Bill C-35 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that the accused will be required to demonstrate, when charged with certain serious offences involving firearms or other regulated weapons, that pre-trial detention is not justified in their case and to introduce additional factors relating to firearm offences that the courts must take into account in deciding whether an accused should be released or detained pending trial.

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member but I must background it because of the games that the government plays.

On October 26, 2006, the Liberals made the first offer to fast-track a package of justice bills through the House. This offer effectively guaranteed the Conservatives a majority in the House to pass this legislation.

On March 21, 2007, we attempted to use an opposition day motion that if passed would have immediately results in the passage at all stages of four justice bills: Bill C-18, Bill C-22, Bill C-23 and Bill C-35.

Incredibly, the Conservative House leader raised a procedural point of order to block the motion. In other words, the Conservatives fought the Liberal attempt to pass the four Conservative justice bills. Why? They wanted to get to the attacking violent crime bill where they could try to confuse Canadians and try to blame the Liberals that they did not pass them.

Would the member for once withdraw from his fantasyland, be honest in this House and admit to the facts that I just outlined to him?

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this morning's debate. Throughout 2007, I was the justice critic for the official opposition. And throughout 2006, I served as deputy House leader of the official opposition, which is also my current role.

Thus, since the Conservative government's Speech from the Throne in 2006, I have been listening to the Conservative rhetoric, which I have weighed against the actions put forward by this government.

The motion we are debating today is:

That, given the government has declared the passage of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as a matter of confidence, and, that the bill has already been at the Senate longer than all stages took in the House of Commons, and that all aspects of this bill have already been the subject of extensive committee hearings in Parliament, and that in the opinion of this House the Senate majority is not providing appropriate priority to the passage of Bill C-2, a message be sent to the Senate calling on the Senate to pass Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, by March 1, 2008.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General is applauding. Well, I wonder. The Minister of Justice made a big point about how in the 2006 throne speech the Conservative government made tackling crime a priority. It is one of five priorities of the government. Let us look at the record of the government prior to when it prorogued the session that began in the winter of 2006 after the 2006 election. Let us look at that record.

The Liberal record is that we supported the vast majority of the Conservative government's justice bills. The fact is that the Conservative government has needlessly delayed its own legislation. The fact is there has been no opposition obstruction, not from the official opposition, not from the Bloc Québécois and not from the NDP. The only obstruction has been from the government. Let me give an example.

The government talks about the age of consent legislation. In the previous session, the age of consent legislation was Bill C-22 . It is now found in this new tackling crime bill, Bill C-2.

Bill C-22, the age of consent legislation, was originally tabled by the government on June 22, 2006, some four and a half months after the government came to this House and opened Parliament with a throne speech. The House adjourned for the summer months one or two days later. I do not have the exact date with me but at the most, it was two days later. We came back on the third Monday in September 2006.

Did the government then move second reading of the age of consent bill? That is the bill that would raise the legal age of consent from 14 to 16 years. The government had an opportunity, its very first opportunity to move second reading. For Canadians who are listening, no one but the government can move government legislation from one stage to another.

The government tables its bill under parliamentary rules, House of Commons rules. It moves first reading and the motion is automatically deemed to have been adopted. The bill then goes on to the order paper and it stays there until the government moves second reading. We waited through the month of September 2006 and into the month of October 2006. The government did not move second reading.

That is the same government with a Minister of Justice and Attorney General who says that he is concerned, who says that victims, particularly our children who are victims of sexual predators, are among the Conservatives' first and main priority, and the government did not move second reading on the age of consent bill in 2006.

What did the Liberals do? Because that was a bill that we supported unconditionally, our House leader, who speaks on behalf of the official opposition, offered to fast track it.

Again, for those who do not understand the rules of procedure of the House of Commons, and possibly some of the government members who may not understand the rules of procedure of the House of Commons, the Standing Orders, when there is a majority in the House of Commons, whether it be the government only, or the government and another party, the government can fast track a bill.

We offered to fast track the age of consent legislation in October 2006. The government did not take us up on the offer. It ignored our offer. It did not even deign to officially respond to our offer. However, what this did was bring pressure to the government and several days later the government finally moved debate at second reading on the age of consent bill.

For a government, a Prime Minister, a Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, his parliamentary secretary and every single Conservative sitting on the government benches in this House of Commons to say that children, our children, are a priority and then to refuse to fast track the age of consent bill is unconscionable.

That bill could have been law by December 2006. We would have now had 13 months of better protection for our children and that government refused. This is what the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is not telling the Canadian people. That bill could have been law.

Let us look at another bill that we find in Bill C-2. Let us look at the bill about which the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada attempted to eloquently dis the official opposition. That bill used to be Bill C-35, regarding reverse onus on bail for firearm related offences.

That bill received first reading on November 23, 2006. Guess what? It sat. The government did not move second reading debate through the end of November 2006, the entire month of December 2006 and the entire month of January 2007. That government did not move second reading of the bail reform bill until February 13.

Is it not a coincidence, that is a bill which we offered to fast track. That is a bill that could have been law. It could have been law for over a year now, and that government did not take us up on it.

That is a government that sends ten percenters into ridings of my colleagues in Manitoba, in Ontario, in British Columbia, claiming that the Liberals are obstructing the government's justice agenda. The government obstructed its own agenda.

I have to ask myself the following question: is this simple incompetence on the part of the government or is this government being wilfully incompetent?

Is that pure incompetence on the part of the government or is it wilful incompetence in delaying its own legislation?

Those are just two things that we find in Bill C-2 which could have been the law for over a year now had the Conservative government actually been truthful to its claim about victims being its main priority. Had that been the truth, the government would have taken the Liberals up on our offer to fast-track the bill and the age of consent would have been 16 years old December 2006 and reverse onus on bail for firearm related offences would have been the law over a year ago.

However, it gets even better. The government says that the Senate has now had Bill C-2 longer than all stages in the House. The government is counting on the fact that most Canadians will not know the parliamentary agenda and calendar. Bill C-2 was sent to the Senate on December 12, 2007. Parliament adjourned December 14, 2007. Parliament did not resume until Monday, January 28, 2008. The government tabled this motion claiming that the Senate was wilfully obstructing the government's tackling crime agenda.

Had the government been so concerned with Bill C-2 and so concerned about victims and about getting the legislation that it claims is the cornerstone of its priority and agenda, why did it not table a motion last fall for a message to be sent to the Senate informing the Senate that when it receives Bill C-2, we expect it to be reported back to us by x date? The government had all the authority and power to do that last fall but it did not.

Again I must ask whether it was mere incompetence. Is it because the government after two years still does not understand the Standing Orders, which is what we call the rules of this House? Is it wilful incompetence? The government understands full well the authority and powers it has under the House of Commons rules but chooses not to use them in the hopes that most Canadians will not know that it is the government that is actually obstructing its own agenda.

Let us talk about another obstruction. I mentioned how most of the bills, except for Bill C-27, which is the dangerous offender piece of Bill C-2, had already moved through the House and had been referred to the Senate late May, early June, late June of 2007. The Senate only had a couple of days, according to the parliamentary calendar, before Parliament adjourned for the summer. We were scheduled to come back the third Monday of September 2007 but the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, or in his incompetence or in his wilful incompetence decided to prorogue Parliament.

What does that mean? Under the rules and procedures and Standing Orders, it means that every piece of legislation in front of the House of Commons or in front of the Senate automatically dies. The government killed its own age of consent bill, its reverse onus on bail bill and its impaired driving bill, which is interesting because that is the bill we supported wholeheartedly.

I wonder if MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, understands that if the impaired driving bill is not the law today it has absolutely nothing to do with the official opposition or with the Liberal senators, but has everything to do with the government's own decision to obstruct its own legislation, not to move its own legislation through the House of Commons in a timely fashion and then to prorogue and kill its own legislation. That legislation could have been the law for almost a year now had the government not wilfully obstructed its own legislation.

Let us take the dangerous offenders bill. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada talked about how that legislation would ensure that Canadians who commit violent, egregious crimes will not be free on the streets because of the changes that it brought to the dangerous offender system.

One of the things that the government is not telling Canadians is that the way the system worked before the government brought in Bill C-27, the crown prosecutor had full discretion as to whether he or she would apply for a dangerous offender hearing. The government has done absolutely nothing to change that with its tackling crime legislation. The crown will still decide. It does not matter if it is someone who has committed heinous crimes one time, been sent to prison, served the sentence, comes out, does it again, is found guilty and serves another sentence, the crown can still decide whether it will apply for a dangerous offender hearing.

What was the Liberal response to that? The Liberal response was that there should automatically--

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

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin to speak to Bill C-2, I have to address my hon. colleague's contradictory comments about the lack of mandatory minimums. On the one hand, he lambasted the Liberal Party for not wanting mandatory minimums. On the other hand, he said very clearly that we had them and we called for a strengthening of them.

When the member for Mount Royal was the justice minister, he introduced mandatory minimums for weapons offences. That was a good thing. That is why we support Bill C-2. We have been trying to drive forward much of what is in the legislation. Ironically, we have been obstructed by the government.

I will go through the facts. Unfortunately, in the House one could look at the old adage that “in war, truth is the first casualty”. What we have here is war by another name. Sometimes truth is the first casualty in the House of Commons, and that is sad for the public.

Let me talk about the facts for a minute and give viewers a bit of history on the bill.

Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill involving a combination of five bills, including mandatory minimum penalties. We support mandatory minimum penalties. I caution the government, however, to ensure that the mandatory minimum penalties for weapons offences, violent offences and sexual offences cannot be plea bargained away and that they run consecutively and not concurrently. Too many times people who have committed serious offences receive penalties that get plea bargained away, so there is no effective penalty.

We also support an increase in mandatory minimums for weapons trafficking. My colleague from Mount Royal introduced many mandatory minimums for these offences in the last Parliament.

The Liberal Party supports the provisions for dangerous offenders, impaired driving and reverse onus in firearms offences. Many years ago there really was no penalty for a person using a weapon in the commission of an offence. That was changed by the last government. The Liberal Party supports the changes in Bill C-2.

Let me talk for a few moments about a few facts around the passage of the bill.

On October 26, 2006, our Liberal leader made a first offer to fast track a package of justice bills in the House, including Bill C-9, as it had been amended, Bill C-18, the DNA identification legislation, Bill C-19, the street racing legislation, Bill C-22, the age of consent legislation, Bill C-23, the animal cruelty legislation and Bill C-26, respecting payday loans. We also added Bill C-35, on March 14 of this year, a bill for bail reform, and we support that.

On March 21, we attempted to use our opposition day to pass the government's four justice bills: Bill C-18, Bill C-22, Bill C-23 and Bill C-35. The Conservative House leader raised a procedural point of order to block the motion. Those four government bills would have been fast tracked through this place in the same day, yet the government House leader, for reasons unknown to us and the public, blocked this. Those are facts.

What has been the path of government justice bills through the Senate? Of the six justice bills that had been passed before the summer break, only four went to the Senate. How on earth could the Senate pass bills that it just received prior to the government proroguing Parliament? It could not do that. It is disingenuous for government members to stand and suggest that the Senate was trying to block their bills. By the time the Senate received the bills, the government closed Parliament. Those are the facts. Anybody can check them out if they wish.

We support Bill C-2. However, I want to bore down on a few dangerous issues that the government is pursuing. One deals with the issue of drug trafficking. The government has said that it will increase the penalties for those who traffic in drugs.

There are two populations of traffickers.

There are those parasites in society who are involved in commercial grow operations, frequently attached to organized crime. We should throw the book at them. Those people are a cancer in our society and they deserve to be in jail.

There is another population that will be swept up in the government's anti-trafficking bill. It is the low level dealers who sell small amounts of illegal drugs to people, but they themselves are addicts. In essence, they are selling drugs to pay for their addictions.

If we criminalize people who have addiction problems and throw them in jail, they come out being hardened criminals. We also do not deal with the underlying problem, which we will have at the end of the day when they come out. In effect, we increase public insecurity and costs to the taxpayer. We do not address the underlying problem and we make our streets less safe. That is stupid, not to put too fine a point on it.

If the government goes through with the bill to criminalize people who are addicts, the low level people buying and selling drugs, it will end up with the situation we see south of the border, which has used a war on drugs approach. It has proven to be an abysmal failure.

What we see south of the border is a view of the future for us if the government pursues its course of action. There have been increased rates of both soft and hard drugs use, increased numbers of people have been incarcerated, increased costs to the taxpayer and more violent crime. Society loses.

The government ought to work with the provinces to implement solutions that address some of the underlying problems.

I will get to the organized crime aspects in a moment.

For the drug problems, I cannot overemphasize what a disaster this will be. The government has been warned of this by people across the country.

Let us take two projects, in particular, that have been extremely effective in dealing with people who have intravenous drug use problems. Both of them are found in Vancouver and championed by Dr. Julio Montaner and Dr. Thomas Kerr, superb physicians and research scientists, who have underneath them the Insite supervised injection program and the NAOMI project.

The supervised injection program is a place where addicts can go to a supervised setting and take the drugs they are given. What has that done? It has reduced harm, put more people into treatment, reduced crime and saved the taxpayer money. Fewer people have gone to emergency and there has been less dependence on our health care system. It works.

The other project I would recommend we pursue is the NAOMI project. Before I get to it, I point out that in the eleventh hour the government extended Insite's ability to engage in its program up until June 2008.

All the evidence published from The Lancet to The New England Journal of Medicine shows, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Insite supervised injection program saves lives, reduces crime and gets people into treatment. It is good for public security and it saves the taxpayer money. Why extend it to only eight months?

If the government gets a majority, it will kill the program. That, in short, will be murder. The government knows full well the program saves lives. To remove that program, would result in, essentially, the killing of people.

A program that works better, which the government does not support but ought to expand, is the NAOMI project. The NAOMI project deals with hard-core narcotics abusers. These people are over the age of 26. They have had five years of drug addictions and two failed attempts at treatment. They are the hard nuts of intravenous drug use.

The NAOMI project took 243 addicts and randomized them into three populations. One population received intravenous heroine, the other one received intravenous dilaudid, which is a prescription narcotic that is legal, and the third was to take oral methadone, which is a weak narcotic.

What happened to those populations? Of the population on IV drugs, more than 85% of people were still taking those drugs, receiving treatment and counselling, getting their lives together, obtaining skills training and being able to live while not being on the street and not engaging in criminal behaviour to feed their addictions. Of the third population, the ones in the methadone program, 50% of people were still in treatment after a year. It works.

What the government should be doing for both Insite as well as NAOMI, is expanding those programs across our country. Our urban centres need it.

In Victoria there are 1,243 people living on the street, 60% of which have what we call dual diagnoses, which means some of them have both a drug problem and a psychiatric problem. I would also add that some people within that population have had brain injuries in the past and have fallen into the terrible spiral of drug use by being on the street. Those people could be you or I, Mr. Speaker, who one day fall off a ladder or get into a car accident, sustain a significant closed head injury, have major cerebral trauma and as a result their lives are affected forever.

Some of those people are on the street and take drugs. Do we throw those people in jail? Do we throw the psychiatric patient, who is dealing to pay for his or her addiction, in jail? That is what would happen with the bill that the government has introduced. Those people need medical treatment. They do not need to be in jail.

My plea to the government, to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister is to bury their ideology, follow the facts and implement the solutions that will help people with addictions, keep our streets safe, and reduce costs to the taxpayers. It is a win-win situation for all concerned.

The interesting thing about the NAOMI project is that because NAOMI actually gave the drug to an individual who was proven to be an addict, that person did not have to go on the street to get the drugs. If that were done in a broader sense, it would be horrific to organized crime that benefits from this situation because the NAOMI project severs the tie between the addict and organized crime. That is what we need to do.

Organized crime would be horrified if a forward thinking government one day were to enable drug addicts to receive their drugs. Doing that enables addicts to get into the treatment programs that they need. It enables them to detoxify, obtain addiction counselling, skills training and the psychiatric therapy they need. If we do not do that, we will not make a dent in what we see on the ground. There will not be any affect on addictions and it will actually increase the criminal population in our country.

The other side of this coin, of course, deals with organized crime gangs, as I mentioned, the parasites and cancer in our society. These parasites are essentially people in $3,000 suits who benefit from a substance that is nearly worthless but has a value well beyond what it ought to have because it is illegal.

I have a bill on the order paper that would decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana. No one condones anybody using marijuana, everybody wants to prevent people from using it, and everyone certainly encourages children not to use this or any other illegal drug. The fact of the matter is that people do use it and a significant percentage of Canadians have used it at one time in their lives, particularly when they were very young.

