and on Tuesday, May 29, we'll be doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-35. If everything is fine, on Wednesday, May 30, we could have the Minister of Justice for Bill C-27, if we want to keep the same schedule—

The clerk tells me that on May 30, the Minister of Justice is in front of the justice committee.

Go ahead, Monsieur Ménard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

We will vote on all these routine motions, including item 10 as amended by Madame Jennings.

(Motions 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to)

(Motion 10 as amended agreed to)

(Motion 11 agreed to)

We will continue.

You've all received the documents sent by the clerk?

At the first meeting, we'll hear the first witness on Bill C-27, the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Moore, does anyone have comments? Will the first witness be the Minister of Justice?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am very sorry to be late. I am not usually late, but there can be a problem when you have another committee, such as the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 113(3), this meeting is for the organization of Bill C-27. You have the orders of the day and the appointment letter of the chair by the Speaker of the House. The letter reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 113, I'm pleased to confirm your appointment as Chair of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-27, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

It's signed by Mr. Milliken.

You've all received the routine motions. They are the same routine motions that we passed for Bill C-25. Do you want me to read all the motions?

Criminal Code

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue our focus on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime.

This morning we completed the debate at report stage on Bill C-10. That is a bill to introduce mandatory penalties for gun related crimes and other violent acts. Our government proposed amendments at report stage to restore what the Liberals had gutted from the bill at committee, mainly those aspects that will ensure violent criminals actually serve time in jail. We will be voting on these amendments next week.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-22, which is the age of protection legislation, followed by Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation that would require criminals who are convicted on two separate occasions of a violent crime to prove to the court why they are not a danger to the community.

Next week will be strengthening accountability through democratic reform week. It effectively kicked off today when Bill C-16, the fixed dates for elections act, received royal assent.

On Monday we will resume debate on Bill C-43. That is the bill that proposes to give Canadians a say in who they want representing them in the Senate.

Our government will be introducing a number of new measures in the House of Commons next week, which I will address at the appropriate time.

Of course, we still have Bill S-4, the bill to establish Senate term limits, which has been languishing in the Senate for almost a year now. It would be nice if the Senate passed that. It would be nice if the Liberal senators could get on with it, so that we could actually have that bill here in the House of Commons as part of our focus on democratic reform next week.

Tuesday, May 8 and Thursday, May 10 will be allotted days.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66 I would like to conclude debate tomorrow on the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I would like to conclude debate on May 11, 2007 on the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Subject to an agreement with other parties, there may be interest in concluding debate at second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax bill, as early as tomorrow.

On the question of Bill C-30, we see elements of that legislation that we brought forward that are very valuable relating to biodiesel, alternative fuels and so on, and we will seek ways of introducing that in the House of Commons. However, we have absolutely no intention of bringing forward the Liberal carbon tax plan, which is now at the fore of that bill, which would establish an unlimited right to pollute for polluters. All they would have to do is pay and they would have an unlimited right to pollute. That is not our approach. We are bringing in regulations to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases. That is our approach.

Bill C-27

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 23, Clermont Bégin, a 40-year-old sex offender sentenced to 11 years in prison, was released after serving his full sentence. The public has expressed concern and confusion about Clermont Bégin's return to the community.

The new government has introduced Bill C-27 to ensure that dangerous offenders with a high risk to reoffend receive harsher penalties and more supervision following their release.

Why do the Liberals and the Bloc not support this bill, which would protect Canadians from such dangerous offenders?

When will the Liberals and the Bloc stand up for victims instead of criminals?

Public Safety

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Conservative government is committed to making our communities a safer place to live. We are delivering on this promise by bringing forward bills that strengthen our laws and crack down on crime.

We have presented Bill C-10 to impose tough minimum penalties for offences involving firearms, Bill C-22 to raise the age of protection and ensure the safety of young Canadians, Bill C-9 to restrict conditional sentences and guarantee that serious offenders are not eligible for house arrest, and Bill C-27 to crack down on the most dangerous offenders in Canada.

However, we have not had the support of the official opposition party that does not seem to think that public safety is an important issue. The Liberals have even gutted some of our bills at the committee stage and prevented Canadians from benefiting from their protection.

When will the official opposition finally make the safety of Canadians a priority and stop blocking this government's justice legislation?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue debate on an opposition motion.

On Friday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-43, the senate consultations bill. That is the bill to strengthen accountability and democracy by giving Canadians a say on who they want representing them in the Senate.

Next week we will focus on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime. It will actually kick off tonight with the Prime Minister's address to the annual police appreciation night in York region where I live. Getting tough on criminals is the best way parliamentarians can show our appreciation for those brave men and women who put their lives in danger every day while protecting and serving their communities.

Our plan for next week's focus in cracking down on crime will begin with Bill C-48, the bill dealing with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. There will hopefully be an agreement to pass that bill at all stages.

Following Bill C-48, we will consider Bill C-10. That is the bill to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for gun and violent crimes. Our government will be proposing amendments at report stage to restore the meaningful aspects of the bill to ensure that violent criminals actually serve time in jail, all of which was gutted by the Liberals in committee.

Bill C-22, the age of protection bill, was reported back from committee and will be considered at report stage and third reading.

Following Bill C-22, we will move on to Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation, which would require criminals who are convicted, for example on three separate occasions of a violent sexual assault, to prove to the court why they would not a danger to the community.

Tuesday, May 1 shall be an allotted day.

If time permits, we will seek to call Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill.

With regard to the question on the environment, our government is taking action on the environment. Later today he can look forward to seeing a cornerstone step in taking action to reduce greenhouse gases with the environment minister's announcement, action that has never been taken by another government and more action than any government in the world is taking.

Public Safety

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an important question. Canadians across the country have asked us to take concrete measures against crime and that is what we have done.

Among other things, our government introduced legislation that will ensure heavier consequences on dangerous and high risk offenders at the time they are sentenced.

If Bill C-27 were currently in effect, a person found guilty would see their peace bond extended from 12 months to 24 months. They would have much harsher restrictions and conditions in terms of supervision, and they would be required to get treatment. But for that, we need support from the parties—

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to be back in front of you.

I'm pleased to see Mr. Rick Dykstra, one of my colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula and now a member of this committee. It's nice to see him here. I know of his dedication to justice issues, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I've learned over the years that any time you get up to speak, if you're going to start recognizing people in a crowd, then you should have the names written down in advance so that you don't miss anyone. I missed someone yesterday. I was at the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week symposium in Ottawa, and when I got up to introduce the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime, I recognized my colleagues Stockwell Day, Dean Allison, and Laurie Hawn. I didn't see Ms. Jennings in the audience, and I apologize to her for that.

I actually noticed you, Ms. Jennings, as I was walking off the podium, when I saw you in the second or third row. That's not something I would do; I would certainly acknowledge all my colleagues in the House of Commons. In future, I'll revert to my usual procedure, which is to write down the names of the people I'm going to acknowledge—or not do it at all.

In any case, I'm glad to see you here, and I'm glad you were at the meeting yesterday.

It is a pleasure for me to meet with the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to discuss the main estimates for the Department of Justice.

And I'm pleased to have my colleagues joining me here today—and you have introduced them, Mr. Chairman.