Do we throw those people in jail? Do we throw an 18-year-old who has a joint in his or her back pocket in jail? Do we throw an 18-year-old in jail who exchanges or sells or gives a couple of marijuana cigarettes to a friend? That would be trafficking under the government's bill. Do we throw that 18-year-old in jail? Do we give an 18-year-old a criminal record, which is what we have today, affecting his or her ability to work or gain employment and have access to professional facilities for the rest of his or her life? Is that a humane way to deal with our population? It is not.

The worst news for organized crime, in my personal view, would be that marijuana is legal and regulated. It is not to say that marijuana is safe. It is not. It is dangerous, but so are alcohol and cigarettes.

If we can imagine today that cigarettes were going to come onto the market and were proposed as being something that ought to be sold today, do we think for a moment that they would be allowed, with all the cancer, respiratory and cardiac problems that cigarettes cause? No, they would not be, and neither in fact would alcohol. Alcohol would not be allowed today either, for all of the damage it does, but the fact of the matter is that cigarettes and alcohol are legal today.

The groups that benefit the most from the status quo, from marijuana being illegal, and it is just a weed with its value elevated well beyond what it ought to be because it is illegal, are the organized crime gangs. They are making billions of dollars off the status quo, and those billions are used to do any number of things including: trafficking of weapons and people, prostitution, embezzlement, fraud and murder. That is what organized crime is involved with.

What the government should be doing is coming up with a more comprehensive plan to deal with the biker gangs and organized criminal gangs who are--

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, as I was mentioning, as parliamentarians we have to be cognizant and not pass bad legislation. We have to ensure that we do not interfere in the justice process as well.

These bills were thoroughly debated when they came before committee. Bills have to be handled properly if they are to get through Parliament. If they are to be handled properly, they have to be prioritized. It appears the Conservatives have no priorities. They only want to create a hodgepodge of stuff.

On October 26, 2006, the Liberals offered to fast track a package of justice bills through the House. These included Bill C-9, as it had been amended, Bill C-18, the DNA identification legislation, Bill C-19, the street racing legislation, Bill C-22, the age of consent legislation, Bill C-23, the animal cruelty legislation and Bill C-26, respecting payday loans. This offer effectively guaranteed that the Conservatives would have a majority to pass the legislation.

On March 14, the Leader of the Opposition added Bill C-35, the bail reform legislation, to the list of bills the Liberal caucus would fast track. Despite this offer, it took the Conservatives until May 30 to get the bill through committee. If the Conservatives were so keen on being hard on crime, as they have claimed, they should have taken this offer.

According to a report entitled “Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce America’s Prison Population”, produced by the JFA Institute, the tough measures, which the government claims it is bringing through its omnibus bills, are costly and pointless. The report says that due largely to tough on crime policies, there are now eight times as many people in U.S. prisons and jails as there were in 1970, yet the crime rate today in the U.S. is about the same as it was in 1973. There is little evidence that the imprisonment binge has had much impact on crime.

As legislators, we are supposed to be here to pass good legislation, not bad legislation. We are here to debate and to amend. Amendments were proposed to the bills and the members of the Conservative Party on the committee did not want to pass them.

It is important that we reflect on what these bills talked about.

Bill C-10 talked about minimum penalties. It proposed five years for a first offence and seven years on a second or subsequent offence for eight specific offences involving the actual use of firearms, attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery, extortion and when the offence was gang related or if a restricted or prohibited firearm such as a handgun was used.

The bill was brought to committee and the committee made the necessary amendments. The committee still has very grave concerns that the bill needs to be properly documented and it has to be properly put in place so legislators know the intent of the legislation.

There is the creation of two new offences, an indictable offence of breaking and entering to steal a firearm and an indictable offence of robbery to steal a firearm. There is no difference with the version of Bill C-10, which passed through the House, and the language used in Bill C-2.

The question to be asked is why then group this in an omnibus bill? No one on the government side seems to give us an answer. All the members do is repeat their mantra that they are hard on crime. However, as I pointed out, the U.S. crime policy, which they so desperately want to follow, fails the system. It does nothing right.

Bill C-22, which was the age of protection bill, proposed to raise the age at which youth could consent to non-exploitative sexual activity. The age would be raised from 14 to 16 years of age and the age of protection of 18 years would be maintained for exploitative sexual activities.

Through amendments, the committee brought about a five year close in age. This was not there when it was proposed by the government. Therefore, another question arises. What happened to the good amendments in the mandatory minimum penalties in the age of protection?

What about Bill C-23, which was criminal procedure? According to the Official Languages Act, the committee ensured that there were changes to the bill. We said that a person who was a French-speaking person, if he or she were in court, should get a French counsel. It is important to protect language rights. In a country that has two official languages we have to protect minority rights as well. Why is this bill not mentioned at all?

Bill C-27 deals with dangerous offenders. It would provide that an offender who was serving a long term supervision order in the community and who was violating the conditions of the order would be guilty of an offence and the crown could choose to hold a dangerous offender hearing following convictions.

That was originally proposed by the Liberal justice critic. The bill would expand the possible sentence available to a judge following a finding that an individual would be a dangerous offender. The judge could now impose a long term supervision order or simply impose the sentence for the offence for which the offender had been convicted in addition to the previous option of detention in prison for an indeterminate period, which was previous available.

The Conservatives love to introduce bills. They want to take credit for a lot of things and make it on the six o'clock news. If something does not make the six o'clock news, like Bill C-23 because it was protecting minority language rights, they do not bother.

The last bill I will speak about is Bill C-32, the drug recognition experts to conduct roadside sobriety tests. It is good to promise all sorts of things, but there is no funding. When we do not have funding, how will we get these experts? For example, in Seacow Pond where would we get a person who is an expert?

It is very important that when we prepare bills and we make promises, those promises have to be kept. We have to provide the legislators with enough resources.

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--

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the bill that amends the Criminal Code and makes consequential amendments to other acts. As you know, I come from a region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, where the crime rate is very low. Still, I want to take part in today's debate to raise an issue that is a major source of concern for people in my region and in my riding.

It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois worked actively and positively in committee to improve some of the provisions of Bill C-2. Incidentally, I want to congratulate in particular the hon. member for Hochelaga, who did a great job at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and also the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, for her contribution.

Based on what we heard from a large number of witnesses, it is obvious that many Quebeckers and Canadians want some changes to the current justice model.

The committee's consultation process and the message conveyed by our fellow citizens showed two things. First, a large part of the population is concerned about the current justice system and, second, it does not want an American type of justice system.

We believe that the American justice system has produced disastrous results. The Bloc Québécois deemed appropriate to propose a series of amendments to Bill C-2. Unfortunately, the Conservative government kept none of the six amendments that we proposed, even though some of them enjoyed the unanimous support of the public security ministers in Quebec and in the provinces. It is unfortunate that the Conservative government does not take into consideration the fact that this is a minority government.

I would like to briefly mention the six amendments that reflect Quebeckers' values. In my region, the Minister of Labour, who represents the riding next to mine, said that Bill C-2 reflects the public's will. The Minister of Labour should have said, rather, that Bill C-2 reflects the ideology of the minority Conservative government. That is what he should have said first and foremost.

The Bloc suggested, therefore, that parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served should be abolished. We should also put an end to virtually automatic statutory release after an inmate has served two-thirds of his sentence. The Bloc proposed another amendment as well to the effect that there should be a formal evaluation by a professional of an inmate’s overall risk of re-offending.

In addition, the Bloc suggested that onus of proof should be reversed in the case of criminals found guilty of the offences of loan-sharking, procuring, robbery, fraud over $5,000 and counterfeiting in order to facilitate the seizure of assets that are the product of crime.

We also said that the police needed better tools to deal with the problem of street gangs, especially longer warrants for investigations carried out by means of tailing with a GPS.

It should be against the law to wear any symbol, sign or other mark identifying the wearer as a member of a criminal organization that has been recognized as such by the courts.

Finally, we should eliminate the rule that the time spent in pretrial detention counts double when sentences are determined. Sentences should be deemed to have started on the first day of detention, rather than when sentences are passed.

The minister labour thinks that Canadians want new justice legislation. I agree with him to the extent that the Bloc supports the principle of these changes. This does not mean, however, that Quebeckers and Canadians agree with everything in Bill C-2. When bills are introduced, some changes can be made without changing them completely. We need to adapt to the realities of life in Quebec and Canada.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2 in principle and takes crime very seriously. However, when five bills are amalgamated into one, it is only to be expected that some doubts will arise. The Conservative minority government has a duty not to play partisan politics with an issue as important as the justice system.

The Bloc Québécois believes that what really needs to be attacked first and foremost are poverty, inequality and exclusion. They aggravate the frustrations and crime in our communities if not dealt with by the government on a priority basis.

The Bloc Québécois knows very well that many changes must be made to the current justice system and that some adjustments to the Criminal Code are essential. The government has a duty to take action and use the tools at its disposal to enable Quebeckers and Canadians to live safely and peacefully.

The measures introduced must have a positive impact on crime. They must be more than rhetoric or a campaign based on fear. We must avoid copying the American model, which yielded much less positive results than anticipated.

Crime has been steadily decreasing in Quebec, as it has in Canada for the last 15 or so years. Statistics Canada recent stated that in 2006, the overall crime rate in this country hit its lowest in 25 years. Quebec had its lowest homicide rate since 1962.

Unfortunately, there will always be crime in our society. We can never fully eradicate all crime. But statistics show that the current approach should not be discarded in favour of the US model. This means that we must look for improvements while keeping an open mind about the realities facing Quebeckers and Canadians.

In the past, Quebeckers have relied on individualized justice based on a judicial process that is flexible and suited to each case, with positive results. The homicide rate in Quebec is one of the lowest in Canada and is four times lower than in the United States.

Bill C-2 brings together old bills that we largely supported, such as Bill C-10, Bill C-22, Bill C-27, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

Justice is an important issue, and this model must truly correspond to the realities facing Quebec and Canada.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Quebeckers and my constituents from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord do not want a justice system based on the U.S. system.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, at report stage of Bill C-2, to deliver some comments to the omnibus crime bill.

I have had the experience of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and also the legislative committees that were involved with the former Bills C-10, C-22, C-27, C-32, C-35 and C-23, which is not part of the omnibus bill.

I speak with experience at least with respect to the bills and I understand how we came to be here today to speak about what the bill contains. A lot of discussion took place in the debates of the House and in committee with respect to the direction we should take with respect to our criminal justice.

It is important for us, as parliamentarians, to consider what we do when we amend the Criminal Code and its corollary acts. We are dealing with the Criminal Code. It is an organic document. It changes with the times. It is copied and exemplified by one of Canada's justice ministers and prime ministers, Sir John Thompson, from eastern Canada. It has certainly changed with the times as has our society.

In the 1890s the crimes that were top priority might have been things like cattle and horse theft, murder and some common ones. However, with the changing times, we have seen a proliferation of gang related violence, e-crimes, things that would not have existed at the turn of the century.

The point of raising that is as our society changes and the code changes, we owe it to this place, to the committees, to the law enforcement official, which include prosecutors, policemen, probation workers, corrections officers, people in the correction system and judges, quite a fraternity of people involved in the criminal justice system, to say that we looked at these various laws. We looked at how Canada was changing and at the end, we did the very best we could to keep track of what tools would be best to tackle the new problems that exist in society. It is not as if we are inventing new aspects of law. Many of these bills represent an evolution or a progression of laws that already exist.

Just briefly on the guts of the bill, if you like, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10, which is now part of C-2, was of course dealing with the mandatory minimum provisions which were increased by the introduction of this bill, but they were not increased as much as the government had wanted them to be originally.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the opposition Bloc Québécois critic on the committee as well as the Liberal members on the committee who fought very hard to have some sense reign over the debate with respect to the evidence that was adduced at the committee hearings regarding the efficacy of mandatory minimums in general.

A review is in order. Mandatory minimums existed before the Conservative government was elected. Mandatory minimums were in place for serious crimes with the known aspect of repeat offenders and with some hope, which studies will show one way or the other, that there might be a deterrent and a safety to the public aspect of mandatory minimums.

At least on this side we joined with the Conservatives who, I would say, were very sparse in their acknowledgement that mandatory minimums existed before they came into office, but we joined with them and said that these are good tools for the law enforcement agencies and good tools in the realm of criminal justice.

It is a matter always of how far we go. How far do we go in disciplining our children? Do we take away their favourite toy? Do we ban them from seeing their friends for two weeks? Are we less severe or more severe? Many of us are parents and we deal with this every day. It is our form of the justice system that rules in our own house.

With respect to mandatory minimums, it is a question of calibrating to what extent the mandatory minimums are useful, to what extent do they work, and to what extend should they be increased, if at all.

During the debate process we were very successful in getting the government to get off its basic premise, which is if it is good for the six o'clock news and sounds robust, steady and law and orderish, then it has to be good in the Criminal Code. That is where the slip from the cup to the lip occurred, where it was obvious 90% of the witnesses were saying that the severe mandatory minimums that the government side were proposing would be inefficacious.

We can be as tough as we want, but if it does not work, if it does not make society safer, then we have not posited a good solution to the problems that face our community, and that was the case when we looked at mandatory minimums.

The happy medium that exists in Bill C-2 I think will be borne out, but it is very important to remember that this is an organic process and we could be back here some day soon, perhaps, looking at mandatory minimums in general.

How more timely could it be than in today's Ottawa Citizen, a report called “Unlocking America” is reviewed. In this report, it makes it very clear that the mandatory minimums, one of the many tools used by the American government from the 1970s on when it was felt that the rise in criminal activity was abhorrent, was not as effective as the Americans would have hope it would have been. It left the United States with 2.2 million people behind bars, more than China. The nine authors, leading U.S. criminologists, said that they were convinced that they needed a different strategy.

I am happy to report that as a result of the efforts of the NDP, Bloc and the Liberal Party in general at committee, we did not go as far as the Conservative government wanted to, which was close to where the United States had been which now New York State and New York City admits, is ineffective.

The three effects of imprisonment, and emphasis only on imprisonment, at the cost of crime prevention dollars, if you like, Mr. Speaker, is that the heavy, excessive incarceration hits minorities very hard. In the United States, 60% of the prison population is made up of Blacks and Latinos.

We heard evidence at our committee that there is a preponderance, an over-exaggerated percentage, of first nations and aboriginal people in our jail system, according to their population, which is deplorable. It is overwhelming and undisputed that the negative side effects of incarceration outweigh the potential. That is the two bits on Bill C-10,

On the other bill, Bill C-22, the close in age exemption, was never brought up. Despite all the rhetoric from the government, nothing would save Bill C-22. The issue of sexual consent being given by a person of tender years has never been put forward by any member of the opposition while the Liberal Party was in power.

The close in age exemption was never put in there, so for members of the opposite side to say that finally we dealt with the issue of sexual exploitation of 14 year olds is simply not accurate. The close in age exemption, five years between a person of the age specified, will save many relationships that should not be criminalized.

Lastly, I noted that Bill C-23 was not included in Bill C-2. I have to wonder why.

I live in Acadia. And Bill C-23 included many improvements with respect to choosing the first language of prosecutors during a trial. French is the language spoken by most people in my province. That element was very important to us in Acadia, but the government overlooked this fact.

Why did the government turn its back on the francophone people of New Brunswick in this country?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and your team a good session, and to welcome the new pages as they start their new jobs.

No one will be surprised if I speak specifically about justice. Overall, the Bloc Québécois was disappointed in the throne speech. Our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, clearly indicated our conditions and expectations.

We also spoke about the Kyoto protocol. We clearly wanted the government to confirm that it would follow through with the commitment we made when Kyoto was signed: to bring greenhouse gases down to their 1990 levels and then reduce them further still. We do not have a green government—this we know. This government is very irresponsible when it comes to the environment, and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has had many opportunities to speak about this.

We would also have liked the government to agree with the views of many important representatives of civil society and our fellow citizens, that Canada's mission in Afghanistan must end in 2009. Since the beginning of the mission we have been critical of the fact that there has not been a satisfactory balance of development assistance, international cooperation and military objectives.

Obviously we hope that attention will be focused on the entire question of forestry and the manufacturing sector. We know what hard times those sectors have experienced. Certainly we hope that supply management will also be discussed, for it is an extremely important issue in rural communities. And we hope that the government will eliminate the spending power in relation to matters under provincial jurisdiction. There have been calls for this for 50 years, and the Bloc Québécois is certainly not going to be satisfied with the government’s dishonest subterfuge.

With that introduction, we must now talk about the justice system. First, what an exercise in cosmetics this is, what an exercise in stage management! Watching the press conference given by the Minister of Justice, his colleague the Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, we had the impression that we were attending a play by Molière, starring Tartuffe. We were given to think that since the Conservatives took power in 2006 the House of Commons has been the victim of obstruction when it comes to the justice system. We were also given to think that the government has been prevented from having its justice initiative passed.

And yet when we look a little closer, we see that since January 2006 the Conservative government has tabled 12 bills relating to the justice system. As we speak, six of those bills have received royal assent and have thus become law. Of those six bills that have become law, three were passed using what is called the fast-track procedure, with the unanimous consent of all leaders in the House of Commons.

So out of 12 bills, six have become law, and three of those were passed with the consent of all parties using the fast-track procedure; four reached the Senate, at first, second and third reading, while both in the House and in committee there were only two bills remaining. It has to be said that in parliamentary history there have been more vigorous examples of obstruction. When six bills receive royal assent, four are being considered in the Senate and only two are left, you cannot, in all honesty, appear at a press conference and say that you have been unable to get your bills passed.

For the benefit of our constituents, I will mention the bills that were passed.

First, there was Bill C-9, on conditional sentences. It is true that we did propose some amendments. It is our job to do that. We are a responsible opposition. What is the role of the opposition? It is to ensure that bill are improved and made as perfect as possible. We would be completely irresponsible if we did not do our work. As far as the bill on conditional sentences is concerned, the government ultimately wanted to do away with that option for judges and we highlighted that.

Bill C-17, which dealt with judges’ salaries, was also passed, followed by Bill C-18, a rather technical bill on DNA data banks. Moreover, in tribute to our unfortunately deceased colleague, Bill C-19, which creates a new offence under the Criminal Code with regard to street racing, was passed unanimously.

Two other bills were passed within 48 hours, which is an indication of the cooperation among opposition parties. One of those two was introduced by the Bloc Québécois, because of incidents of piracy, the unauthorized use of camcorders to record movies in theatres, particularly in Montreal. The other bill dealt with the signing by Canada of an international convention to fight organized crime.

Four other bills were being dealt with in the Senate, or I should say, “the other place.” There was, first, Bill C-10, concerning minimum penalties for offences involving firearms.

Next, there was Bill C-22, which dealt with the age of protection under the Criminal Code. Some of my colleagues followed that subject with a great deal of interest. The Bloc Québécois had asked for a five-year proximity clause. The Bill was before the Senate. In spite of some questions, our position was relatively favourable. The bill had been amended in committee.

Then there was Bill C-23, somewhat technical, on the language of juries and the accused.

I do not want to forget to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sharing the time allotted to me with the likeable and charming member for Sherbrooke.

Finally, Bill C-35 on reversing the onus of proof was also passed. Some television journalists described this bill as reversing the onus of proof for parole. However, the bill was not about parole but about pre-trial bail hearings.

There were two bills remaining about which we had and still have questions and amendments to propose.

The first deals with drug-impaired driving. We are in favour of the new provision in the bill requiring individuals to take sobriety tests. Peace officers and police could stop people who are driving erratically under the influence of drugs. We were in favour of certain provisions to require people to submit to sobriety tests.

We amended the bill however because, as unlikely as it might seem, it would have been irresponsible to pass this Conservative bill without any amendments. Imagine someone driving along in his car together with a friend. They drive down the road—let us say the Trans-Canada highway, for example, to please some of my colleagues here—and it turns out that the friend, who is driving, has marijuana in his pockets or his luggage. If we had passed this bill, the car owner would have been held liable. That did not seem responsible to us or legally sound.

There was also another bill about which we had a lot of questions. Unfortunately though, I have only a minute left and so I am going to proceed to my conclusion and allow the hon. member for Sherbrooke to take over.

We are going to take our work in committee very seriously. We will not allow ourselves to be dictated to by the government which, in a fit of authoritarianism, might demand that the opposition propose no amendments to Bill C-2.

We will amend Bill C-2 if we think that is the direction in which the testimony we hear is taking us. As always, I can assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will act in a serious, responsible, reasoned way. We would also like to remind the House of the justice proposals we made last June.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. The NDP supported Bill C-10, an act to establish escalator clauses for minimum mandatory penalties. The NDP supported it and agreed with escalator clauses. That is in the omnibus bill. The NDP supported Bill C-22, an act to increase the age of protection. That is in the omnibus bill. The NDP supported Bill C-32, the impaired driving act. That is in the omnibus bill. The NDP supported Bill C-35, which is in the omnibus bill--

[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.

Criminal Code

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time tonight with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

It is an opportunity for me to discuss Bill C-21. This legislation addresses firearms control, an area of great concern to all Canadians. Everyone who watches the news knows how prevalent gun violence has become in some communities and this is extremely troubling.

Gang members carrying illegal handguns and brazenly settling scores in public areas have brought fear to cities across the country. In some neighbourhoods, people witness gun violence regularly but are intimidated into silence by criminals. This kind of criminal activity must be stopped. Canada has always had the reputation of being a peaceful country. We must do something now to help ensure this remains the case, and that means cracking down on violent crime.

The government made a commitment to protect Canadians and that is what we intend to do. Bill C-21 is part of the government's larger plan to strengthen the safety and security of Canadians. The government has taken steps over the last year to keep Canadians safe and to do so in a way that simplifies compliance for law-abiding citizens.

The first responsibility of any government should always be to protect its citizens from harm but governments should also be careful to do this in a way that law-abiding citizens can comply with easily. This government is working diligently to ensure that this balance is respected.

We have introduced Bill C-21 to reinstate a balance between protecting Canadians and easing requirements for responsible firearms owners. I would like to highlight some of the public safety measures our government has taken in the past year. The government has an overall plan for safer communities and Bill C-21 fits within our vision of a safe and prosperous Canada.

First, the government felt that policing and law enforcement needed to be bolstered in Canada. In budget 2006, we invested a significant amount of money to give the RCMP additional resources to focus on law enforcement priorities. These included the expansion of the RCMP's National Training Academy, known as Depot; increasing the DNA samples on file to include a greater range of offenders; support for a special contingent of first nations RCMP; and an additional 1,000 RCMP resources to focus on drugs, corruption and border security.

Now in Budget 2007, we have continued this support for our national police services to protect children from sexual exploitation and trafficking and supporting the Canadian Police Research Centre's work in science and technology in policing and public safety.

Furthermore, we are taking action to crack down on white collar crime by appointing a senior expert adviser to the RCMP to help develop and guide the implementation of a plan to improve the effectiveness of the integrated market enforcement teams. We are also investing $80 million over two years to make the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's operations more effective.

On another front, the government took steps to strengthen our borders in a way that keeps legitimate goods and people moving across the border and threats out of our country. We put in place a plan to start arming border guards. Through our plan, approximately 4,800 officers will be trained and armed. This includes 400 officers who will be hired so that no officer will be required to work alone. Some of these officers will be deployed as early as this summer and we expect that by March 2008, between 200 and 250 armed officers will be working at the border.

There is another issue that affects our communities directly and that is youth crime. Many communities in Canada have youth crime problems. It can sometimes mean vandalism, drug abuse or even gang involvement.

Our work is based on the principle that the surest way to reduce crime is to focus on the factors that put individuals at risk, factors like family violence, school problems and drug abuse. We aim to reduce crime by tackling crime before it happens. That is why my hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, announced in January $16.1 million in funding for youth at risk. These projects are funded through the National Crime Prevention Centre and they help youth make good choices and stay or get back on the right track.

Firearms control should focus on criminals, not on law-abiding and responsible firearms owners.

I hope that the hon. members of this House can now better understand the broader public safety context within which our gun control measures operate. Gun control is but one of many ways we are working to protect Canadians.

The object of today's debate, Bill C-21, deals with an aspect of the firearms control program that has been at the centre of discussion ever since the introduction of the Firearms Act in 1995: the registration of non-restricted firearms. These are ordinary rifles and shotguns most often used for hunting.

Why do we wish to abolish the requirement to register these firearms? The answer is twofold. The first reason is that we are not convinced that the registration of non-restricted firearms prevents gun crime. The second reason comes back to what I said earlier. Governments have a responsibility to direct limited to resources where they will have the most effect. With respect to gun control, we believe this means investing in measures that focus on criminals rather than on law-abiding citizens.

The most recent example of this was the successful raid carried out in Toronto last week that resulted in over 60 arrests and the seizure of 30 illegal guns, dealing a significant blow to a notorious street gang that terrorized the neighbourhood. Protecting the most vulnerable is where our limited resources should be directed to, not inundating law-abiding citizens with cumbersome rules and regulations.

Therefore, the government has decided to remove the registration requirement for legitimate and responsible non-restricted firearms owners and focus on gun crime.

Indeed, to achieve this very goal, my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice, tabled a bill on May 4, 2006 to strengthen the mandatory minimum sentences for violent gun crimes. The government has introduced a number of legislative initiatives that target gun crimes and we encourage opposition MPs to support these initiatives.

Bill C-10 passed third reading in the House on May 29 and is awaiting second reading in the other place. Bill C-10 proposes escalating minimum penalties for specific offences involving the actual use of firearms. These offences include attempted murder, sexual assault and kidnapping, among others. Minimum penalties are also proposed for certain serious non-offence uses, such as firearm trafficking and smuggling. The higher minimum penalties rest on specific aggravating factors such as repeat firearms offences, use of restricted or prohibited firearms or the commission of firearm offences in connection with a criminal organization which includes a gang.

Bill C-35 is another important piece of legislation on our agenda to tackle gun crimes. It deals with the burden of proof during bail hearings for firearm related offences.

These reforms will lower the risk that people charged with serious offences may reoffend while out on bail. It will also reduce the risk that they may take flight to avoid facing trial for the charges. This bill was also recently passed by the House of Commons and is awaiting second reading in the Senate.

These new measures send a clear message that the Government of Canada will not tolerate gun crime on our streets and in our communities. However, as the members of the House no doubt know, firearms control includes much more than handing tough sentences to those who commit crime. Firearms control includes measures that aim to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of ineligible individuals.

The registration of non-restricted firearms has not proven itself to be effective in accomplishing this goal. In fact, in our view the most effective system currently in place that accomplishing that goal is licensing. We have the support of many groups that agree that licensing is the critical information necessary.

As deputy commissioner of the RCMP, Peter Martin, stated to the public safety committee:

If we go to a residence on a call, we're not interested in articles in the house as much as the person in the house and what they have available to them.

The critical piece of information right now is who is licensed and who has the potential to have in his or her possession a firearm, regardless of whether it's a long gun or a restricted or prohibited weapon.

Through the steps that an individual must take to obtain a licence, authorities can determine if the individual in question poses a security risk. The steps include passing the exams for the Canadian firearm safety course, passing the background checks that are performed using police files and answering personal history questions to identify the possible safety concerns such as serious problems with substance abuse. The answers to these questions must be corroborated by two references who have personally known the individual for at least three years.

Screening individuals before they are issued a licence is paramount to an effective firearms control system. Even once a licence is issued to an individual, a continuous check is performed through an automated link between the Canadian firearms information system and the Canadian police information system or CPIC. If any new information is entered on the CPIC system by police, such as a report on threats made to another person, the firearms information system automatically checks to see if the person in question is a firearms licence holder. If so, steps can be taken to suspend or revoke the licence and law enforcement authorities are notified so they can take appropriate action to remove the firearms.

Bill C-21, is an important piece of legislation that would re-establish the proper balance in the area of firearms control. It would ease the requirements for firearm owners while ensuring that records of firearm purchases continue to be kept. Our government believes that resources should be invested to keep Canadians safe. However, we believe in investing those resources in effective initiatives and programs. That is why we have focused on areas such as law enforcement, border security, youth crime and, of course, gun control. In all cases we are taking a results based approach.

I therefore encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-21.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government, in proposing this motion today, has chosen once again to maintain its habitual lack of consultation and reluctance to attempt a collaborative approach to organizing the business of the House.

On more than one occasion, as I think the Chair will remember, I asked directly whether the government intended to make use of Standing Order 27. As other House leaders can confirm, the reply was, “probably not”. I do not think we would be off base in the opposition in expecting that if that were no longer the case, if the government had in fact changed its mind, that it would have decently given us a heads-up that it was going to propose this motion today, at least given us that notice some time earlier than around one o'clock this afternoon.

Frankly, as we saw the government House leader making his travels across the floor of the House, I will not say where he went, the heckling and yelling as he departed the chamber obviously indicates the kind of demeanour of which we have to deal.

I do not see what there is on the order paper at present that this motion will get through the House any more quickly than would have otherwise been the case. I presume, judging by the government House leader's remarks, that the government is principally concerned with Bill C-52, the budget bill.

It has represented to the House and to the public that the government is now extremely concerned the bill will not receive royal assent in time for certain expenditures to be booked in the appropriate fiscal year. Let us be clear. The fiscal year the Conservatives are talking about is 2006-07, and that is the point.

The issue is retroactive fiscal bookings for the last fiscal year, not the future fiscal year, as members would have gathered from the remarks of the government House leader. If there is concern about the lateness of the date, the government really has only itself to blame.

Usually federal budgets are delivered in or about the third week of February, which then permits the introduction of a budget implementation bill by the end of that month. If things are properly managed, this would permit the bill to be in committee before the end of March and to be passed at all stages by the end of May or, at the very latest, the beginning of June.

This year the government chose, for its own partisan reasons, to delay the budget until the third week of March. We did not even see it until then. Then it unilaterally interrupted the budget debate. Then having finished that, belatedly, it interrupted, again, the second reading debate on the budget implementation Bill C-52. That interruption lasted for three full weeks, getting the bill to committee only in the middle of May.

As a consequence, the government then bulldozed the bill through the committee, breaking procedural agreements, denying many interested and informed citizens and groups the right to testify on the bill. Let it be clearly understood that any procedural issue on Bill C-52 is a direct result of government breaking the agreement on the process, which had been fully settled by members of the committee.

Nevertheless, the bill is now only in its third day of debate at third reading and there is every indication that the third reading and final stage would come to an end in debate in the House by the end of business tomorrow at the latest.

It is important to underscore what these dates are with respect to the budget. Remember that the House resumed in the final week of January. The budget was not presented to the House until March 19, fully eight weeks into the parliamentary sitting. That was followed by a ways and means motion and the introduction of the budget bill, but that was delayed because the government interrupted its own budget debate on the financial principles of the government.

Its budget was late, the budget debate was unilaterally delayed by itself and then it finally got around to introducing the budget bill on March 29, which was debated at second reading for the first time on March 30. It was then debated in a haphazard, sporadic fashion, brought forward to the floor by the government, until April 23, and then it was hoisted altogether. The House did not see it again until May 14, full three weeks later.

Finally, it went to the committee, not as a result of any filibuster by the opposition or any party in the opposition. The delay was entirely the procedural mismanagement of the government. It was there for less than two weeks and one of those weeks was a break week when Parliament was not even sitting.

It finally passed through the committee, rather expeditiously, thanks to the cooperation of the opposition, and it was brought back to be debated at report stage on June 4. For how long? One day, that is all the report stage took. Now it is at third reading where there have been three days of debate, and probably a conclusion could have been arrived at very easily by the end of the day tomorrow.

This is why I made the point at the beginning of my remarks that there really is nothing on this order paper that could not be dealt with in the ordinary course of business without the measure the government House leader has introduced. Obviously it is a tactic to blame the opposition for the delays that lie entirely within the control of the government.

What is it then? If it is not Bill C-52, what is it that causes the government to move the motion today? Despite frequent requests for the government to outline its realistic legislative priorities before the summer, all we have heard repeatedly from the government House leader and from others on the government's side is a flow of partisan rhetoric. Legislation has in fact been moving along through the House and through committees, despite the government's erratic management of its agenda.

In fact, the most controversial bill on the order paper, and this is what gives me perhaps a little hope here, is probably Bill C-30, the clean air act, as it has been revised by members of Parliament. Significantly, only the government has been stalling it up to now. However, now we will have some extra time, some extra hours of sitting every day beginning on Wednesday.

Can we then conclude that the extra time the government is seeking is to facilitate the work of the House in consideration of Bill C-30? I certainly hope so. It is in this fervent hope that I indicate to the House that my party, the official Liberal opposition, will support the minister's motion for the extension of hours.