You would know, Mr. Chairman, as well that not only am I Minister of Justice and Attorney General, but my portfolio also includes the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Minister of Justice, of course, is also responsible for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, created last December by the Federal Accountability Act to enshrine in legislation the notion of prosecutorial independence.

I'll speak more about that in a moment, but first of all, I want to say that the work of the Department of Justice focuses on ensuring that Canada is a just and law-abiding society, with an accessible, efficient, and fair system of justice, providing high-quality legal services and counsel to the government and to client departments and agencies, and promoting respect for the rule of law.

Within this broad context, the department has a specific priority to develop legislation and policy that address crime more effectively and increase the confidence of Canadians in the judicial system. Ultimately this will promote safer communities for all Canadians and have a very real impact on their lives.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased with the progress that our government has made on the priorities of Canadians, particularly in the realm of tackling crime. My predecessor, Minister Toews, was placed in charge of an ambitious legislative agenda. I have now taken on the challenge of that agenda and will continue to work diligently to guide the legislation through the House and of course will work with this committee.

One overarching priority has guided our government's work over the past 14 months, and that is safer communities for all Canadians. Part of that priority is tackling crime. From the beginning of our mandate, we have been committed to stronger laws that deal with gangs, guns, and drugs; ensuring serious consequences for serious crimes; and ensuring that our communities are safe from crime. That commitment has not wavered.

We also believe that Canada's justice system must adapt to the needs of the 21st century so that it can remain in step with changes in technology and an increasingly sophisticated population. In these endeavours, I've been working closely with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, to deliver on that promise to tackle crime.

We have introduced legislation on a number of fronts. For example, Bill C-35 proposes to shift the onus to the person accused of serious gun crimes to explain why they should not be denied bail. And Bill C-18 intends to strengthen our national DNA data bank and help our police forces identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent.

I am pleased to say that with the support of all parties in the House we brought into force Bill Bill C-19, which creates new offences that target street racing specifically. These new offences recognize street racing for what it is, a reckless and dangerous act that too often kills. With our new legislation, people who treat our public streets as race tracks will be dealt with more seriously.

We also passed legislation, introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. These changes will help ensure that Canada continues to be a global leader in combatting organized crime and terrorist financing.

We are also committed to better meet the needs of victims of crime in areas where the federal government is responsible. Our government has listened and responded to victims of crime, giving them the respect they deserve. We have established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Just yesterday, I was pleased to name Steve Sullivan as the first federal ombudsman. This office will be an independent resource for victims who have concerns about areas for which the federal government is responsible, including the federal correction system. Mr. Sullivan will work at arm's length from the government so that victims will be more confident that their views are being heard.

We also recently provided $52 million in funding over the next four years to boost programs, services, and funding for victims of crime, including: enhancing financial assistance to victims to travel to sentencing hearings to deliver victim impact statements, as well as to National Parole Board hearings; increasing funding for services in the north, where rates of victimization are much higher than in the rest of Canada; and providing limited emergency financial assistance for Canadians who become victims of serious violent crimes while abroad.

However, Mr. Chairman, the government also recognizes that it is equally important to prevent criminal behaviour before it has a chance to take root. We are addressing the root causes of crime by supporting community programs with effective social programs and sound economic policies.

In support of these goals, Budget 2007 commits $64 million over the next two years to create a national anti-drug strategy. This investment builds on ongoing annual funding for current programs and initiatives. This government is determined to sever these links by implementing a coherent, comprehensive national strategy against drugs. Although some details of the strategy remain to be worked out, I can say that it will focus on preventing drug use, treating drug addiction, and combatting drug production and distribution. Together, these three action plans will form an integrated, focused, and balanced approach to reducing the supply and demand for illicit drugs as well as the crime associated with them, leading to healthier individuals and safer communities. The strategy will address all illegal drugs, including marijuana, and will include a national awareness campaigned aimed at young people.

To succeed over the long term, I believe we must educate young people about the real risks associated with drug use, such as the dangers to mental and physical health, potential legal consequences, and impacts on career and travel options. It will also spur communities into action and engage local leaders in preventing the harm caused by illegal drugs.

Our government is also providing $20 million over two years to support community-based programs that provide youth at risk with positive opportunities and help them make good choices. And we will continue to work with the provinces, municipalities, police, and community leaders in areas threatened by gun and gang violence to support programs that reach out to young people.

We've also continued the drug treatment court program, which is an important initiative of the Department of Justice. In conjunction with Health Canada, my department has been instrumental in expanding the concept of drug treatment courts beyond the initial pilot program in Toronto to several communities across Canada. Our government supports the use of drug treatment courts because they help reduce criminal behaviour and drug use while holding offenders accountable for their actions.

We've also made changes to improve and strengthen the justice system. Last November, my predecessor implemented changes to the judicial advisory committees. These changes have broadened the base of stakeholders who will contribute to their discussion and assessment of competence and excellence required for federally appointed judges.

More specifically, we've included members of the law enforcement community, a community no less implicated in the administration of justice than lawyers and judges. These new members contribute another perspective on the competent and qualified individuals recommended to me for appointment to the bench. And we have moved expeditiously to fill vacancies in federal and provincial courts. To date, we have appointed 84 federal judges. I think this is an impressive record, given that the coming into force of Bill C-17 on December 14, 2006, provided federally appointed judges with new options for electing supernumerary status, which created even more vacancies. However, I must emphasize that we will not sacrifice the quality of our appointments in the interest of speed. These appointments will continue to be based on merit and legal excellence.

Additionally, in the interests of accountability we have created the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and have now begun the process of selecting a permanent director. Candidates will be assessed by a committee, with representation from each political party, the senior public service, and the legal profession. As Attorney General, I will make a choice from among three candidates, and that choice will be referred for approval to a committee of Parliament.

By establishing this office as an entity separate from the Department of Justice, our government has it made absolutely clear that criminal prosecutions are independent from political influence.

At this point, I must clear up two misconceptions.

First of all, this action does not suggest that the government believes federal prosecutors were unduly influenced in the past. As my predecessor Minister Toews has said:

We are not here to correct a problem that has already occurred; we are here to prevent problems from arising in the future.

Second, it's simply incorrect to state, as has been reported, that creating this office has cost the taxpayers an additional $98 million. The truth is this figure represents the budget of the former Federal Prosecution Service, which was a division of the Department of Justice. After the transfer, the budget for the department decreased.

The key driver in creating this office is to be as cost neutral as possible. It is in fact an investment that will benefit Canadians and increase their confidence in the justice system.

Mr. Chairman, although our government has been making great strides in improving our justice system, there is still a great deal left to accomplish.

There are still nine bills in Parliament for which I am responsible as Minister of Justice and which I am committed to bringing into force.

We introduced Bill C-9 to restrict the use of conditional sentences to ensure that people who commit serious crimes will serve their time behind bars, not in the community.

We introduced Bill C-10 to impose escalating mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun-related crimes. This legislation outlines clear consequences for gun crimes: prison sentences that are in keeping with the gravity of the offence.

As I mentioned, Bill C-10 seeks to increase the minimum penalty for gun crimes. This matter will soon be discussed in Parliament, and I hope that bill will be restored to the way it was prior to being amended.

Our legislative priorities also include Bill C-27, which will ensure tougher sentences and more effective management of dangerous offenders, including imposing stricter conditions on repeat offenders to keep such criminals from offending again. Bill C-27 responds to concerns that repeat and violent sexual predators are not being properly sentenced or managed once released into the community by strengthening the dangerous offender provisions and sections 810.1 and 810.2, the peace bond provisions, of the Criminal Code. No one will be automatically designated a dangerous offender upon third conviction, and that's another misconception, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to clear up. Crown prosecutors may or may not elect to seek dangerous offender status. In those cases where the Crown elects to proceed, the offender will be given the opportunity to explain why they should not be designated as dangerous, and judges will determine whether the offender should be designated as a dangerous offender.

We are also working to strengthen the laws against alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired driving. Bill C-32 will ensure that drug-impaired drivers face similar testing to that which drunk drivers now face. It will give police better tools to detect and investigate drug- and alcohol-impaired driving, and it will increase penalties.

Bill C-22, which this committee recently considered and supported, will better protect youth against adult sexual predators, including against such predators on the Internet, by raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years to 16 years. I believe there is a broad consensus among Canadians that raising the age of protection is the right thing to do. We know it is strongly supported by many who work with youth or advocate on their behalf. I know there's a great deal of support across different levels of government, and indeed across the political spectrum.

This law would also bring Canada in line with many other developed countries throughout the world. It's time to get serious in dealing with the crimes of adult sexual predators and it's time to take a realistic and respectful approach to protecting our young people.

Beyond the legislative agenda is our role as the lead department on the national anti-drug strategy, as announced in Budget 2007. The Department of Justice has traditionally had a role in supporting the development of drug policy, and until recently played an integral part in the prosecution of drug offences. It also has responsibility for the youth justice policy development, including the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

As mentioned previously, along with preventing illicit drug use and treating dependency, this strategy will also crack down on gangs and combat illicit drug production such as grow-ops and methamphetamine labs.

I will work hard to ensure that the government's tackling crime agenda progresses through Parliament in my role as justice minister and Attorney General, so that we can all enjoy safer streets and more secure communities.

Mr. Chairman, our government has done more than just promise to improve Canada's system of justice to create safer communities; we have backed it up with financial resources. I am pleased to note that Budget 2007 reflects the government's commitment to building safer communities and creating a better Canada. We are cooperating on a number of initiatives.

On the new national drug strategy, which I have mentioned, we are committed to $64 million over the next two years to refocus current efforts on combatting illicit drug use and manufacturing, as well as prevention and treatment.

We renewed the aboriginal justice strategy with funding of $14.5 million over two years. This will significantly increase the number of aboriginal communities and people that have access to community justice programs. Under the strategy, aboriginal communities will take greater responsibility for the administration of justice, leading to a further reduction in crime and positive impacts at the community level.

We have allocated an additional $6 million per year to strengthen current activities on combatting the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children and to ensure that those who commit these heinous crimes are brought to justice.

In addition, for the first time in more than 10 years, the provinces and territories will have stable and predictable funding for criminal legal aid. This approach will permit jurisdictions to develop long-term strategies to support the delivery of criminal legal aid.

Budget 2007 takes important steps to prevent crime, as well as the precursors of crime, and to ensure that our corrections, intelligence, and security systems are strong.

Finally, the government recently received the House of Commons subcommittee and special Senate committee reports on the review of the Anti-terrorism Act. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of both committees for their excellent work in tackling the numerous issues they were confronted with in the course of their review.

Both committees addressed issues of great concern to the government, and we will consider these recommendations very carefully.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and your committee members for your important work. It is an honour for me to take part in this process as Canada's Minister of Justice.

However, I am acutely aware that improving Canada's system of justice is a collaborative effort. Our system is a shared responsibility with the provinces and territories, and our many programs and initiatives require collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners as well as municipalities and other government departments. Together we will continue to work to ensure that Canada's system of justice contributes to the safety and security and well-being of Canadians.

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to any questions or comments you may have.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Bill C-16, it is obvious that the Liberal House leader is very concerned about having an election and wants to do anything he can to stop it. Having watched the news last night and having seen some numbers, I can understand his sentiments. That is not surprising.

However, I am also not surprised that he could not remember what the bill was about. That is because it has been out of this House for half a year while the Liberal Senate was trying to deal with it. If those members wanted it passed quickly perhaps they could have avoided making amendments to it. However, there are amendments and we have to consult about them. As well, certainly, the information about everyone having consented is very different from the information that has been provided to me by the other parties to this point.

We will continue to pursue that and we hope to move forward on democratic reform. At the same time, as we said earlier, we will invite the other parties to move forward with Bill S-4 in the Senate. If they want to see things move quickly, that would represent good democratic reform. As well, we invite them to indicate their support for Bill C-43.

However, this afternoon we will continue with the list of bills on today's Projected Order of Business.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill. When the House returns from the Easter break, it will continue with the budget implementation bill if it is not already completed tomorrow.

Also on the list of bills for that week are: Bill C-33, on income tax; Bill C-40, on the Excise Tax Act; Bill C-10, on mandatory and minimum penalties; the Senate amendment to Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, if we can get everyone's agreement on that to move quickly; Bill C-27, on dangerous offenders; and Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, 2007.

Thursday, April 19 shall be the first allotted day in this supply period.

The Liberal House leader continues to make comments about moving quickly today. I wish he had been over there in the Senate talking to his Senate friends for the past six months while we were waiting. Perhaps while he is busying hurrying things up he can go and talk to the senators about Bill S-4.

I have a motion that I would like to make at this time.

There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the remaining debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, April 18, at the end of government orders; and notwithstanding Standing Order 33(2), government orders shall conclude today at 5:30 p.m.

Criminal Code

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member knows that I support Bill C-27. My luring law was able to win multi-party support. It is not that often in the House where we put aside partisan differences and we look at what is best for the country and for our children.

Rather than becoming partisan, I want to express my gratitude to all the other parties, including the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc, for coming on side and saying that they can all agree that the bill serves the interests of our children.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for bringing forward the bill. As a loving father of four daughters and a great parliamentarian, this is something that clearly needed to be addressed and he has boldly done that.

I also thank the members opposite who worked at committee and who have cooperated on this measure.

Does the member find it passing strange and frustrating, as I do, that while he seems to have support now for this very important initiative to protect children from sexual predators over the Internet, we on this side of the House cannot seem to get the cooperation of members of the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-27, the dangerous offender bill?

The poster boy for that bill is Peter Whitmore. As my colleague rightfully pointed out in his speech that this individual has countless convictions of sex offences. Bill C-27 would provide for reverse onus. For individuals who are convicted three times of violence sexual offences, the onus would be on them to prove why they are not dangerous offenders as opposed to the Crown proving why they are.

Does the member share my frustration in Bill C-27; that we cannot get the same cooperation on this bill that he seems to get for his private member's bill?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on a specific case but I can assure the hon. member that we are absolutely committed as a government to containing violent criminals, keeping them off the streets and making our communities safer.

The good news is that we have introduced Bill C-27 which takes direct aim at repeat offenders who commit crimes over and over again by placing the onus on them to show why they should not be designated a dangerous offender. That is the good news. The bad news is, like all anti-crime measures this month, it is being opposed by the Liberal Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes that organized crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities. The government is taking both legislative and non-legislative steps to counter it.