In the time available, in addition to Bill C-52, which will probably be done tomorrow, and in addition to Bill C-30, which I hope the government has the courage to recall and put before the House once again, the official opposition also looks forward to making progress on Bill C-11, lowering freight rates for farmers, on Bill C-14, dealing with foreign adoptions, on Bill C-23, dealing with criminal procedure, on Bill C-29, dealing with Air Canada and the use of official languages, on Bill C-35, dealing with bail reform, on Bill C-47, dealing with the Olympic, on Bill S-6 and Bill C-51, dealing with land claims and on Bill C-40, the private member's legislation that would provide free postage for mail from Canada to our troops in Afghanistan.

Then there is an item that was referred to in question period today. This is the bill we are anxiously awaiting to see, the one dealing with wage earner protection. I hope the government will follow through on the commitment given in question period, that it will table the bill in amended form so it can be passed at all stages and brought into law before Parliament adjourns for the summer recess.

Let me mention one other matter, which is outstanding and which should be dealt with by the House, or at least dealt with by the government when the House is sitting. This is the examination undertaken a few weeks ago by Mr. Brown in connection with the matters that have been of great concern to Canadians in respect of the RCMP pension fund.

As we understand it, there is a report due from Mr. Brown on June 15. That was the original undertaking given by the Minister of Public Safety. It would be very important for us to know that the examination is on time, that we will hear from Mr. Brown on time, and that the Minister of Public Safety will take the step that he promised to take and make that report public immediately.

Perhaps the government might also consider, in whatever time that remains before the summer recess, reforming its approach to the mood in the House. The mood could be improved if the government would refrain from certain of its more hostile practices. For example: no more gratuitous attack ads, no more broken agreements on how witnesses will be heard, no more manuals about dirty tricks for disrupting parliamentary business, and no more devious games to misuse Standing Orders of the House. A little good old fashioned good faith could change the mood for the better.

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on his erudition—let us not fear words—and on his willingness to dedicate himself so generously to the work of this House. He never declines an invitation to share his point of view, and I am sure that this is greatly appreciated by all of our colleagues.

Bill C-35 was the subject of much debate in the parliamentary committee. It seems to me that the underlying principle is a good one. The government is seeking to ensure that people who might be a menace to the safety of our fellow citizens cannot be released on bail before trial unless we can be certain that they do not present a danger to society. It is important to understand where Bill C-35 is coming from.

There are various stages in our criminal proceedings: arrest by a peace officer, court appearance, and preliminary hearing. At this stage, a magistrate or justice of the peace—in Quebec, at least—decides whether there is sufficient evidence to allow the Crown to take the matter to trial. So we have arrest, bail hearing, preliminary hearing and, of course, the trial. If the case involves murder or one of the offences set out in section 469 of the Criminal Code, there is a good chance that the trial will be held before a jury of the accused's peers, a group of individuals selected for that purpose.

If the case involves an offence set out in section 553 of Quebec's code, the trial takes place before the criminal and penal division of the Court of Quebec. There too, the stages are familiar: arrest, bail hearing, preliminary hearing, trial and, after that, sentencing submissions. Then, if necessary, a certain number of appeals processes are available.

The Bloc Québécois had some concerns about this bill. What does it say? We should start with the beginning. Under our legal system, bail is generally granted at the hearing stage. In some cases, though, bail cannot be granted by justices of the peace. Only superior court judges, that is to say, judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, can grant pretrial bail to an accused.

This occurs when a person is accused of a crime under section 469 of the Criminal Code. Justices of the peace cannot grant bail when the accused has violated the conditions of release. If a person is on probation, therefore, and is supposed to comply with a certain number of conditions but violates them, he cannot be given bail. For example, if a person is not supposed to be in possession of a firearm but is found with one, that person has failed to comply with one of his conditions of release and cannot be granted bail by a justice of the peace.

When someone is arrested by a police officer, taken before a justice of the peace and charged with an offence related to organized crime, of course, that person cannot be granted bail. For a very long time, all the organized crime related offences were listed in the Criminal Code. Actually it was not the Criminal Code but the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act where all the offences related to the possession of narcotics, drug trafficking, and the exportation and importation of narcotics were listed.

Around 1995, we had an extremely worrisome clash among criminal motorcycle gangs: the Hell’s Angels, the Rock Machine and the Bandidos. There were 35 Hell’s Angels chapters. It is not that there were an awful lot of them—just a few hundred people—but they were obviously very dangerous.

I can recall some conversations I had with senior public servants who thought that the criminal motorcycle gangs could be disbanded using just the existing conspiracy provisions in the Criminal Code. The former Bloc Québécois member for Berthier—Montcalm, who was elevated to the bench because of his great talents and had gone to law school at the University of Ottawa in the 1980s and 1990s, was our justice critic and was as convinced as I that new legislation was needed and some new provisions had to be added to the Criminal Code.

I remind the House that in the 1990s there was one thing that triggered our realization of the need to create new legislation in order to deal with criminal biker gangs. This was of course the car bomb attack that occurred in my area, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, on August 9, 1995, and that took the life of young Daniel Desrochers. From then on, there was a call by citizens seeking anti-gang legislation. Obviously we could not follow Italy’s example, since Italy did not have to worry about compatibility with the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. In Canada, however, we had to be concerned about compatibility with the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, which—I would point out—was never ratified by the National Assembly when it was patriated in 1982.

I digress here to remind you that René Lévesque, one of the greatest premiers in the history of Quebec—as we all know—was opposed to the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, because he was worried about language rights. There was the possibility of removing whole chunks of Bill 101, one of the first bills that René Lévesque had passed by his government following the adoption of the Referendum Act and, of course, an act on democratic election funding.

So we had to be concerned about the compatibility of the new provisions of the Criminal Code and the Canadian charter, which has never been accepted by the National Assembly because of the incompatibilities regarding language. Of course, with regard to section 27 respecting multiculturalism, there were some very great concerns. In any case, we will recall that René Lévesque became the spokesperson for this long line of premiers who wanted, before the charter was patriated, to give the National Assembly new powers. This was Jean-Jacques Bertrand’s position; it was Robert Bourassa’s position; it was Jean Lesage’s position; it was the position of Quebec’s intellectuals. Even a man like Claude Ryan who, as we know, was not a sovereignist, wanted there to be a new distribution of powers before patriating the Constitution, which was—we agreed—a colonial relic. Of course this was not normal, but it was not a priority.

I do not want to wander too far away—you know my discipline is legendary. Still, I want you to know that it is extremely important to remember that, in the 1990s, the Bloc Québécois rallied in order to obtain anti-gang legislation. The first anti-gang legislation was passed in 1997. We had created a new offence. I mentioned the Canadian charter. But it was not possible to make it a crime to belong to a group.

We cannot say that belonging to the Hells Angels, the Rock Machine, the Bandidos, the mafia or an Asian crime group, that simply belonging to a criminal organization constitutes an offence. This would never pass the Charter test and would not be compatible with the freedom of association. This was the challenge facing the public service and parliamentarians.

I was part of the committee that examined these things to find an offence that would work with the Charter. At the time, a new offence was created: gangsterism. Five individuals having committed an offence punishable by a five-year term, for a criminal organization within the last five years, could be charged with gangsterism.

As unbelievable as it may be, with these provisions, among others, municipalities can play an extremely important role in dismantling organized crime networks. I hope my colleagues will remember this. Municipalities legislated against bunkers. They legislated against fortresses in urban areas. Under municipal bylaws it was not possible to have fortified houses with cameras and bulletproof windows. Believe it or not, this is a good example of the link between federal law, criminal law, and municipal affairs.

If I may digress, one thing that makes a municipality dynamic is festivals. I am sure that the Minister of Labour will agree with me. There is nothing more important than tourism to our communities.

Take the example of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It is a working-class neighbourhood with a rich heritage. I could tell you about the botanical garden and the Château Dufresne, the historic middle-class residence. It is important to provide public funding for festivals. I will conclude on this point by wishing all my colleagues a most cordial welcome to Montreal this year and this summer. I hope that the funding that will make it possible for us to spend a beautiful summer with tourists and all of the events we can organize in our communities will materialize. Of course I am counting on all of my colleagues to ensure that this scenario comes to pass.

This is the situation we found ourselves in in the 1990s. Criminal motorcycle gangs were running wild and the public was worried. I and other people persuaded the then justice minister, Allan Rock, to add new provisions to the Criminal Code. Those provisions made it possible for us to end the war that had caused several hundred deaths and claimed an innocent victim, Daniel Desrochers, who died on August 9, 1995.

Thus we can see that the Bloc Québécois has never been unwilling to legislate when it was necessary. The goal of Bill C-35 is to add a number of offences, the seriousness of which we can recognize as a society. I will list them: attempted murder with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, armed sexual assault, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, extortion, trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and any offence involving a firearm if the accused was under a firearms prohibition order.

We have to acknowledge that these offences are in fact serious in terms of criminal law. At the show cause stage, the trial has not yet been held. In Quebec, you appear before the justice of the peace. The accused will have to call evidence, because there is a reverse onus. Reverse onus does exist in the Criminal Code now, as I mentioned, for organized crime, terrorism offences and offences relating to section 469. Reverse onus exists. That does not mean—and we must be very clear on this point—that it will not be possible for the accused to be released.

What it means is that the onus is on the accused, and not the Crown, to prove that he or she is not a threat to society. The judge will then take a number of criteria into consideration.

If the individual is released, the judge must be sure he will appear for trial and will not destroy the evidence, abscond, reoffend or engage in violent behaviour. If the judge is satisfied that all these conditions will be met, in light of the submission by counsel for the accused, the individual can be released. If the judge is not satisfied, the individual—the accused—who will be tried for one of the offences I have mentioned, must remain in custody.

I repeat that this is not the rule in our legal system. As a rule, individuals are released pending trial. Hon. members may remember a famous ruling from early this decade, the Askov ruling, concerning a case in Ontario. The legal system was backlogged at the time.

When the Constitution was repatriated, the National Assembly did not subscribe to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Among the legal guarantees in the charter is the right to be tried within a reasonable time. Waiting for a trial causes anyone anxiety. Waiting for a trial is stressful, and there is also the risk that witnesses' memories will fade. With time, people called to testify could be slightly less accurate in their testimony.

The Bloc Québécois heard the witnesses who testified before the committee, and my colleagues know how reasonable, moderate and cooperative the Bloc is. We ask only to work in the spirit of brotherhood.

I take great personal pride in the fact that I have no enemies in this House. Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask members who consider themselves my enemies to so indicate by a show of hands, I am sure you would see none. I was afraid the member for Jonquière—Alma would raise his hand. That would have made me sad.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-35 because, in committee, witnesses told us that in any event, the general practice at bail hearings for firearm-related offences is for the judge not to release the individual, or grant them bail. The Minister of Justice's bill confirms or recognizes something already being done by judges and the courts.

We do not see why we would be against this bill. A witness from the Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers even told us this was the current practice. There are very few witnesses who oppose the bill, two in fact. A University of Toronto professor, Anthony Doob, opposed the bill, saying there needed to be more focus on prevention. The Canadian Bar Association also voiced some reservations. For the rest, the witnesses were extremely favourable toward the bill.

The Bloc will support this bill since it recognizes a practice the courts have formalized. Of course, that does not mean we are not calling on the government to invest in prevention.

I recently learned that the Prime Minister entrusted, not to the Minister of Health, but to the Minister of Justice, the modernization of the national anti-drug strategy. I hope when the format of this new strategy is known, hopefully a few months from now, that money could be sent to the provinces for prevention, which is still our best defence as a society for living in safer communities.

Since I am running out of time, I will stop here. I want to reiterate my call for money to be allocated to this summer's festivals, more specifically those in Montreal, which is a major tourism centre. I hope my call will be heard.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most members understood during the last election campaign that the Canadian public wanted some changes, but Bill C-35, in my opinion, is simply codifying what the justices of our country are doing already. In fact, to some extent, it is window dressing.

One of my concerns is that it is easy to run on a law and order platform, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that rehabilitation is one of the most important avenues of protecting the public, because we know that convicted criminals will one day be back on our streets. I ask the member if he would support the fact that it is essential for our government to make sure that rehabilitation gets equal time in its law and order platform.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Very fertile. You are entirely correct. Well, the Conservatives have a lot of imagination.

To protect the interests of Quebeckers and of the society passed down to us by the people who came before us, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-35. We will also be very vigilant when it comes to the advances made by the Conservatives in relation to justice.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-35, the main purpose of which is to require an accused, when charged with certain serious offences involving firearms or other regulated weapons, to demonstrate that pre-trial detention is not justified in their case. This is a reverse onus, specifically for firearm-related offences.

From the outset I would like to present the philosophy defended in this House over the years by the Bloc Québécois. We are very respectful of the society handed down to us by our parents, our grandparents and our great-grandparents. It is society's choice to say that we are innocent until proven guilty. And that is the society we inherited from those who came before us.

When a society is built on such a principle or such a philosophy, in other words the presumption of innocence, every time we challenge this presumption of innocence we are also challenging the very foundation of our society. We must do so sparingly and with all due respect to this system. We have to take our time weighing the matter. We have to avoid being swayed by the media frenzy surrounding crimes and try to protect the very foundation of our society.

Our neighbours to the south like to hold highly publicized trials that are the glory of television channels and other information networks because they can sell advertising. When these reports are filed—even special reports are filed—not only do the networks make money from the crime, they glorify it. This is not the type of society our ancestors left us. We have to try to be very circumspect and not be influenced by the media when it blows a specific case or matter out of proportion and tries to influence the entire justice system. That is what the Bloc Québécois opposes, out of great respect for the society we inherited from those who came before us. That is why, when it comes to discussing reverse onus, we like to get to the bottom of things.

In the past, we were very interested in certain specific cases, including the fight against organized crime. We proposed, in this House, reverse onus with respect to the proceeds of organized crime. Now, thanks to the Bloc Québécois' action, criminals are the ones who must prove that their money is not the proceeds of crime. It is not up to the State to prove that it is. This had been very difficult to do in some cases, because these people hired specialists to destroy all incriminating evidence and to prove that their fortunes had been legitimately acquired.

I think that reverse onus is good for society as a whole. The Bloc Québécois proposed this after conducting thorough research and realizing that the presumption of innocence did not work when it came to organized crime. The State's burden of proof made it impossible to find any evidence about how the money had been acquired.

In this case, from the very beginning, the Bloc Québécois has considered the matter carefully. During first and second reading, before the bill was referred to committee, the Bloc was against it because of the presumption of innocence and the fact that a person who is presumed innocent can be released on bail, and because it was up to the State to prove that the person should not be released on bail. After hearing all of the witnesses in committee, the Bloc Québécois eventually came to the conclusion that this bill reflects existing jurisprudence.

This bill does not actually change anything. People who have committed a crime with a firearm automatically remain in prison until they appear in court. This is why the Bloc Québécois, after having heard the witnesses and experts who came to shed light on the debate, quickly realized that in the end the bill reflected what actually happens.

In this connection, I will simply read the statement by one witness, William Trudell, Chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. He said: “...it’s our experience on the ground that people charged with gun-related offences are not released”. That means that this bill is not proposing much of a change, contrary to what the government is letting on. It will not change things so as finally to reduce crime. No, this bill does no more than reflect what takes place at present, the current state of affairs in jurisprudence, that is, the court decisions. I will reread this statement by the Chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers: “...it’s our experience on the ground that people charged with gun-related offences are not released”.

Bloc Québécois justice critics have said in this House that all the witnesses, almost unanimously, acknowledged this state of affairs. All the bill before us does therefore is acknowledge a practice in effect in Canada’s and Quebec’s courts of justice. They very quickly brought us around to this idea.

After having heard the witnesses, the experts in their fields, we are now in favour of bill C-35. The Chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers knows what he is talking about. If the bill is acknowledging what actually takes place in the courts, we can only agree with that.

Furthermore, the Criminal Code already includes some exceptions to reverse onus in bail hearings. It talks about breach of bail conditions, organized crime—I was explaining the Bloc Québécois position earlier—terrorism, trafficking, smuggling and production of narcotics, murder, treason and war crimes. When someone commits one of these crimes, it is up to them to prove to the state, to the Crown, that they can be released, and not the other way round. It is not up to the Crown to prove to the judges that this person should not be released.

The following offences will be added to the exceptions to which the reverse onus applies: attempted murder with a firearm; discharging a firearm with intent to wound; sexual assault with a weapon; robbery; aggravated sexual assault; abduction; hostage taking; extortion; trafficking; possession for the purposes of trafficking; and any firearm-related offences committed when the accused was under an order prohibiting him from possessing a firearm.