For example, with Bill C-10, the government is proposing to toughen minimum penalties for serious repeat firearms offences, tailored in a manner that targets the specific problem that currently exists with respect to guns and gangs.

With Bill C-35, the government is proposing to create a reverse onus for bail for those charged with certain serious firearms offences.

With Bill C-27, we are targeting serious dangerous offenders.

I should point out also that Bill C-25 received royal assent on December 14 and ensures that Canada's anti-money laundering regime more fully complies with international best practices.

The Department of Justice officials are currently undertaking a review of our criminal laws to ensure that Canada's legislative measures appropriately respond to threats posed by organized crime.

Of course, strong laws are not by themselves enough to fully combat the threats posed by organized crime. That is why the government has invested in a range of measures designed to prevent crime before it happens.

For example, we committed nearly $200 million to enhance the ability of our national police force, the RCMP, to combat crime and to keep our communities safe.

We have also invested in crime prevention activities, specifically targeted at youth at risk, and focusing on gangs, guns and drugs.

There are several important reasons why society should be concerned with youth involved in gang activity. Gang members commit a disproportionate number of offences, and commit serious and violent offences at a rate several times higher than youth who are not involved in gangs.

In the 2006 federal budget, the government announced resources in the amount of $10 million per year to prevent youth crime, with a focus again on guns, gangs and drugs.

Last October, federal officials signalled to the provincial and territorial counterparts that resources were available for communities in need.

To date, several proposals have been received and a number of pilot projects that provide programming for youth involved in or at risk of gang involvement have been funded.

Before closing, I would be remiss not to highlight everything Bill C-10 proposes to do to tackle the specific serious threats that repeat firearms offenders pose to our society.

As members know, in spite of a general decrease in gun crimes, the situation across Canada is not looking all that bright and there is a major cause for concern. Serious gun crimes, such as firearm homicides, gang-related homicides, and the proportion of handgun robberies have increased in a number of our larger cities.

The guns and gangs problem is not a concern only in large urban centres of Canada, it is also a concern in some of the rural and other areas across our country. So, this is something that we, as parliamentarians, have to take very seriously.

I should mention what the opposition has done with the government's bill, Bill C-10, that would have had escalating penalties for individuals who commit offences, gang-related offences, and offences with prohibited or restricted firearms. The legislation would have taken a more serious approach with offenders and had escalating penalties for those who were repeat offenders. Unfortunately, the opposition rejected the government's proposal to provide higher minimum penalties for firearms, traffickers and smugglers.

Criminal Code

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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—

[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--

[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 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.

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.

Justice

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be debating Bill C-27, which fixes the process for designating dangerous offenders. Provincial attorneys general, police and victims groups have been calling for this bill, but so far the opposition is determined to kill the bill and confuse the public by calling it a three strikes bill.

Bill C-27 is an important part of a series of government bills aimed at making our streets and communities safer from violent criminals. As an MP who meets regularly with victims and as a member of the justice committee, I am deeply frustrated at how long it is taking to pass these bills.

Yesterday the president of the Canadian Police Association said:

Police officers across the country see people that are victimized by violent, repeat offenders. These bills will keep dangerous criminals from returning to the streets, and help protect our communities...We are simply asking MPs to act on their commitments and help police officers do their jobs.

Every one of us made a commitment to Canadians in the last election to get tough on crime. I urge opposition members to get busy and meet their commitment.

Criminal Code

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to legislative committees, sometimes the decision is made to refer bills to legislative committees in the interest of easing the burden on some of the standing committees. I believe the clean air act is before a legislative committee and that Bill C-27, dealing with dangerous offenders, is slated to go to a legislative committee.

I appreciate that the Standing Committee on Justice has a huge workload so this is a way to try to take a little bit of the pressure off that committee. I understand that some of the members will probably want to sit on both and we should be able to accommodate that.

I am surprised that the hon. member keeps flogging that dead horse with respect to the long arms registry. How many hundreds of millions of dollars need to be wasted on that before people finally figure out that we do not reduce crime by going after duck hunters. The problem is that was the mentality that we had in previous Parliaments. That is not how we reduce crime. That is about creating a bureaucracy and we do not want to go in that direction.

I want the money we use and the money we would save from that to go into more policing and into arming our border guards. The hon. member knows about the problems of smuggling and about the dangerous individuals who want to cross the border. I want the border guards to able to protect themselves. I would rather see the money go into items like that.

We disagree on that but I am hoping the hon. member will look at the bill and appreciate that it is good legislation. It has received widespread support, not just from members of the Conservative Party but also from the Premier of Ontario who thinks it is a good idea. The mayor of Toronto also thinks it is a good idea and I am hoping the hon. member thinks it is a good idea as well.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing the debate on the Bloc opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the statutory order concerning the Anti-terrorism Act. That is for the extension of its provisions.

Next week will be justice week, when the government will showcase part of its safer streets agenda, starting on Monday with the continuation of the debate on the Anti-terrorism Act if it is not completed on Friday.

On Tuesday we plan to begin debate on Bill C-35, which deals with bail reform, and on Wednesday we will resume debate on the second reading stage of the dangerous offenders legislation, Bill C-27.

Thursday, February 15 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-10 on mandatory minimum penalties, on the assumption that the justice committee can have it to the House by that time.

For each day, we will have the following business scheduled as backup bills: Bill C-31, the voter integrity legislation; Bill C-44, relating to human rights; Bill C-11, on transport; and Bill C-33, the technical income tax act.

I will be working closely with my counterpart in the Senate with respect to progress on Bill S-4 or, as we keep hearing, the lack of progress.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a strong, effective and responsible government must speak with one voice, whether it be in the Senate or the House of Commons. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate cannot present the same position on Bill S-4 is further evidence that the Liberals are currently not fit to govern. I certainly would like the opportunity for this House to deal with that bill.

Federal Accountability Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that. It gives me a sense of false power, perhaps, but I will keep to the time my whip has given me and remind myself of when I need to wrap up.

I was a member of the Bill C-2 legislative committee.

First, I would like to thank the committee's Liberal members, namely our leader on the committee, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, and the hon. members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and York West. They worked very hard together, along with the leaders of the other parties, including the members for Nepean—Carleton and Winnipeg South.

I would like to add a special word in memory of the hon. member for Repentigny, who died recently.

We worked together when we could and voiced our opinions with much passion. In many cases, I recall the member for Nepean—Carleton, with exceeding passion in language, which we all remember well.

According to the hon. President of the Treasury Board, this was a project to end the role of big money in politics. How farcical. A year ago, the Conservative Party was campaigning under the slogan, “Stand up for Canada”. Today, 10 months later, its true slogan appears to be, “stand up for Conservative friends only”.

Once again, this Conservative minority government—and I emphasize the word “minority”—is trying to use the House of Commons for partisan purposes. Once again, Conservative partisanship has prevailed over the common good and the interests of all Canadians.

Today we clearly see why the minority government wanted to rush the bill through the House, the committee, then on to the Senate and through its committee. The Conservatives thought no one would see how partisan and biased it actually is in certain respects. The more time we spend on the bill, the more flaws and loopholes we find. That is why there was such a dépêche, quite a rush to get the bill out from the spotlight and the microscope of the committees, which did good work, and to the final passage of the bill in the House.