Henceforth, people accused of any crime committed with a firearm will have to demonstrate to the Crown that they are not a danger to the lives of their fellow citizens in order to be granted pretrial release. This is actually an established practice, a reflection of what happens now in our legal system. Since this is what really happens, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of it.

However, we need to watch the Conservative government’s position very carefully, especially in regard to firearms. On the one hand, it has decided to eliminate the firearms registry, while on the other, it is reversing the onus of proof in crimes committed with a firearm.

This is important because it helps me further clarify our position on the gun registry: the Bloc Québécois is still in favour of keeping it. I know that some hunting enthusiasts are listening to me now.

In Quebec, 94% of gun owners have registered their guns in accordance with the law. The problem we have with the system is located in western Canada, where a majority of the citizens have not obeyed the law.

For all those people who registered their firearms, paying for renewal was a major irritant. The government decided, with the Bloc’s support, to eliminate this charge. We were happy with the government’s decision to keep the registry but not make users pay for it. In Quebec, 94% of firearm users registered their weapons and were quite happy to obey the law. That left 6%. Some got all worked up because they were told that the registry infringed on their rights. But people know that once their guns are registered, their rights will be respected. The people who use the registry, especially the police, do it before going to a certain address in order to determine whether there are any guns in the house, and if so, what kind.

When this is explained, citizens, even gun owners, fully understand that, in rare situations of violence, it is very important that the police have access to this information before they go to someone's home. If the registry were maintained and respected by all citizens, including Canadians in the west, there would be no problem. The problem is that there are gun users who decided to protest the system for a variety of reasons.

In Quebec, when I sit down with gun owners who have registered their weapons and I explain the situation, it does not bother them. They fully understand that this makes sense. If they committed violent crimes themselves, it would be important for the police to know that they have weapons at home, for the safety of police officers and the people in the neighbourhood.

In a society, we must set important benchmarks and make a distinction between individual and collective rights. Yes, every individual has rights, but their neighbours also have the right to know if they have any weapons, and for several reasons. The ideology that individual rights allow citizens to keep weapons in their homes, while others do not need to know about it, is an American ideology, common among our neighbours to the south.

But here, we have the right to create a society that protects individual rights and that allows citizens to own firearms for the purpose of a certain sport, for example. However, it is also important to know that the individual who practices that sport uses an attack weapon and that he or she can harm other individuals. This is important, even if it is a handgun used for hunting.

People talk to me about many things, such as duck hunting, where you use a .12 gauge shotgun. You can use this gun to rob a bank or corner store. You can do a lot of things. It is important to stop making that distinction and to look at the emotional capabilities of individuals. We have to look reality in the face. People have the right to practice a sport with a gun. However, they must realize that the community is entitled to know that they own guns in case there is a robbery at their home. It could be a case of home invasion. When the homeowner is away, someone could enter their home. It is important to know if there are guns inside the residence.

Things are always a little complicated with the Conservatives because we never know in what direction they are headed. One thing is certain. Increasingly they have this unfortunate tendency of aligning themselves with what is happening in the United States and with Americans. In relation to crime, that is not a model to be adopted. Let us not go there. Americans have increased sentences and they have more crime than in Canada. That is the reality.

That is not the type of society that our ancestors—our parents, grandparents and great grandparents—wanted to leave to us. The Bloc Québécois has a great deal of respect for this way of life that we have adopted. We will always be there to defend the interests of and respect for individuals in the justice system and to defend the presumption of innocence, among other things, which is one of the tenets of our society.

People are always presumed innocent until proven guilty. That has served us well in the past. Today, the problem is that the media have seized on that, as we have seen. I keep repeating this, and I know it may be a bit redundant, but the Americans and their media make a lot of money when a crime is committed by giving it as much media coverage as possible. That is not the sort of society we want to live in.

Clearly, when we make this distinction and take away all the media coverage of a crime, we need to be able to strike a balance and decide what type of society we want to live in. Quebeckers and Canadians have chosen to live in a society where people are presumed innocent.

As I explained, there are some cases that call for the presumption of innocence and others that call for the reversal of the traditional burden of proof. The Bloc Québécois did not hesitate to suggest reverse onus in cases such as crimes committed by biker gangs or organized crime, especially in relation to the accumulation of property by organized crime. At the time, the State had to prove that property had been acquired through the proceeds of crime, whereas now criminal organizations must prove that they acquired property legitimately.

Obviously, this has caused a major shift in how these people are defended. More and more, their property is being seized, and they have no money to defend themselves. I believe this is as it should be, because it was too easy for them to use this money to deny justice or thumb their noses at the justice system. They told themselves that they would get lawyers because they had money to go to court and so on. The Bloc Québécois therefore proposed a major step forward.

My colleagues heard witnesses and our critic, the member for Hochelaga, whom I commend on his excellent work on the committee. After hearing the witnesses, he realized that this bill was putting in place a reality that already existed in our courts. And witnesses told us that this bill will not change anything, because even now, when people commit crimes using a firearm, they are not released pending trial.

Once my learned colleague realized that this was the case, he recommended that we change our position and support this bill, which we are doing. We are serious democrats, we are very mindful of what is happening in Quebec society. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-35.

However, this bill will still be very, very, very suspect in terms of the advances made by the Conservatives in relation to justice, because—I will say it again and it cannot be said often enough—they have this annoying tendency to become very Republican in how they interpret justice and very American-oriented when it comes to increasing minimum sentences and not giving our society or our judicial system a chance to hear the members of this House, and in fact filling up the prisons.

Believe it or not, the fastest-growing industry in the United States is prison construction. It is a very profitable industry and it is running very well, except that this is not the type of society that the Bloc Québécois wants. On the contrary, when we see the crime rate, we realize that crime does not go down when sentences go up. It is a proven fact: crime goes up. In fact, when a criminal has decided to commit a crime, the criminal does not bother to read the Criminal Code before committing the crime, to know what sentence he or she is going to get. Forget about that. If people think that, their imaginations are—

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her comments, but as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have a question.

I heard testimony from defence lawyers who said that existing practices in criminal courts are the same as Bill C-35 hopes to establish. Indeed, the bill will not bring about any major changes, because judges, attorneys and defence lawyers already practice some of the things set out in the bill.

Does the hon. member intend to accept the lawyers' testimony as true, since they are the ones working on the front lines of justice and they indicated that this is already their practice?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

Bill C-35 proposes that, at the appearance stage and in some cases even at the preliminary investigation stage, the onus be placed on the person charged. Before the trial, the accused has to be able to show that he can be released. At present, as a general rule, the crown prosecutor has to demonstrate that the accused should not be released on bail because he poses a danger to the public. The Criminal Code provides for some exceptions, however, and in those cases the accused must prove that pre-trial detention is unjustified. These exceptions are: breach of release conditions, involvement in organized crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling or production, murder, treason or war crimes.

With Bill C-35, the Conservative government wants to expand this list of exceptions. So it will be up to the accused to prove to the judge that he may be released without causing concern for society in connection with any and all of the following offences: attempted murder with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, extortion, firearms trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, or any offence involving a firearm if committed while the accused is bound by a weapons prohibition order.

The Bloc Québécois is reluctant to expand the list for reverse onus, since this approach affects the important notion of presumption of innocence. However, we like the idea of giving police officers the most effective tools for conducting investigations and bringing people to justice. We agree that in certain cases, an accused should not be released and must be detained until the trial starts.

As I was saying to my colleague from Hochelaga, similar provisions existed elsewhere in the Criminal Code, for example the gangsterism provisions passed in 2002. It is true when release conditions have been violated, when someone who was already out on bail or probation violated the conditions. If an individual already tried once to dodge the legal system and violated the conditions, it is completely understandable that he will not be released. There are situations, of course, when it is prudent, justifiable and perfectly comprehensible for the Crown to say that an individual should not be released, for example when evidence might be destroyed, when the individual may not appear as required for his trial, or when the individual poses a danger to the victim or the community.

We had a number of concerns about the relevance of Bill C-35 before it was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Our first concern was the lack of studies or analyses showing that reverse onus effectively deters people from committing crimes with firearms. Second, the bill would have inevitably led to a greater number of incarcerations in institutions that the provinces own and operate. These institutions are often crowded already, and they need funding commensurate with their responsibilities.

Last, we doubted that this bill would help curb the trade in illegal arms. However, witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights provided assurances on two points. First, the bill must be constitutional and must therefore respect the principle of the presumption of innocence; and second, in practice, a person accused of any of the crimes included in the bill is generally detained before trial. The testimony of two defence lawyers was the determining factor in our decision. They told us that, in practice, amending the act would not bring about injustice because reverse onus would, in actual fact, change very little.

I would like to quote William Trudell, the Chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, who summarized the situation in these words:

The bill provisions, as elucidated now in Hall with a tertiary ground of public confidence in the administration of justice, are already there. It is extremely difficult for someone charged with this type of offence to be released on bail.

In her testimony, lawyer Isabel J. Schurman gave a good description of the situation covered by Bill C-35 when she said that there is de facto reverse onus in the case of firearm-related offences and that, in fact, the chance of obtaining bail is very slim in such cases.

In addition, setting aside the committee testimony confirming the practice of law in this specific situation, it is important to remember that the accused will still have an opportunity to be released on bail. Bail will be granted even if someone is accused for the second time of one of the crimes listed in the bill.

Reverse onus pertains only to release or detention pending trial. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Bill C-35 therefore will not serve as a shining example of initiatives to improve public safety, something this minority government often boasts about. As well, the passage of new legislation will not necessarily dissuade firearms traffickers from selling weapons. Many of the weapons on the streets of our cities are smuggled into the country. Consequently, reverse onus, as provided for in Bill C-35 on bail hearings for firearm-related offences, seems to pose a real challenge. The question is to what extent the bill will reduce the number of firearms in circulation.

My colleagues will understand that we have a responsibility to consider how to prevent crime. Unfortunately, many questions will remain unanswered, even after Bill C-35 is adopted at third reading. Would taxpayers' money be better spent on preventing crime and putting more police on our streets? For example, would it be more effective to assign more police officers to strategic areas than to throw more people in jail and deny them the right to release on bail?

With good reason, during the previous debate in this House, I said that detention offers a certain degree of protection to society. On the other hand, I added, rehabilitation and the rebuilding of social relations are more difficult to achieve once there is recourse to incarceration, not to mention the fact that prisons are often considered to be schools for crime and a great networking opportunity for criminals.

Those are some areas we might reflect on more deeply. This government wants to be seen as fighting against crimes committed with firearms, but it is ready to dismiss the gun registry on the sole grounds of inefficiency and exorbitant program costs. For example, it is letting the registry go to seed by failing to keep it up to date and by extending the full amnesty for holdouts who refuse to register their firearms. Does this not demonstrate a certain inconsistency in terms of the government's goal of making our society more secure?

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will get behind Bill C-35 and will support it at third reading so that it can be sent to the Senate. The reason for our support at the end of the legislative process is that the bill will have no major impact on current practice. However, I repeat, shifting the burden of proof will not solve the problem of the traffic in weapons. Bill C-35 will have no effect on that trend. The approaches that the Bloc Québécois advocates reflect the concerns of the people of Quebec with respect to justice. Providing better protection for our citizens means attacking the root of the problem, in other words, the causes of delinquency and violence.

As I mentioned in some recent remarks concerning Bill C-10, poverty, inequality and feeling excluded will always be the breeding grounds of crime. As a consequence, firearm-related crimes always remain as a difficult social problem to eliminate. Again, and this time I will avoid debating the inconsistency that I emphasized previously, that is the government’s claim that it is acting effectively on the problem of firearm-related crimes while at the same time it is weakening the gun registry.

Like my colleagues, I believe that a greater sharing of riches, working toward better social integration and emphasizing rehabilitation represent essential solutions for the prevention of crime.

Unfortunately, this government always has that unproductive tendency to ignore those approaches. It thinks it can achieve security by filling the penitentiaries. What a sad social observation for a government that wants to give the impression that it is doing something, even though what we have here, as Bill C-35 demonstrates, is only the appearance of action.

The House resumed from June 4, consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be read the third time and passed.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member. I know that as we all do he clearly has similar concerns about just what we can be doing to reduce crime in our cities and to improve the overall safety of our country. I think all of us have that same issue at heart, and the question is, what is the answer?

For some of the issues around Bill C-35 and reverse onus, in some cases those things are already happening, but it does send the message that we want to send to the judiciary. My concern is about our large urban centres like Toronto, which I represent, and the unfortunate and continuing gun violence in my riding.

I have two questions. First, what are his thoughts when it comes to the whole issue around handguns in our cities? This is something that the community safety minister in Ontario and the attorney general have talked about. They have talked specifically about a ban on handguns in major cities. They also told me that two weeks ago the police raided an apartment looking for someone and found 260 legally registered handguns and 1,000 pounds of ammunition.

Bill C-35 is not going to be big in helping us in those avenues, so what other suggestions does the member have? Does he think we should be going in that direction as a next step when it comes to the handgun issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-35, back from the special legislative committee, really addresses two points. The major one that most people have heard of is to reverse the onus, so that the accused would have to establish why he or she would be released on bail and the other, which is a secondary point but flows from this, is that we have added some criteria that the judge would take into account when determining whether a person would be released on bail.

To expand on that a bit so that we are clear, we have effectively had the reverse onus within the Criminal Code in many respects if one understood how the practice took place. We are emphasizing and the legislature is sending a message to our judiciary that we want it to be very concentrated in its focus on gun crimes and the use of guns in crimes. If people before the court are alleged to have used guns in serious crimes, they would be required to establish under those circumstances whether they should be released from custody pending their trials or disposition of the charges.

It was interesting to listen to the evidence. The very first witness, other than the minister and the officials from the Department of Justice, was a representative from one of the defence bars in Canada, an association of defence lawyers. I have to say quite frankly that he stunned the committee with his opening statement that the organization in fact was not opposed to Bill C-35.

This was confirmed by a number of other witnesses, but he went on to establish to our satisfaction that this bill simply represents what is now happening in our courts across the country. Both he and other witnesses from the defence bar and other people who might have traditionally been expected to be opposed to this legislation, and in some cases were on principle, came forward with the same evidence time after time.

At least in all of the major metropolitan areas right across the country, the courts have already begun to apply a reverse onus. Even though it is not mandated by statute, they in effect were doing it practically on a day to day basis in our courts across the country. They were doing it particularly when crimes involved youth and the use of guns.

I know I have given this part of my speech before, but I am going to repeat it. When we deviate from what is an accepted practice in our criminal justice system, we do so only when we are faced with a serious problem. We know that in spite of the fact that the murder rate in this country continues to decline, as it has on a regular basis over the last 25 years, there have been some spikes but generally it has declined, the rate of violent crime has declined in similar ratios over that 25 year period.

I will digress for a moment. I use the 25 almost 30 year period now because it was over that period of time that we have had good, reliable statistics with regard to the crime rates in this country. Prior to that, the figures are somewhat suspicious in terms of their validity.

For the last 25 to 30 years the murder rate has continued to decline and the violent crime rate continues to decline, but there are exceptions to that and that is really what this bill, to some significant degree, is attempting to address.

One of the areas of crimes involving guns where we have seen a spike, even with some trend to it, has been in street gangs primarily in our major metropolitan centres right across the country. It is higher in some areas, but generally a trend right across the country.

We know that because there are more handguns and illegal guns, rapid fire guns in particular, that have ended up in the hands of gangs through organized crime, the biker gangs in particular. They have imported a lot more weapons in the last decade or so and we are seeing those guns get right into the hands of street gangs.

Therefore, we are seeing a substantial increase in crime within that very specific group. We cannot help but think if that had not happened, that those guns had not ended up in their hands, that the violent crime rate in this country, both for murder and for violent crimes generally, would have dropped even more dramatically than what we have seen over that 25 to 30 year period.

The bill specifically addresses this with an amendment, not only reversing the onus but it specifically requires, under the facts and circumstances, what the court is to take into account when granting bail. We have added to additional sections and one is an amendment to an existing section.

We had traditionally assigned to the court guidelines in section 515 of the Criminal Code as to what was to be taken into account. The overall encompassing section says that the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, and then we go down this list. Bail was to be denied if in fact there was a loss of confidence in the administration of justice.