I see it, therefore, as quite ironic in that the Conservatives' campaigned on the promise of cleaning up government and to play by the rules and how today they are trying to tweak the law to sneak in some self-serving loopholes on political donations.

All this after an Elections Canada investigation targeted the Conservative Party, following a statement by the President of the Treasury Board to the effect that his party had forgotten to declare costs of some $2 million relating to its March 2005 convention.

In the process of the hearings, the President of the Treasury Board admitted, particularly in the case at the Senate level, that the Conservatives forgot to declare convention fees as political donations for their convention of March 2005. They had an opinion, which was almost, in this post-football weekend, an audible from the line, the quarterback at the Bill C-2 legislative committee, a representative of the Conservative Party at that point, merely suggested that the Conservatives did not think that convention fees were donations. That has since been ruled completely out of order and improper by Elections Canada officials and by every party in the House except the Conservatives.

Now we will see, as the theme of the response to the speech by the President of the Treasury Board, that it was really all about cover-up and legitimizing something that is quite possibly illegal. Almost $2 million is no small change. The Conservative minority talks about tightening Canadian laws and yet it cannot even follow the existing laws when it comes to political donations.

As I say, I am not the only one saying this. The people of Canada should know that the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, repudiated the Conservatives' excuses and ruled that the party violated the rules.

Other complaints have been made against the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are attempting to fix their illegalities with certain portions of this law. Today, with Bill C-2, the minority government is trying to cover up its past mistakes and clean up its mess. The very fact that it is trying to change the rules, in extremis, at the last possible minute, clearly is an admission of guilt.

In addition to the convention attendance fees, les frais d'inscription pour les congrès de partis politiques, the fees paid by every party member attending a convention, in addition to the colouring of those as non-political donations, erroneously and quite possibly illegally, the Conservative Party had the temerity and gall in practice to allow corporate observers.

By way of footnote, we must remember that Bill C-24, the very fine Liberal bill brought in under the Chrétien government, made it law that corporate and union donations would not be acceptable. However, the Conservative Party has charged to this date $1,000 for corporate observer fees which were not reported as political donations.

After 70 meetings of the Bill C-2 legislative committee and following the Senate committee, I now understand what the President of the Treasury Board meant when he said that he wanted to take the big money out of politics. He meant all the big contributions that were made off the radar screen, not under the Canada Elections Act, not reportable and elicited by a Senate hearing in the spring of the year by the committee of which the President of the Treasury Board was a member.

These amounts, totalling probably more than $2 million, were corporate donations that the President of the Treasury Board and the Conservative Party wanted out of politics. They did not want them reported. Unfortunately, hijacking the House agenda to pass partisan legislation is becoming a full time hobby for the minority Conservative government.

Time and again the President of the Treasury Board stated that he wanted to reduce the influence of big money and make the political process more open.

He said it again on May 4, when he testified before the committee that was reviewing Bill C-2. Even his boss, thePrime Minister, said he wanted t o “put an end to the influence of money” in the Canadian government.

We have it at both levels. We have the President of the Treasury Board, who is sometimes given to bombast, and we can understand his enthusiasm, but on the other side we have the cold eye of the Prime Minister on this very subject saying that he wants to finish the role of big money in politics. Now we see what they meant, which is that the corporate observer status fees and the registration fees for conventions as being out of politics and not reportable. However, we did not see it at the time.

Unfortunately, this government is unable to move from talk to action. On the one hand, it boasts about being a champion for transparency, but on the other hand it finds it normal not to have declared costs of close to $2 million relating to its March 2005 convention. Today, the Conservatives want to use Bill C-2 to correct their own mistakes of the past.

Accountability, however, is not a bendable concept that can be adjusted to fit partisan objectives and past illegalities. Contrary to what the Conservatives may think, the Liberals believe accountability should apply to all parties all the time, not only when it is convenient to do so or in their case, when they get caught.

A review of Bill C-2 is necessary because there is more than just the passing illegality and cover up, Watergate-like as it is, by the government with respect to political donations.

There were some accomplishments at the legislative committee with respect to making deputy ministers more accountable to Parliament. This is a good thing, with a tighter lobbyist regime. At first the Conservatives did not want people who were past workers for them in opposition to be able to ratchet up the ladder of influence when the government changed, but there was much debate on that.

There was some discussion of the access to information program and Access to Information Act pertaining to some of the agencies, boards and commissions which it can be argued is good and bad depending on the commission, agency and board. Time does not permit, unlimited as it is, for me to get into all of the agencies, boards and commissions involved.

It bears saying there were also some Liberal accomplishments. The Liberal members, at committee, following on the advice of the legal counsel to this Parliament protected an 1868 constitutional privilege which in their haste the Conservatives tried to roughshod through the House. The Liberal opposition members removed the aspect of the secret ballot and most importantly, despite the words of the minority government, saved aboriginal first nations communities from the overreach of audit principles to be imposed by the government.

However, there were some significant missed opportunities in not properly debating, in the haste that was the aura of both committees frankly, many amendments that were brought forward by all parties with respect to some very key elements which might have made the bill stronger. There was a proposal to eliminate donations from people under 18 years of age. This was ironically proposed and was ironically defeated by the Conservative majority on the committee with the help of the New Democratic Party.

It might also be said that in the haste to put the Bill C-2 legislative committee together there were no opinions from constitutional scholars. There was neither the time nor the inclination of the leading constitutional scholars to give evidence at those committees. One wonders if we had the sage advice, for instance, of Donald Savoie and his thoughts regarding the freeze in public sector and lobbying industries with respect to how government should work, how much different a bill we might have.

Last year the Conservatives campaigned on six key words. We often think they only had five principles, but they are much more imaginative than we give them credit for. They actually used six words in their platform. They used: accountability, opportunity, security, family, community and unity, and those are good words. Now let us take a minute to analyze what the government has done since it came into power.

On the same day the Conservatives announced over $13 billion in surplus, thanks to good Liberal management, they cut funding to some of the most important community programs in the country, including: literacy, aboriginal programs, minority groups support and women's equality issues. This is their vision for community presumably from their election campaign.

They cut many youth programs that aimed at promoting exchanges between young Canadians of different regions such as the summer work student exchange program.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister publicly accused many Liberals of being anti-Israel. This is presumably their vision of promoting unity, a further campaign promise.

Conservatives decided in favour of sending a $100 monthly cheque per child to Canadian families, a sum not good enough to pay for quality day care services and child care services, especially when this measure is taxable, while creating no new child care spaces whatsoever. This must be their concept of family as enunciated in their campaign strategy.

As for security, another key word, the Conservative minority government decided to bring forward a very American “three strikes, you're out” law with Bill C-27. The concept of innocence until proven guilty is out the door. This must be the Conservative vision of justice.

Then there is the theme of accountability which is dealt by this bill. In light of what the Conservatives are proposing to do with Bill C-2, it is clear they believe that accountability should mostly be a tool to help clean their own past mistakes, especially the $2 million in convention registration fees that have not been disclosed, that are the subject of complaints officially filed with Elections Canada, and the untotalled amounts of corporate observer fees given by corporations who were, by Bill C-24, outside the scope and allowability of political contributions before this act.