As I said earlier, we were hearing from the witnesses that our judges right across the country, in the metropolitan areas in particular, were concerned about the effect of confidence on the administration of justice. They had begun to say to people who came before them, charged with crimes involving guns and involving serious violence, that they must establish why they should not be held in custody pending their trial or the disposition of their charges.

These sections were already in, so the judge in determining whether the administration of justice was falling into disrepute had to take into account, first, the apparent strength of the prosecution's case; second, the gravity of the offence; and third, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence.

To that we have now added in this bill, assuming it passes the House, in looking at the commission of the offence, whether it included the use of a firearm. Of course that would be a negative factor to be taken into account and the basis on which bail could be denied.

We then went on to add an additional factor. If the accused was liable on conviction to a potentially lengthy prison term, then we added, in the case of an offence that involved or whose subject matter was a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.

Therefore, the judge confronted with a charge of that kind involving a gun would take into account what the potential penalty is and if it is more than three years, that again would be a negative factor in determining whether the individual would be allowed out on bail and more than likely would not.

That has begun to happen right across the country. What we are doing with this legislation is confirming, I suppose, to our judges that we agree with them, that it is an appropriate practice on their part in giving them in effect legislative authority above and beyond what they already have to continue that practice where it is appropriate to do so.

There were a number of concerns around the bill. We heard those from the witnesses. One of them was on principle. We do not use reverse onus in the criminal justice system in this country in the long history that we have had, that the presumption of innocence is overriding in all cases.

However, again, we have made those exceptions on occasion and this is one of the times because of, I will say fairly and justifiably, the crisis that we are faced with, with the use of guns in those particular circumstances, and so it is justified on that basis that we should do so.

One of the other concerns that was raised repeatedly, and we heard from the member from the Liberal Party, was regarding some statistics that show the number of subsequent offences that are committed when someone is already out on bail.

I want to be very clear that we brought forward one of the first witnesses, the people from Juristat, the individuals from Statistics Canada who keep records on bail. We have not been doing that until very recently. The reliability of how many crimes are committed when somebody is already out on bail is certainly not foolproof at all.

The figure that was quoted came from one of the police associations. It was over a fairly limited period of time. It involved a fairly limited number of charges involving weapons on which bail was granted. It is difficult to assess the basis on which we are making this decision on solid, hard statistical evidence. We simply do not have that.

What we are doing here is making this decision based on the anecdotal experience we are being told about. We do not have solid statistical evidence. It is being gathered now. Our police forces across the country are providing that to Statistics Canada, but they have in effect only started that roughly three years ago.

The validity of that needs a period of time, as much as 10 years, before we know for sure just what our experiences are. How many people do get out on bail and who then subsequently commit an offence? We do not know that. We will have that over the next six or seven years at a scientific level that is reliable, if I can say that, but we do not have that at this point.

A statistic that did come out, and is accurate, is the number of people that we have in custody pre-trial. These are people who have not been convicted of any offence but are in custody. This is a major problem for our provincial governments because we actually have more people in this country in pre-trial custody on any given day than we do who have been sentenced to a period of time either in our federal penitentiaries or our provincial prison system.

I was trying to find the figures earlier but I could not. We have about 9,000 people on any given day in this country who are in pre-trial custody and not convicted of any offence. We are holding them in pre-trial custody versus about 7,000 who are in our federal and provincial prisons.

That is a cause for concern because of the cost. Those costs in the pre-trial custodial system are all maintained by the provinces. Obviously there is some sharing that goes on between the federal and the provincial governments, but there is no specific money that is allocated from the federal government for that.

The best estimate we could get was that the impact of Bill C-35 would have very little impact on adding to the pre-trial incarceration in this country because the judges have already done that. That is the immediate impact.

More long term, where judges may have backed off somewhat, assuming the crime rate goes down by the use of guns, it may very well keep that pre-trial incarceration rate up higher than it would be if the judges had simply been left alone with the discretion they have had up to this point.

That is a concern that we are going to have to continue to monitor on an ongoing basis by dealing with it in either one of two ways: looking at ways of perhaps amending this legislation at some point in the future or looking at ways that we can have more funds flow to the provinces to assist them in the cost of that pre-trial incarceration.

Those are concerns that we will have to continue to monitor. Any government, whether it is this one or some subsequent government, will have to monitor those costs on an ongoing basis.

I want to go back to the bill itself with regard to why we would proceed with it. Last week we had Bill C-10 before us on mandatory minimums which went through the House. I spoke at that time about the importance of us focusing on the use of the criminal justice system on specific areas when we have a specific problem, a significant problem, even a crisis level problem in those areas.

That is what we are doing here in Bill C-35. Our judiciary, to a significant degree if maybe not completely, has already addressed this problem.

What we are doing with Bill C-35 is simply confirming that it is a problem in this country. This legislature is sending a message to those street gangs, to the youth of this country who are inclined to carry guns and use them in crimes, that they are not going to get bail, that they are going to be held in custody and, if subsequently committed, that they are going to be faced with quite severe penalties.

That message is the message that we need to send in a very targeted and very focused way. I believe the combination of Bill C-10 and Bill C-35 goes some distance in doing that.

I would make this final point. One of the witnesses we heard from is a well known professor of criminology and sociology, a highly respected expert. If not the expert in the country, he certainly has no individuals in the country who would be superior to him. He may have a few peers, but there is no one superior.

He made a point in opposition to this legislation. He said that one of the problems with this legislation is that we are creating an expectation that this bill will not meet, because it is already happening. He said that we are creating an expectation that this is going to significantly drive down the crime rate with regard to the use of weapons, illegal guns in particular. He said that it is not going to happen and he is right.

It is not going to happen. It may have a small impact, and he was prepared, I think, to concede that, but as for a major impact, we will hear from some of the government members in particular that it is going to have that major impact, and it is not.

If we are going to drive down the crime rate, especially crime involving guns and serious violent crime, it means more enforcement by our police officers. We saw that again in Toronto, where Chief Blair was very successful in shutting down several of the street gangs by using existing law and existing methodology, before Bill C-10 and before Bill C-35. But he needs more resources, as do a number of our other chiefs across the country.

The other point that we have to be looking at is programming that will prevent individuals, youth in particular, from getting involved in the street gangs, so that they never get to that point where they have to make the decision on whether to take a gun into their possession. Unless we move more dramatically on those prevention programs, we will not see a dramatic reduction in gun crimes in this country.

This is part of the agenda that the government and this legislature have to face on an ongoing basis. I say this repeatedly, and I know it is almost becoming a cliché now, but one violent crime in this country is one too many. The target for us as a legislature is to say that we will do whatever we can to prevent every single violent crime in this country.

Are we ever going to achieve that? I am not naive enough to think we will achieve that ideal society, but I do know, from looking at experiences around the globe, that we can do much more than we are doing now in preventing crime. That is really what the agenda should be for this legislature when we are dealing with the criminal justice system over the next decade.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his impassioned speech. We are discussing reverse onus on gun crimes. I know that the hon. member did talk a little bit about gun stuff in his speech. I want to thank him for his support and hopefully for his and his entire party's support when it comes time to pass Bill C-35.

I noticed that in his speech he went through the life cycle of a law-abiding citizen acquiring a firearm. A law-abiding citizen would apply for a firearms acquisition certificate, or the possession only, or possession and acquisition licence, go through the waiting period, go through all the criminal checks, dot all the is, cross all the ts and then have to fill out a registration form to purchase a firearm. He said very clearly that these are not the people that we want to go after.

I have a simple question for my hon. colleague. If it makes so much sense to support Bill C-35, which is to put the reverse onus on people who commit dangerous offences, whether their motivation is through drug trafficking or anything else, would it not make more sense to use those resources that we are currently spending on the gun registry, which is Bill C-21? It sounded to me he was making an excellent case for passing Bill C-21 and getting rid of the long gun registry and taking the resources from that and using it for implementing Bill C-35 and some of the other programs that the hon. member thinks are so important for the social well-being of members of his community.

I am just wondering if I could count on his support for Bill C-21 as much as I could count on his support for Bill C-35.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

The attorney general in my province supports the bill, as does the Liberal Party of Canada. This is part of a collection of government legislation that we tried to fast-track in March, including the age of consent legislation and a number of other bills. We tried to move them forward but the government inexplicably blocked our efforts to pass four major pieces of legislation dealing with criminals and criminal activity through the House in one day. Half of the government's legislative agenda on criminal activities could have been passed but the government chose not to. Those members can explain that to their constituents.

People have a lot of misconceptions on who is committing gun crimes and where the guns are coming from. Murders are not being committed by law-abiding citizens who get the background checks done, get the firearms acquisition certificate and then go out and hunt or engage in target practice. Murders are being committed by criminals who get these guns that are generally brought into Canada by gun traffickers.

Guns are often intimately attached to drug trafficking. In fact, trafficking in drugs, guns, other weapons or other contraband is part of what fuels organized crime financially. Guns are just another product to organized crime. The profound tragedy of this is that guns are used to kill people. Many of the guns used in homicides have been brought into this country illegally. They are not used by law-abiding people who get the firearms acquisition certificate. They are used by thugs. With the tough regulations that we have today, these thugs can only get guns illegally. They are brought up primarily from the United States.

It is important for us to focus on that. It is important for us not to veer off into initiatives that have nothing to do with dealing with the people who are committing these crimes. At the end of the day, those initiatives will not reduce crime in our country, which is why we are supporting this initiative.

This legislation is part of a whole collection of legislation that we introduced when we were in government that would have given Canada one of the toughest anti-pedophile laws in the world. Our legislation dealt with strong initiatives against sexual predators, tougher sentences for violent offenders and tougher penalties for those who engage in organized criminal activities. These individuals are actually criminals dressed in business suits.

It is also important for us to implement other initiatives that would make our country safer. One of the most important responsibilities that we have as elected officials is to implement solutions that ensure that our citizens are living in a safe environment.

Let us look at the prison population and at some of the antecedents as to why they are there. What kind of people are in jail? Some of them are bad and nasty people, which is why the federal government should listen to its provincial counterparts. I was having a conversation here with one of my colleagues. The provinces have a big challenge. The police are having a challenge on the ground with respect to this revolving door of people being arrested, going into the system and then coming out quickly. It is disheartening, immoral and defeating for our police officers and our correctional officers who work so ardently to keep our streets safe.

What could the government do? A lot of the people in prison have drug problems and psychiatric problems. It is estimated that 40% of them have fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effect. This is a shocking number given the fact that fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in newborns in Canada. It is completely preventable. It would be very smart for the health minister and the justice minister to work with their provincial counterparts to find comprehensive, doable and effective solutions that prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.

It is heartbreaking to see these children with an average IQ of 70. They have incredible difficulties in school and end up falling through the gaps. The teachers cannot handle them and, as a result, some of them act out with predictable consequences. When we go to a jail and we see who is there, we see a panoply of people with different issues.

I hope the government works on a rational drug policy but not the policy in the United States that has resulted in an increased use of both hard and soft drugs, a greater number of people in the prison population, more cost to the taxpayer and less safe streets because that does not work.

We do not need to have a binary situation between our solution and the United States. We could look to Europe. Europe has implemented some very sensible solutions in terms of a drug policy that does a lot in terms of harm reduction. I know the government does not particularly like harm reduction. It only extended the Insite safe injection site in Vancouver for one year instead of three years and it would be a catastrophic mistake if the government were to stop that program.

Why does the government not work with the scientists and the researchers who have done intelligent work on the ground to reduce harm? At the Insite safe injection site, for example, not only was there a reduction in property crime but more people actually became attached to the health care system. As a result, they could access the health care system and use the detox site therapy. A lot of these people have what we call dual diagnosis, which means that some have drug problems and some have psychiatric problems but some of them go hand in hand. We cannot tease these things out in isolation. We need to deal with people for the collection of problems they have. The harm reduction strategies work very well.

The Insite program works well because it gets people off the street. What would be smarter, and I know this would be a real leap for the government, would be to adopt something like the NAOMI project in Vancouver where individuals are given the drug in an environment which disconnects them from going out on the street and buying it from those people who are attached to organized crime.

The worst thing we could do for members of organized crime that would actually cause them to get weak in the knees and be beside themselves with grief is to sever the ties between the drug user and organized crime. We can do that. I know people will say that it is not the business of the government to go out and give addicts drugs but these people will go out and buy drugs from people attached to organized crime and that serves no one.

If we can bring people into the health care system through a harm reduction site, particularly a harm reduction site where they get their drugs, then we can attach them to detox and get them into psychiatric therapy and the treatment they require. This would be something that the government could rationally adopt to deal with this problem.

When the government puts the population in jail, it should make sentence reductions conditional on those individuals participating ardently in the skills training, the psychiatric therapy and the drug therapy that would be mandated to them when they come in front of the court.

People would automatically get one-third off their sentence, which is frequently reduced more, and no conditions would be placed on the individual. It would be a lot smarter if that person had to work for that release by being able to get time off for good behaviour if they actually behaved well.

These people would need to follow the parameters set during sentencing, including the psyche therapy, harm reduction and drug therapy, as well as the skills training. When these people left jail they would then have the skills needed to get a job, their drug problem would, hopefully, be dealt with to a degree and they would be in the medical system where their psyche problems are being dealt with.

Some psychiatric problems are chronic. They may be one of the major psychosis, which is difficult to deal with, but at least they would have a head start when they got out of jail. If these problems are not dealt with while they are in jail, many of them go back to what they did before. As a result, we see the recidivism rate that plagues some populations within the citizen population.

It is also important to look at the population that engages in gun crimes. In Toronto, for example, 40% to 50% of the individuals who actually committed violent offences with a gun were actually on probation or on bail. These individuals were repeat offenders. They had been convicted and were out on bail and 40% to 50% of them committed gun offences. I think it is a really good idea in terms of putting the reverse onus upon them because we are dealing with a very fixed group of individuals who have committed violent offences.

The other thing that is worthwhile to bear in mind is that most people who commit murder do not use a gun. They use knives, baseball bats and other tools to murder another individual. It would be wise to extend the notion of reverse onus to those individuals who have committed violent offences, such as sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, attempted murder and murder, as a starting group. We would then be dealing with a fixed population of people who have been proven to be a danger and a threat to society. We can look at the small population and ascertain, based on their behaviour and activities in jail, whether or not they are safe to be released.

One of the toughest things I had to do when I was working in a jail was to assess an individual who was about to be released. Some of these individuals had lists as long as their arms in terms of extreme violent behaviour. I remember being attacked by an individual in his cell, which was proof in terms of getting that person into a psychiatric facility. However, what if the correctional officers had not really been aware or called a physician to do the assessment on that individual to get him into hospital? The system should be sufficient to analyze a person to determine whether or not he or she is actually in a position to be released safely into society.

We are treading into very challenging ground in terms of people's rights but I am sure smart minds out there could put together a framework where people's personal rights would be protected but also the rights of society would be honoured as well.

While this is a difficult area to tread ethically, it is important that the government tackle it. I am sure that many people the House, as well as people in the public service and in Canada, have experience and knowledge in this area and perhaps they could guide the government in implementing a rational policy to do so.

I want to emphasize that we can do many things in terms of preventing a lot of problems from occurring. We can do things for those who are convicted and in jail. It is not a simple situation of focusing on higher penalties for individuals who have committed crimes. While those are important under certain circumstances, we need to look deeper into the situation to implement the solutions that work.

I have probably said this 100 times in the House over the last 14 years but I will harp on it again. The Head Start program for kids works when we look at it purely through the issue of youth crime. If I were to tell the House that there is a plan that reduces youth crime by 60%, a plan that saves the taxpayer $7 for every $1 invested, would members not think that was a plan that the government should adopt? A wise government would look at it and not simply dismiss it out of hand as some sort of woolly-headed notion.

The reality is that these programs have more than 25 years' experience and have been analyzed by very competent researchers. Those headstart programs work to strengthen the parent-child bond. They help parents, particularly vulnerable parents, access the parenting skills that they require. That has a profound impact on the development of the child.

In the first eight years of life is when a child's brain is actually developing the neuro connections. Those brain connections occur at that sensitive time. If it is done right, those brain connections work well and the child has the pillars and resiliency within his or her psyche to deal with many challenges. However, subject that child to violence, sexual abuse, poor nutrition, an absence of adequate parenting, and those connections simply do not work as well. Frequently that is the case, but not always.

If we are able to give that child that head start, if that child is able to develop his or her brain during that critical first eight years in a competent way, then that child truly has the ability to live a life that anybody would hope for an individual. Depriving the child of those basic elements, subjecting that child to those horrible events damages the child sometimes forever.