We have large sums of money that have not been accounted for, so how is it that this government can stand on this bill with respect to political contributions and say that it is truly an accountability act? It cannot.

Finally, the last word in the Conservative's campaign was opportunity. Once again, what the Conservative minority government is trying to do with Bill C-2 is to create a partisan loophole, weakening the access to information laws, and watering down the federal accountability act. Opportunity is probably the word that currently best describes the government's principles and modus operandi. More specifically, it is highly opportunistic and partisan.

Today the government should truly stand up for Canada as it promised to do. It promised to adopt the recommendation of the Information Commissioner's report on access to information. It has already had two chances and yet it continues to break this promise. If the government truly wants more transparency and more accountability, it needs to leave partisanship behind and support these amendments. This is what true accountability is all about.

It is important to underline that we have supported in many instances this bill and its thrust, but it is important to underline that the concept of the bill is nothing new.

Bill C-24, as the hon. President of the Treasury Board has already said, was a very good step. It was a Chrétien government step with respect to political financing and transparency. Would that the Conservative government in its most recent clandestine fundraising activities and would that it would follow its own words of the President of the Treasury Board in the House today and be more accountable. Sadly, it is not going to be. It is going to wait until it is dragged, talk about foot-dragging, before the courts and found to have been part of illegal contribution schemes as indicated by Mr. Kingsley.

In the spirit with which the Liberal government brought in Bill C-24 and with which it promised to implement the recommendations of Justice Gomery's report, we moved forward with the deliberations on Bill C-2 and are happy in the further vein to propose these amendments. I move:

That the motion be amended

A. by

1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 25, 34 to 54 (a) to (d), 55(e)(ii) to (viii), 56 to 62, 65, 94

2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with”, immediately after the number “158”, the following: “and 25, 34 to 54, 55(a) to (d), 55(e)(ii) to (viii), 56 to 62, 65 and 94”

3. Deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendments 25”

B. by

1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 121, 123

2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with”, immediately after the number “158”, the following: “and 121 and 123”

3. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendments 120” the letter “s” is the first word, the numbers 121 and 123 and the words “and by removing the Canadian Wheat Board from the coverage of this Act”

C. by

1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 118, 119

2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with” immediately after the number “158”, the following “and 118 and 119”

3. Deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendment 118” and the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendment 119”

D. by

1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 67

2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with”, immediately after the number “158”, the following: “and 67”

3. Deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “Senate amendment 67”

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, do I not have some time to conclude?

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate today on Bill C-25 on behalf of the NDP caucus.

I am going to draw on some of the comments made by previous NDP members in this debate earlier and during other stages of the bill. I note many of the thoughtful comments made by our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and our finance critic, the member for Winnipeg North, who analyzed the bill and added some helpful comments that I will try and summarize here.

I should note by way of introduction that the bill comes to us as one of a flurry of bills dealing with justice issues. There has been an entire suite of legislation in recent months, some of it good and some not so good. In the NDP's point of view, we believe that some of the bills go too far and some not far enough. I hope I will have time to develop this somewhat.

We believe that aspects of Bill C-25 do not go far enough given the worthwhile goals and objectives stated in the bill. This is one of those situations where the government of the day could have exercised even more authority to solve some of these issues.

Let me start with that one point that I have introduced to explain. Should the bill pass, this would be one of the few places in the Criminal Code where the reverse onus would be contemplated and allowed. This has been controversial in other aspects. For instance, we just finished debating Bill C-9 yesterday that introduced an element of reverse onus. Should individuals be convicted for a third time of an offence from a list of serious offences, the reverse onus would be put on them to prove why they should not be designated as dangerous offenders and locked up for life.

There were howls of derision in the House because the NDP had the temerity to raise the caution that we should only venture into this notion of reverse onus with our eyes open and with due diligence. We think we were justified in that respect and we are taking political heat as a result of it.

It was not a pleasant sight yesterday when we were debating Bill C-9. I was not proud at all of the tone of the debate that took place just because the NDP had the temerity to question the idea of “three strikes and you're out” and the idea of putting the reverse onus on individuals who are convicted to prove they are not dangerous offenders.

Bill C-25, the bill we are addressing today, deals with a reverse onus as well. This is one case where I think the Conservative government has gone soft on crime. I cannot understand why it did not go farther. Even though those members hurled abuse at the NDP for being soft on crime yesterday because we raised a question, in a more respectful way I ask them why they could not have gone tougher on crime in this bill. I will explain what I mean.

In the context of this flurry of crime and justice bills that we are dealing with, we have to establish the notion that crime does not pay. I would hope this would be one way to deter criminals from activities that we are trying to discourage. The prevailing wisdom and the common knowledge out there is that crime does pay.

An awful lot of bad people are getting away with an awful lot of things and living a very good life right under the noses of our police officers and law enforcement officers whose hands are tied. They may have darn good reason to believe that somebody is enjoying these luxury goods from ill-gotten gains from the proceeds of crime, but because the burden of proof is so onerous on our police officers and on our criminal justice system, it is rare that the proceeds of crime are actually seized.

Bill C-25 does suggest that in the event of money laundering and fundraising for terrorist activities or belonging to an illegal organization, the government can in fact seize bank accounts and cash assets from individuals and apply the reverse onus. I think that is laudable.

I would point out, though, that we could have expanded this notion to include more things than just the bank accounts. In the province of Manitoba we introduced legislation. It was defeated narrowly by the two Liberal members of the Manitoba legislature who would not allow it to pass, but we introduced legislation that was very broad and very sweeping. If a person was a member of a criminal organization and was convicted of a crime, the crown prosecutor could go to a judge who could then assess the material possessions of the criminal.

Let us say the person was a member of an illegal organization like the Hell's Angels and the guy was living in a $750,000 mansion with a tricked out Escalade in the driveway, two boats and a Sea-Doo, and all the tools and jewellery et cetera, the trappings of ill-gotten gains and crime. If that individual could not prove to the judge that the toys were purchased by earnings or by some legally obtained wealth, then we in fact could seize the property. The assets would be liquidated and the proceeds would in fact be dedicated directly to law enforcement, so that we can go out and bust more criminals. I thought that was a great bill and I thought that in the bill before us we could have explored some of those notions.

I note that the private member's bill from the Bloc Québécois in the last Parliament proceeded quite a way down the road before Parliament ended and the bill died on the order paper. I think Richard Marceau was the name of the Bloc member who is no longer a member so I can use his name and give him credit. That garnered a lot of support in the House. We thought it was a good idea.

This notion of reverse onus is not foreign to the NDP nor do we oppose it out of hand, but there was derision heaped on us yesterday for raising the idea that we did not believe reverse onus should be used in Bill C-27, the “three strikes and you're out” bill. We opposed it yesterday, but that does not mean that we oppose it all the time.

Some of the legitimate concerns about Bill C-25 that were raised above and beyond that observation from my own point of view were that it would put a burden on financial institutions to monitor, track, and take note of suspicious transactions or even overt exchanges of money that may indicate illegal activity. I think this is a necessary aspect of the bill. We have to rely on the cooperation of the financial institutions to alert us when these suspicious transactions take place.

However, the burden on smaller financial institutions may be quite onerous. I have an email from the director of the largest credit union on Vancouver Island, Mr. Bob Smits. Mr. Smits noticed that we were raising issues about the bill in the House of Commons and was monitoring it carefully.

He raised a concern that in a smaller financial institution like his, the current regulations, even as they exist today regarding tracking, the FINTRAC legislation, and the financial transactions and report analysis legislation have required his small credit union to hire an enforcement officer. He estimates that the cost of compliance with the current law to be over $100,000 a year.

If we compound that burden even further and make the obligation more onerous, we have to accommodate somehow these smaller institutions who want to comply with the law, but who have served notice that they are legitimately concerned that the burden will be passed on to them. They are asking that the government pay attention to the submission made by the credit unions at committee.

I am not sure how the submission was received in committee but I did not notice any substantial amendment in that regard. The only amendment I could find in my research for my speech today was a committee stage amendment put forward by the member for Markham—Unionville. The amendment stated that SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, established by section 31, “...shall undertake a review of the operations of the centre in each financial year and shall, within three months after the end of each financial year, submit the annual report to Parliament on those operations”.

That is just a mandatory review process, which is not unusual when we are introducing a bill of this nature. I am not sure we took into consideration the legitimate concerns of the Credit Union Central of Canada in its submission to the bill. I want to recognize today that the NDP did take note of CUCC's concerns and we tried to represent its concerns at every stage of the debate on the bill.

One of the points I highlighted in its submission is where CUCC states that “in the absence of compelling evidence of need, Credit Union Central is concerned that the proposed legislation is largely driven by the perceived need to make Canada's AML-ATF regime formally consistent with the new international financial action task force standards, rather than in response to any substantive threat arising from loopholes in Canada's current AML-ATF regime”.

I suppose CUCC is questioning whether better enforcement in support of the existing regime may have been adequate to plug the loopholes. These are the practitioners in the field who do not want us to pass legislation unnecessarily unless we can have a demonstrated need proven to them. They also point out, and we should take note of this, that they do not necessarily accept that the need is commensurate with the level of activity contemplated in the bill.

The one thing that I do take note of and support in the bill is that the bill does include the foreign currency exchange shops. I think this is a logical extension in terms of financial institutions.

I would also note that a lot of questionable activity can be shielded in the completely unregulated financial sector of the payday loan companies, many of which, in fact, offer this foreign exchange and foreign delivery of currency.

As we know, a lot of money leaves Canada every year, expatriated by people who are working in Canada and sending money to other countries. When the completely unregulated payday loan sector started to explode into our communities and started sprouting up like mushrooms on every street corner, we were very concerned. However, one of the things we have not given too much thought to is that one of the services offered by these payday loan outfits is, quite often, wiring money to other countries.

The wiring of money was normally done in a fairly regulated setting until these shops started popping up in every strip mall across the country, sometimes three, four and five of them in the same strip mall. I think we will need to pay better attention to the activity involved in that because questionable people have entered into that industry sector. When people can get 1,000% rate of return on their money, a lot of people are taking note and it is no wonder these little shops are sprouting up.

In one sting case done by the crown prosecutor for the province of Manitoba, they found that 10,000% interest was being charged by one of these outfits. I believe that is a better rate of return than a person can get selling cocaine. There is no other activity in the country where we can get 10,000% return on an investment, other than these payday loan shops, so it is attracting all the wrong kinds of people. I would suggest that might be one place that officials may want to really look for money laundering, illegal transactions, and bring these payday lenders under tight scrutiny and tight regulation.

I do acknowledge that payday loan legislation is pending in this 39th Parliament, and I welcome that.

This bill deals with the legislation governing money laundering as it exists today and tries to strengthen and improve the performance of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC as it is known to the practitioners in the field.

FINTRAC, being an independent agency, does report to the Minister of Finance. It places obligations on certain individuals and entities to keep records, to identify their clients and to report certain financial transactions.

The second concern brought to our attention by the Credit Union Central of Canada is the obligation to report activity. First, the onerous burden that may be compounded by this legislation to track activity looking for suspect transactions, but also the obligation to turn in the names of member clients, otherwise seemingly innocent transactions may cross some line where a red flag pops up on a file, the institution would have no choice other than to report that individual. It could be someone who has been a member of that credit union for 20 years. We all know that credit unions are a lot more community driven than are some of the bigger banking institutions. It could put the manager of a credit union, who is a member of the community and who might be the coach of the local hockey team, in the difficult situation of having to turn in one of the parents of the children on that hockey team because of a transaction that was possibly innocent but set off a little red flag.

There are the privacy elements here that we must take into consideration and there is the awkwardness associated with that.

Bill C-25 seeks to improve and strengthen the performance of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre. I come back to the point made by Credit Union Central that perhaps all that is needed is a more robust administration of the existing FINTRAC regime.

It would be irresponsible to speak to this bill without taking into consideration the projected costs.

As I see I have only two minutes left, I will restate two of the compelling arguments brought to our attention by people we trust, about Bill C-25, the Credit Union Central of Canada.

The budget for FINTRAC, as contemplated currently, is $64 million. It may be that more resources will be necessary to offset the impact of the costs of administering the further obligations under Bill C-25 for these smaller institutions. As a former activist in the credit union movement, I try to advocate on their behalf. Let us not put this added financial burden on struggling organizations that are trying to meet the financial needs of individuals in places where the banks have abandoned them.

Quite often, the credit union stuck with the tough work of providing basic financial services that the banks should have been providing if they were living up to their obligations under their charters. They have abandoned the inner cities. Credit unions have fallen in to take their place and this bill might add an unnecessary financial burden on them.

Justice

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather appropriate for me to be presenting these petitions as we are discussing Bill C-27, the dangerous offender legislation. I introduce these petitions that were received by my office with respect to pedophiles and repeat sexual offenders. To date, we have received over 15,500 signatures through the petition. Signatures are coming in every day. They are from every province in the country, from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, et cetera. They show that people have compassion about this issue. The petition itself says that from time to time children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders and Canadians desire that steps be taken to prevent incidents from occurring.

The petitioners ask that we proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles, which Bill C-27 does, by mandatory, compulsory, electronic or other forms of the monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody, ensuring compulsory public notification on movement of convicted pedophiles, and ensuring that such repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders. Bill C-27 is before the House. It is being debated as we speak. We would ask the opposition to join with us in putting forward some legislation that would correct many of the issues in this petition.

Criminal Code

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

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 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.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we will be calling that debate that the hon. member just mentioned in due course.

Today, we will continue the debate on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act.

There is an agreement to complete Bill C-25, proceeds of crime, tomorrow. In a few moments I will be asking the approval of the House for a special order in that regard.

When the House returns from the Remembrance Day break, we intend to call for debate a motion in response to the much anticipated message from the Senate regarding Bill C-2, the accountability act. As well, we hope to complete the report and third reading stages of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber act.

Thursday, November 23 will be an allotted day

I want to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading.

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.

Criminal Code

[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.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports this morning.

Pursuant to Standing Order 113.(1) I have the honour to present the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Our researchers can access that easily, and I assume they have or they will, because that data is useful and obviously relevant.