We often hear horror studies of individuals who commit horrible crimes. Sometimes it is difficult for us to sympathize with those individuals given the horrible things they have done and they pay the price. It should also cause us to reflect that things happened in the history of that individual who has committed horrible crimes.

If we are smart we would work with the provinces to implement that headstart program because it works. I am going to try to do that this summer in my riding. There are four teachers who have volunteered to do it. I hope by September we will be able to roll it out as a pilot project in Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. If it works, maybe it could be shared with teachers in other areas of our country.

One of the most remarkable programs is the Hawaii healthy start program. It reduced child abuse rates a staggering 99%. It looked at parents who were vulnerable, parents who did not have good parenting skills, who themselves lived in vulnerable and sometimes horrible environments. Those parents were matched with women who had had their kids and who had strong parenting skills. In building that mentorship program with those vulnerable parents, child abuse rates were reduced 99%. That is pretty amazing.

It is not complex. It is not rocket science. It is pretty easy to do. It does require leadership.This leadership could be exercised at the federal level, even though the implementation and operation of it would be at the provincial level. I think all of us know that our provincial counterparts are looking for leadership. They are looking for help. They are looking for a hand and it is not that we do not have a plan or a program to do this.

I encourage the government to work with our provincial counterparts on that. I strongly encourage the government to look at the harm reduction strategies that work, to adopt those strategies, to support those strategies across our country.

For heaven's sake, I would ask that the government not cut harm reduction. I would ask it not to cut the Insite safe injection site. I would ask it not to stop the NAOMI project in Vancouver. Rather, it should look at those projects and see how other communities in Canada that want to adopt these programs can have access to these programs.

The failure to do so would result in the deaths of thousands of people in our country, the spread of communicable diseases, some of which are fatal. The costs to the taxpayer would be extraordinary.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member's speech. I am very supportive of Bill C-35. It is a very important new law that the government is bringing in on reverse onus for serious crimes committed with guns.

Specifically, the chief of police in Toronto, Ontario OPP commissioner Julian Fantino, and my own Chief McLaren are very supportive of this bill. They are very frustrated with the revolving door justice system that they feel we have adopted here in Canada, whereby the offenders are often back out on the street before the police have even been able to leave the courthouse.

I would like to know whether the hon. member feels that this bill addresses those concerns. Does he feel it will be well received by chiefs of police in Canada?

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

When good legislation is enacted, Mr. Speaker, and in regard to the opportunity for review and updates and the opportunity to ensure that success has been met, it is something that the committee certainly has talked about. It did not necessarily recommend that, but it certainly talked about how a future justice committee could take a look back at it to see if the foundation that was laid with Bill C-35 was successful. I think it will be. That success will be clear as we move forward.

One of the difficulties, though, as everyone knows, is that we will never know when we have stopped someone from committing a serious crime, perhaps a murder. We will never know whether or not it has been prevented. That is the one difficulty the committee faced. It is certainly one that needs to be looked at in terms of review.

The member for Trinity—Spadina mentioned community programs. I would point out that the 2006 budget laid out community programs. The Minister of Public Safety certainly made announcements on it over the last year. I am not even going to talk about what the figure may be, because I think the figure is not as important as the recognition that this government has put this forward and has asked communities to come forward with programs for youth to make sure they have an education and an opportunity rather than belonging to a gang or, certainly, picking up a gun.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, about two years ago when there were a large number of gun crimes in Toronto I was involved in investigating what we could do in the community to reduce gun crime.

Aside from a serious investment in intervention and prevention programs, the mayor of the city of Toronto at the time, together with the chief of police, were pushing for a reverse onus in bail hearings for firearms-related charges. We know it is important. It is very demoralizing for a neighbourhood when someone is arrested and charged with a series of serious gun crimes yet gets bail and is back out in the community in a few days.

Will there be an evaluation, perhaps in a year, to see if Bill C-35, this amendment to the Criminal Code, has the positive impact that it is supposed to have, so that we know whether this amendment actually works or not? Will there be some kind of evaluation or reporting back to Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am exceptionally pleased that we are debating Bill C-35 at third reading. According to my colleagues, it is the second best thing that has happened yet today.

It proposes a reverse onus in bail hearings for a number of firearm-related offences.

Canada's new government is following through with its commitment to get tough on crime. That is why, since last spring, we have introduced 11 bills to make our communities safer. We have tackled key issues such as gun crimes, alcohol and drug impaired driving, street racing, and the protection of our youth from adult sexual predators.

This government is listening to what Canadians are telling us. We are making progress on amending the Criminal Code to make it more responsive to their concerns.

It is important that we maintain the trust of Canadians in the criminal justice system. Along with other bills, Bill C-35 aims to do just that. Bill C-35 demonstrates this government's commitment to ensuring that people charged with serious firearm offences do not roam our streets while out on bail.

In my view, the legislative reforms proposed in Bill C-35 are appropriately tailored to the concern that has been expressed by many Canadians, the concern about the release from custody of individuals accused of serious gun crimes who pose a threat to public safety.

Bill C-35 proposes to shift the onus during bail hearings from the Crown to the accused, so that people charged with serious firearm offences will not benefit from a presumption in favour of release on bail. The burden will be on them to demonstrate why it is not justified to keep them in custody until they are dealt with according to the law.

Under Bill C-35, a reverse onus will apply in a number of cases.

First, Bill C-35 creates a reverse onus for eight serious offences committed with a firearm. These offences are: attempted murder; discharging a firearm with intent; sexual assault with a weapon; aggravated sexual assault; kidnapping; hostage taking; robbery; and extortion. It is clear that these are serious offences and their severity is only heightened when they are committed with a firearm.

Second, Bill C-35 proposes a reverse onus for the offences of firearm trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and firearm smuggling. While firearm trafficking and smuggling are not offences that involve the actual use of a firearm, they are nonetheless very serious offences. Those involved in firearm trafficking and smuggling are responsible for the illegal supply of guns to people who cannot lawfully possess them and who are likely to use them for a criminal purpose.

The Criminal Code already provides a reverse onus for accused persons charged with drug trafficking and smuggling. It should also provide a reverse onus for those who are involved in firearm trafficking and smuggling. Just like those involved in the drug trade, firearm traffickers are also involved in organized and lucrative crime. In some cases, these activities go hand in hand and involve the same network of people.

Regardless of whether the charge is for firearm trafficking and smuggling or for drug crimes, a reverse onus should apply to the accused. The potential for continued involvement in that kind of ring is high, even after the accused has been arrested and then released. From a public safety perspective, firearm traffickers play a significant role in the firearm homicide problem. Their involvement poses an indirect but significant threat to the safety of the public.

Bill C-35 also creates a reverse onus for any offence involving a firearm or other regulated weapon if committed while the accused is subject to a weapons prohibition order.

Weapons prohibition orders are imposed in many cases, such as, for example, when a person is convicted of an indictable offence in which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted. They are imposed on people convicted of certain drug trafficking and smuggling charges, as well as weapon-related offences. They remain in force for several years and in some cases for a lifetime.

Weapons prohibition orders are a very important tool in our criminal law to help prevent firearm violence, whether it is homicides or other gun related crimes, but also accidental injuries and suicides.

I would like to highlight the fact that there are approximately 35,000 prohibition orders currently in force in our country. This specific reverse onus situation has the potential to apply in a number of cases where the risk of future firearm violence is a concern. People should not be entitled to bail when they have demonstrated their inability to abide by a court order to not possess firearms or other regulated weapons.

Finally, Bill C-35 provides additional criteria specifically related to firearm offences for the court to consider when it decides whether the detention of the accused is justified.

This particular amendment is not a new reverse onus situation. The court will be able to justify denying bail to a person charged with an offence involving the use of a firearm or with a firearm offence that attracts a minimum penalty of three years or more.

If the court is not able to justify keeping a person in custody under the other permitted reasons, under Bill C-35 it will be able to do so if it is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bill C-35 takes into consideration the broader picture regarding crime in the country. When it comes to gun crimes, the situation has changed, and we need to adapt to this change.

The reality is that organized crime and now street gangs are armed. Frequently they are armed with handguns or other restricted or prohibited firearms. Our criminal justice system must be properly equipped in order to step up to the challenges posed by this new brand of criminality.

Several of our large urban centres are now struggling with the criminal use or illegal possession of firearms by members of street gangs and by drug traffickers. Innocent people are affected by inter-gang violence, random shootings, armed robberies and, as we saw so recently, killings in schools. Just a couple of weeks ago, another young person, Jordan Manners, was fatally shot in a Toronto school.

We are adapting to changing times and changing crimes. Bill C-35 will enhance our bail regime to reflect our collective denunciation of gun crimes.

I am very happy that the bill is being met with quite a bit of support from all parties in the House and from various stakeholders. I would like to express how pleased I am with the recent support of the bill by the Bloc. Indeed, the study of this bill in committee has given us the opportunity to find out about important points of view, allowing all parties to appreciate its value. It is proof that committees can work.

The government believes that Bill C-35 is a very sensible piece of legislation. It is focused, strong and right. It is my hope that it will be well received in the Senate and that senators will move on it quickly and expeditiously.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), as reported (without amendment) from the 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, 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.

Legislative Committee Responsible for Bill C-35

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee responsible for Bill C-35. In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, March 26, 2007, your committee has considered Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), and agreed, on Tuesday, May 29, 2007, to report it without amendment.

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

Oui.

I'd like to say on behalf of the Liberal caucus how pleased we are that we are voting in favour of Bill C-35, and that finally it was moved by the government at second reading so that we could debate it in the House. I think all of the opposition parties collaborated very well with the government in order to ensure that it was moved into committee very quickly.

In committee we collaborated to ensure that we heard just enough witnesses to assure ourselves that the reversal of the burden of proof was constitutional, that it was a standing practice that already existed on the ground, and that this would simply be codifying an existing practice. We're looking forward to seeing this move just as quickly back into the House, to debate it quickly at third reading, and to see it adopted quickly.

This is a bill that the Liberals, through our leader, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, officially offered the government to fast-track, and the government did not take up our offer. We were pleased that when the government did finally decide to actually move the bill at second reading, because of the cooperation of the opposition parties, we were able to see it move quickly through the House through all stages, and we hope that will continue at the report stage and at third reading. We hope the government will not let it sit on the order paper, once it has been reported back to the House, for days and days and then turn around and blame the opposition and say that we are blocking their legislation, as they have done with other pieces of legislation.

Thank you.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said that if a new Liberal government were prepared to do all of these things, why did it not do it when it was in power? Let me talk about some of the things the previous Liberal government members did when we were in office.

The previous Liberal government brought in the national strategy on crime prevention, which directed moneys into local communities that needed to work with their youth at risk and to ensure better levels of security. They were able to coordinate with the local law enforcement, community police officers, the health organizations and the schools to bring down to the grassroots real effective programs to ensure we had lower crime rates. That is an example of what a previous Liberal government did.

The previous Liberal government brought into being the dangerous offenders system. It was not a Progressive Conservative government, it was the Liberal government. It was a Liberal government that brought into existence the long term offender system. It was a Liberal government that recognized minimum mandatory penalties in very targeted areas could send a clear message and could be effective in the sense of removing the offender from the community and ensuring that the victim and the community were not re-victimized.

We are the ones who brought in minimum mandatory penalties for firearm related criminal acts. It was not a Conservative government. It was not a Progressive Conservative government. It was a Liberal government that brought into effect integrated law enforcement teams. Whether it was for the border enforcement, or for financial money laundering, or for whatever, it was a Liberal government that brought those into effect.

It was a Liberal government that brought into effect all the new provisions, which are no longer new, to the Criminal Code to create the ability for law enforcement to seize drug money and to define a criminal organization and organized crime.

The Liberal government did all of that.

I believe the member opposite should go back to the school benches, learn the actual history and cease taking the rhetoric and sloganeering of his party, which has tried to paint Liberals as not being tough on crime. Tough on crime does not do it. The supreme court of the United States of America recently ruled that its determinant sentencing, under the American federal sentencing guidelines, what it calls mandatory minimum penalties, was unconstitutional and should be used as an advisory only. In other words, in the United States federal mandatory minimum sentencing is considered to be unconstitutional and should only be used as a guideline.

I am appalled that the Conservative government would want to take a failed model, which is the escalating minimum mandatory sentence system that existed in virtually all of the states in the United States and for which 25 of the states since 2003 have eliminated or severely reduced, and impose it here in Canada.

Effective justice is not sloganeering. Effective justice is not retail politics. Effective justice means taking the time to educate people. It means putting the taxpayer money where it will reduce crime. It is not pandering. The Conservative government panders and it conducts retail politics. It is not too lofty for the government to stoop to the most base accusations, disinformation, untruths in its quest to try to portray itself as being tough on crime.

Being tough on crime means taking the effective measures that will actually make a difference on the ground. We had expert after expert come before the justice committee, whether it was on Bill C-35, or other bills, which the government has lauded to try to make Canadians believe they will make them safer. The experts have said that they could not really oppose them because it would not make any difference.

The de facto reality is that it already happens. Whether it be reverse onus for bail for gun related crimes, it already happens. If one is accused of a criminal offence and a firearm is involved, judges do not give bail. Therefore, we would simply be codifying an actual de facto practice.

That is one of the reasons why the Liberals are able to support Bill C-35, but we are unable to support Bill C-10. It is not effective justice. It is retail politics, and shame on the NDP for supporting it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Do you not have the impression that the problem lies in the fact that this government does not have confidence in its judges? If it had confidence in the judges' ability to weigh the facts, to tailor each decision to the individual and to satisfactorily assess the seriousness of each offence and decide on the appropriate course of action...

The root of the problem, that started with Bill C-9, continued in BiIl C-10 and is now found again in Bill C-35, is that this government, its Minister of Justice and its Prime Minister, do not have confidence in the judiciary. Does that not make you a little sad?

[Isabel Schurman]

Thank you for the invitation to address you here today.

For those of you who don't know my background, I would presume the reason I've been invited is the 23 years of criminal law practice, the fact that I teach criminal law part-time at McGill University's Faculty of Law, and that I have been heavily involved over the years with the Canadian Bar Association, which represents both prosecutors and defence counsel across the country, as well as being involved with various defence organizations.

I hope that perhaps these representations may be of some help to you.

The problem with the proposed law is not that it's going to change criminal law in Canada irreversibly. The problem is that it will change nothing in the day-to-day reality that we live now.

From the practitioner's perspective, if the law passes, there are compelling reasons to believe there will not be one more person detained tomorrow who would not have been detained today, because the reality is that bail is not being given for serious violent offences.

The reality is that Crowns are not having trouble meeting their burden to show why someone should not be freed on bail. The reality is that bail is a fact-driven process and judges are the best people to evaluate the evidence before them.

The reality is that Canadians don't like firearms. Canadians don't like firearms unless they're hunting rifles on hunting territory in hunting season.

The reality is that judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers are just ordinary Canadians, like all of you, with elderly parents, with small children, with all the same safety concerns as other Canadians.

The reality is that when a firearm shows up in the evidence, the Crowns don't like it, the judges don't like it, and the defence counsel don't like it. Through my contacts with Canadian Bar Association members and various defence organizations, I verified that what is the case in Montreal is also the case elsewhere in the country. If a firearm shows up at the stage of a bail hearing in the evidence the Crown possesses, the judge will generally look to defence counsel or the defendant and say, “Well, what have you got to say?” It's a kind of de facto reverse onus, because Canadians don't like firearms. And we can't be compared to our American counterparts when it comes to firearms, because for our American counterparts the right to bear those arms is constitutional. We simply don't like them.

So three questions come up when looking at this proposed legislation. If on the street bail is not being given easily for these offences, then why are we changing the code? Will the changes improve the code, or create confusion and lead to arguments of arbitrariness? And will the changes achieve the goal of making Canada safer, a goal with which we are all in agreement?

On the first question, why change the code, you have an excellent brief that's been submitted to you by the Canadian Bar Association in writing on May 9, 2007. That brief explains that perhaps we shouldn't be changing the Canadian Criminal Code unless there is a gap or a deficiency that we wish to remedy. That brief asks you, where is the gap or deficiency that Bill C-35 is intended to address?

The present law gives judges ample room to refuse bail when society is in danger. Even when the Crown does have the burden in the present system, the Crown is having no trouble meeting that burden.

So the second question I ask is, will the changes improve the Criminal Code? Before dealing with that, you have to know and ask, what is a reverse onus anyway? A reverse onus is an exception to a rule. Bail is constitutionally guaranteed. No one should be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Bail is the rule. The Crown must show cause why the person should remain detained.