This is one bill, we numbered it Bill C-10, but there are two other bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-27. Each of these bills, Minister, deals with the Criminal Code, deals with sentencing. I'm wondering why we have three bills. Why didn't the government simply introduce one bill dealing with Criminal Code sentencing, dealing with conditional sentencing, in this bill mandatory minimums and the other involving long-term offenders? Wouldn't that have been the simple and prudent thing to do? Why did you choose three bills instead of one?

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we should conclude debate on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).

Next week we will begin the report stage of Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, followed by Bill C-26, payday loans, Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C-17, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in relation to courts and then Bill C-27, dangerous offenders.

I will continue to consult with the House leaders of other political parties with respect to Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill, and we may be able to proceed with that next week as well.

Criminal Code

[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—

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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--

[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?

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.

[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.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-28, the bill to implement the 2006 budget tax measures. This would be followed, time permitting, with Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the aeronautics amendments.

Tomorrow we will continue with the business from today with the possibility as well of completing the third reading stage of Bill C-16. I will talk to the opposition House leader about that after this.

Next week we hope to begin debate on some of the government's justice bills. The first one will be on the age of consent, Bill C-22. If we could get unanimous consent to pass that at all stages that would be very much appreciated.

We will go then to Bill C-27, our dangerous offenders bill and any cooperation we can get to move that along would be appreciated, I think, by the people of this country.

I am looking forward to sitting down with the official opposition and other parties to discuss the speedy passage of the many popular bills that the government has introduced and I am looking forward to their cooperation on that.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), I would like to designate Tuesday, October 31, as the day to continue debate on the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In response to the member's questions, consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, shall take place on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, pursuant to the Standing Orders. The second day for consideration of committee of the whole will be November 7, 2006.

As well, I should indicate that Thursday, November 2, 2006, shall be an allotted day.

With respect to the member's questions with respect to the same sex marriage, we will fulfill our campaign promise on that and we will be proceeding with it this fall.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am respectful of Mr. Petit and of the team sitting across from me. I do not know how they work, but personally, I have to prepare for the meetings.

Take for example, Bill C-10, because we just finished our study of Bill C-9. Many people have sent us briefs on Bill C-10; we have a lot of documents to read. Moreover, some of us do not only sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I also sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I replace Mrs. Freeman, who is ill.

I felt that three meetings per week to study Bill C-9 was acceptable, but if we went back to two meetings per week that would suit me, because it would give me the time to prepare and to study the documents. I do not know what you think of this, Mr. Chairman, but there is a great deal of material. Also, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is overwhelming us; they sent us pile of papers for Bill C-27 alone. We have to read everything we are sent, just to prepare ourselves. We just received the list of witnesses we want to hear on Bill C-10. Looking at the list of witnesses, I thought to myself it would be nice to have the time to make enquiries, to find out what this or that person has to do with this file.

It is not that we want to work less, it is that we would like to be able to work properly. If we meet on Monday afternoon, Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon, we will not have the time to prepare. That is why I agree with the motion. It is not that we do not want to work, because reading does not bother me, but it is getting difficult.

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

I'm in favour of the change, Mr. Chair, because of the indication we now have that Bill C-27—and I have to assume that the government will be using this tactic on an ongoing basis—will be sent to a special legislative committee. This will make it impossible for me to maintain any kind of schedule to sit on that committee as well as on this one and public safety. Mr. Ménard is going to get caught in a somewhat similar situation.

It is important that the people sitting on justice continue to deal with all of these bills, if they come. Certainly the dangerous offender provisions have some overlay with a number of other bills—with Bill C-10 in particular, which is coming next—and to have different members of whatever caucus sitting on these different committees just begs for inconsistencies to crop up.

If, as the government has already signalled, it is going ahead with putting Bill C-27 into a legislative committee, it's logical that we make it possible for Mr. Ménard and me to be on both that legislative committee and this one, on an ongoing basis.

As I said, I will support this motion.

Canadian Heritage

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and the member for Saint-Lambert for the information they are providing us today.

I was a volunteer member on the Workers Arts and Heritage Centre in Hamilton. I was really struck when I heard government members talking today about the fact that money was available, but people were not sophisticated enough to access it. It strikes me that it would be the government's responsibility to help people who are not sophisticated and need access to their government and government programs.

I was extremely disappointed to hear a government member today comparing Bill C-25, Bill C-26 and Bill C-27. These are very serious pieces of legislation. The member was saying this should be minimized debate. It sounds to me as though the government started searching for programs it wanted to cut and unfortunately it chose this one.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the member might want to comment on the fact that our colleague from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the member for Saint-Lambert, has brought forward his concurrence motion at this particular time.

I have the highest respect for the member for Saint-Lambert and for his dedication to this question. Considering the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I on her behalf have made it perfectly clear that we are working toward a new museums policy, I am wondering about the timing of this debate. Today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-25 from the Minister of Finance, a bill regarding the proceeds of crime and money laundering, an important issue, Bill C-26 from the Minister of Justice, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), and Bill C-27 from the Minister of Justice, an act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

We are trying to make Canada a safer place. I am wondering if the member for Peace River would agree with me on the timing of this debate. While I respect the member's intent of trying to keep the pressure on the government, nonetheless, we have to make sure that we are keeping Canada safe, not the issue that the member has brought forward with this motion.

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on an opposition motion which gives the government an opportunity to talk about keeping its promise to review our programs to ensure every taxpayer dollar spent is well spent and by reducing the debt by $13.2 billion.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on Bill C-25 , proceeds of crime, followed by Bill C-26, payday lending.

Next week, we will continue with the business from Friday with the addition of Bill C-27, dangerous offenders, Bill S-2, hazardous materials, Bill C-6 aeronautics, and Bill C-28, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006.

With respect to my hon. colleague's question on supply day, just like a child waiting for Christmas, he will have to wait a little bit longer. We will get back to him next week.

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

I think he said something about the cost of legal aid for Bill C-9, Bill C-10, and Bill C-27. I think I heard that today in the locker room or somewhere.

No, that doesn't work. Oh well, darn it.

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

Right now, even at $126 million, if that's what the figure is going to be, none of that includes increased legal aid costs as a result of the government program, let's say, of Bill C-9, Bill C-10, and Bill C-27.

All we really know is that the government has put about $225 million in Mr. Flaherty's budget for prisons, when our estimate is that the capital for prisons is $1.5 billion. Notwithstanding that the government has done estimates for cabinet purposes on police, prison, and legal aid costs, we don't have those figures and we don't know the cost of the program.

Mr. Thompson is a big supporter of the program. He says his people tell him that whatever the costs are, we'll pay for it. I would think he and others would want to know what it's going to cost and would stand behind the figures.

I guess we're waiting for that. Mr. Moore may have them in his sheath of documents over there, but we'll have to wait for another day and another witness to get that answer. Is that right?

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

I wanted to know whether you had had an assessment done of the legal aid costs associated with the enforcement of Bills C-9, C-10 and C-27.

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

In the draft budget, $955,000 was earmarked as support for a legal aid pilot project. Why doesn't that show up in the 2006-2007 main estimates? That's my first question.

As for my second—and I hope you will be able to answer it—I would like to know whether your department has contemplated the increased cost of legal aid associated with the enforcement of Bills C-9, C-10 and C-27, which we are going to be considering in the next few days. Have you looked into that? I look forward to your answers.

Criminal Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)