Reverse onuses used to be restricted to those who had failed to show, who had breached conditions, etc., and also, traditionally, for most serious offences--murder--all listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code. Over the last few years, reverse onus in bail matters was expanded to include drug trafficking and related offences, some terrorism offences, and security information offences.

The key case in Canadian jurisprudence that dealt with whether or not reverse onuses were constitutional when they were expanded to drug trafficking was the case of Pearson. In the case of Pearson, our Supreme Court said this is really going to apply to a small number of offences, this reverse onus, and there are specific characteristics to these offences--drug trafficking--they're systematic, they're sophisticated, they're commercial, they're lucrative, and that incites people to keep going even once they've been arrested and released on bail. Because of these qualifications or characteristics of the crime, the Supreme Court decided that the reverse onus was constitutional because there was a need to discourage repetition and because there was a marked danger the accused would abscond, because importers and traffickers have organizations and means to help them abscond. But the Supreme Court of Canada said the reverse onus is only going to be okay if it's not arbitrary, if it's not purely discretionary--and I'd like you to keep that in mind for a moment, because we might just take a peek at the Criminal Code in a moment.

The Supreme Court also had difficulty with the fact that the reverse onus for drug trafficking took into its net the small fry, the little traffickers. Justice McLachlin, dissenting in Pearson, would have struck it down for that very reason, because it made the exception too large.

So now, to the second question: will this addition improve the Criminal Code? Will it withstand constitutional challenge? More particularly, in terms of Pearson, will it be arbitrary or not? Looking at the text of the proposed law, we see that the law proposes to amend paragraph 515(6)(a) to include offences under section 99, 100, or 103 of the Criminal Code.

If we look at 99, that's an offence of weapons trafficking. Weapons trafficking, as defined in that section, includes much more than firearms. It includes a whole series of weapons that are not firearms. So there would be a reverse onus, for example, for trafficking in brass knuckles, which are a restricted weapon in Canada, but there would be no reverse onus under article 102 for assembling an automatic firearm. There would be no reverse onus for carrying a concealed weapon, for pointing a firearm, for possession of a firearm for a purpose dangerous to public peace. Would the courts say this is arbitrary?

There would be, according to this proposed legislation, a reverse onus for assault causing bodily harm with a firearm, but there would be no reverse onus for a section 268 aggravated assault with a machete. There would be a reverse onus for a section 239 attempted murder with a firearm, but no reverse onus for criminal negligence or manslaughter with a firearm. In addition, section 239, attempted murder, would only imply reverse onus if it was with a firearm, but if there's a reverse onus for a firearm, could not an attempted murder be just as brutal with any one of a number of other weapons that we see on the streets today?

Sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault--these are interesting ones, 272, 273. The reverse onus would be when the weapon used to commit the sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault is a firearm. Sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault with any other weapon would not bring the reverse onus.

Using a weapon to coerce children into prostitution--would the courts say this looks arbitrary? Would it withstand constitutional challenge?

There's a reversal of the onus for kidnapping, but not for forcible confinement. You may say that's okay; there's a reversal of the onus for hostage taking, but not all forcible confinement is hostage taking. Anyone practising in criminal defence law knows the number of domestic violence incidents that imply or include at least one count of forcible confinement.

Robbery--again, is it potentially arbitrary to say there would be a reverse onus but only if the robbery is with a firearm? I come back to my machete example.

Extortion with a firearm...what about extortion with a bomb threat?

In light of all of these sections, what are we doing about breaking and entering a private home in the context of a home invasion with a firearm? That doesn't include a reversal. Would a court be swayed by defence arguments that these are arbitrary? Would we meet the Pearson test? I'm not sure that we would.

There's a very logical connection between subsection 84(1)...that is to say that there should be a reverse onus when the person who is up for the bail hearing has been accused while under a prohibition to possess firearms. That's a very logical connection. It makes a lot of sense. It's not necessary. The judges sitting in bail courts are already saying, “Well, for goodness' sake, you were under a prohibition, why should I give you bail?”

The reality is that bail in violent offences is extremely rare. Even without reverse onus, the courts apply 515(10)(a), (b), and (c) rigorously. They look at risk of flight, they look at guarantees, they look at the strength of the case for the prosecution. The judges do this on a daily basis, based on the evidence before them and because they are concerned with safety in Canada.

Again, if I look at the bill that you have before you, in subclause 1(5), you have a proposed amendment to 515(10)(c), and I draw your attention to (c)(iii), where you would be asking the courts to look at the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used. Well, do you know what's going to happen with that? It's not going to be very long before counsel is going to be pleading, “This offence isn't quite as serious the weapon used wasn't a firearm.” This section is going to be turned around.

There is the same potential problem with proposed subparagraph (iv), right after. Taking away the availability of bail because there's a mandatory minimum sentence is dangerous when mandatory minimums apply only to a restricted category of offences that are not necessarily the offences with the highest objective gravity. Bail should be evaluated in light of the objective gravity of the offence and the likelihood of conviction. Without this, the mandatory minimum is meaningless.

Finally, and I terminate on this, will these changes make Canada safer? You had some very interesting and thought-provoking comments by Anthony Doob, who spent a great deal of time on that, and I will not.

I would say, ladies and gentlemen, that there are compelling reasons to believe that it will not result in one more pretrial detention, but more importantly it will not result in one less crime. Will the person about to commit a crime, who reaches for a firearm, say, “Wait a minute, I'd better think about this: if I get arrested, I'm going to have to show cause to get bail, so I'd better not do this”? I'm being facetious, obviously, but this will not produce that kind of effect.

We are concerned about the safety of our society here in Canada, and we need useful changes towards this goal. Studies have indicated for decades that the greatest deterrent is the certainty of apprehension. We should be focusing our creativity, our intellectual and financial resources, on developing solutions there.

What we have here is a piece of legislation that I respectfully submit to you is not necessary and will change nothing. Sooner or later Canadians will say that this wasn't the answer and ask what we should do. We should be identifying the problem that's leading to firearms offences with data, with statistics, and targeting a solution, instead of eating away at constitutional values with incremental changes that risk being judged arbitrary and ineffective.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the ninth meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-35. The committee is meeting pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, to study Bill C-35, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

As a witness appearing as an individual this afternoon, we have Madam Isabel Schurman, who is a lawyer at Schurman Longo Grenier.

Welcome, Ms. Schurman.

[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.

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

Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about Bill C-35.

You're talking about continuing the clause-by-clause of Bill C-23, from 4:30 until 5:30 on Wednesday, May 16.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. Thanks.

Once again, I believe the information that you supplied in these tables is useful. I agree that maybe it doesn't apply directly to Bill C-35 , which we're talking about, but I think these are things we need to know.

Also, it suggests that the costs revolving around a victim are difficult to measure in dollars and cents. I've seen what the results of a tragedy in violent crime can do to victims, and it doesn't amount in pennies and dollars; it amounts in a long-term tragic situation.

One witness said that if you commit a crime with a gun, the practice is that you won't get out on bail. But I have talked to police officers personally, and they know of several who have been released on bail. They know of them, and I happen to know of some. So if you talk to the people who make the arrests, they know pretty well what goes on in these things. Yes, it is happening, and so I think the legislation is necessary.

I also have a private member's bill to include all violent crimes, not just guns. I want knives and everything to be included. I've also been told there would be a fairly good chance that the bill would not pass the charter test. I find it very amazing to be told that, but I have been told that.

But what I want to point out is, once again, the one statistic we have is that a person has committed a violent crime with a gun. That person is under arrest and in jail. He has shown that he's capable of doing that very crime. You don't take a chance. You simply don't take a chance. It's just like a dog; if he bites, you leash him up. You don't take a chance that he'll bite again, because he might. He might not, but you don't take the chance.

I'm just wondering if you agree that this would simply be a statistic that indicates, yes, you've been arrested and charged with committing this crime, you've done it once, and that's enough for me. I know some of my colleagues over there would think that's ridiculous, but I'm sorry, once is good enough for me. That person won't get another gun if I can help it.

I wonder if you agree with that scenario.

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

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We had Professor Anthony Doob here, a criminologist from, I believe, the Toronto area. Basically what he said was something some of my colleagues on this table stated, which is that the criminal defence lawyers are coming and telling us that they don't really have an objection in principle to Bill C-35, because in actual reality, as we speak now, if someone commits a criminal act, is charged with committing a criminal act with the use of a firearm, they do not get bail. So Bill C-35 would in fact not change anything; it would simply codify an existing practice.

[Professor Gary Mauser, Criminologist, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual]

Okay, thank you very much.

I have a few words to say as a preface and then I will walk the committee through the tables that I had cause to be distributed. I think I know many of you, but just in case my face is fleeting, I would like to give you a few key facets of my background so you will know a bit about who I am.

As said, I am a professor at Simon Fraser University in both the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, which is in criminology, as well as in the faculty of business administration. My doctoral training was in social psychology and quantitative methods, and I have researched and published in criminology, mostly in the area of firearms and violence, for more than 15 years.

I appear before you today because I support Bill C-35. I believe it is a step in the right direction towards improving the safety of Canadians--a small step, possibly, but I think a positive one.

Despite my support for Bill C-35, I have a few reservations, and I'd like to outline them.

First, in my view, the focus should be serious violent crime, not merely gun crime. I say this for two reasons. Violent crime involving firearms is only a small fraction of serious violent crime, and second, knife-wielding criminals cause more and more serious injuries to their victims than do criminals with firearms.

To illustrate the small fraction of violent crime that constitutes firearms, only 3% of crimes classified as violent crimes involve firearms. A much smaller percentage than 3%, typically around 1%, consists of victims injured by firearms. One-third of homicides involve firearms, and about one-third, knives. Also, 15% of robberies are with firearms. So as you can see, firearms are not the only serious item used in violent crime.

To look at the claims about knife injuries, I urge you to look at tables 1 and 2--I trust this has been distributed. Here in table 1 we look at assault victims; table 2 looks at robbery victims.

So let us look at table 1. In the first line we see that 6% of the victims injured by firearms are injured seriously, while 11% of victims injured by knives are injured seriously, that is to say, Statistics Canada classifies those as major physical injuries.

These data were generated by a special request to StatsCan, so they went through their annual data. I did this in 2004, so the data are from 2003. I don't doubt, but haven't done it, that if we do the similar studies for 2004, 2005, other years, we will get approximately the same kind of distribution.

The second point about table 1 is no reported injuries. Over 50% of victims injured with firearms had no reported injuries, so an injury that is non-existent--this is StatsCan. Equally, in knife injuries, 47% of incidents received no injuries. In other words, victims attacked with knives were much more likely to have an injury--and if an injury, a serious injury--as opposed to guns. This is in assaults.

You get similar kinds of things with robbery victims. In 2% of incidents involving firearms, the victims had major physical injuries, compared to 3% of victims who were robbed by a knife-wielding person.

Similarly, with incidents involving no injuries, 80% were with firearms as opposed to 83% with knifes. This is not to say that firearms are not dangerous; this is merely to say that knives are serious weapons, and Parliament might well be advised to look at knife-wielding criminals as well as gun-wielding criminals.

In tables 3 and 4 are some of the few statistics available on criminals who have been released from prison. In table 3 we look at statutory release and see that over 40% of the prisoners released on statutory release find their release revoked for either breach of condition or commission of a crime. About 3% are violent crimes.

So this goes to the argument that we have some data. The data are very scarce so we do not have very convincing or thorough data, but this is the best of what we have. Whether you classify this as a glass half full or glass half empty, if we look at this as a threat to the Canadian public we can see that 40% of the prisoners released cannot be trusted and are back in jail soon. That causes danger to the Canadian public.

In table 4 we have some data that look at recidivism. Depending on the last crime for which the person was imprisoned, from breaking and entering down to drugs, somewhere between 30% and over 63% of these released prisoners reoffend within three years. There's no information available on the percentage who reoffend if we look at a longer period of five to ten years. The argument here is basically that while it costs money and it costs the freedom of some people, keeping serious offenders in jail protects the public.

Next we look at the cost of crimes borne by the victims. We're not looking at policing costs, court costs, or correctional costs--none of the costs borne by government; merely the costs borne by citizens who have had crimes committed against them.

There are two dimensions to tables 5 and 6. The first is the number of crimes. We have two ways to estimate the number of crimes, and neither one is very good, but they'e different and give you a range of estimates.

One way to estimate the number of crimes committed is by the crimes known to police. In 1996 when this study was published, there were 254,000 crimes known to police that fell into the violent crime category. In 2005, the most recent year that annual statistics are available from StatsCan, we have over 300,000.

The other way of looking at how many crimes are being committed is to do surveys. We have several types of surveys, but perhaps the best we have conducted in Canada involved asking people to report to them on a regular basis. Rather than showing 254,000 violent crimes, this shows about two million. Typically the police know about only a small percentage of the total crimes committed.

We believe the crimes that police know about tend to be the more serious of the crimes committed, but this is not always the case. Since we don't know much about the ones that we don't about, this is an unknown unknown.

The second dimension, and much more problematic, is how do we estimate the costs that victims bear when assaulted, robbed, raped, or killed? This is very difficult. What I have tried to do here is look at victim interviews where victims report what costs they incurred. I have limited my estimates to financial costs, by and large, and I've tried to make minimum estimates for these. Still, it's very problematic—I freely admit that—but it's just the best available.

If any of you have ever been involved in a violent crime—not as a perpetrator, I assume, but as a victim—you know there are many subtle emotional costs. People will not go back into their apartment after it has been burglarized. People will not go to certain areas where they've been attacked or even suspected an attack. There are strong psychological costs for violent or property crimes.

I have tried not to make any estimates of these, although I do have a quote from Welsh and Waller, where they did try to estimate the impact of what they called “shattered lives”. As you can see in the third line up from the bottom on table 6, this is a fairly substantial estimate.

Essentially what we have here is the cost that average citizens bear for crime: we have estimated, in 1996, $4.6 billion as the cost that Canadian citizens bear—not the government, but the citizens—for property crime, and over $700 million for violent crime. These are minimum estimates. I'm sure that, as in many variables in criminology, the better the research the bigger the number, whether it's marijuana smokers, crime, costs, or victims. I have tried very hard here to give minimum numbers.

In table 6, we have specifically broken things out in more detail, so you can see the various component rather than just the total of violent or property crimes. You can see direct monetary losses, productivity losses, hospitalization costs, and of course, the more subjective “shattered lives”.

Let me conclude by saying, first of all, I have a sheet of references so that you can look up and verify my claims. For example, the Welsh and Waller references are there, various Statistics Canada documents, as well as econometric studies that are illuminating.

In conclusion, I support this legislation because I believe its aim is correct: minimizing human suffering. The research shows that keeping violent criminals in jail protects the public through simple incapacitation. I've tried to outline the costs the public bears so you can get a more gritty feeling of what these costs might be.

However, I feel that by focusing exclusively on guns, Parliament may not be dealing with violent crime as effectively as it might. As I'm sure you know, good legislation requires more than merely reacting to media events. Guns are big in the news; knives are not. That may not be a good representation of what is actually out there causing the problems.

I'm sure we all know the dog-bites-man argument of how things get into the news. Airplane crashes make more news than automobile crashes, and many more Canadians die in traffic accidents than airline crashes. So I urge you to consider knives. This may be peripheral and passed over. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good afternoon. It's the Legislative Committee on Bill C-35, meeting number 8, and these are the orders of the day. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, we are going to be considering Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

As a witness this afternoon we have Mr. Gary Mauser, who's a criminologist from Simon Fraser University.

Welcome, Mr. Mauser. We're waiting for your presentation, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Legislative Committee on BillC-35.

It's an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences. This is meeting number seven.

Our witness today is from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Mr. William M. Trudell, the chair.

Welcome, Mr. Trudell. The floor is yours for your presentation, and after that we will have questions and answers in a seven-minute round.

Go ahead, please.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I have one comment on that. That would be subject to Bill C-35 running that course, and also subject to that justice—If that justice committee meeting, for whatever reason by the time May 30 rolls around, is not on May 30, I would think where justice normally meets 9 to 11 Tuesdays and Thursdays, that we might be able to start. Barring something unforeseen happening, I'm in agreement with that.

Are we deciding right now on the time being...? The suggestion is there for Wednesday--is that the suggestion, at 3:30?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

On May 29, consideration of Bill C-35 should be 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]

It worked very well during the study of Bill C-35. As Mr. Ménard mentioned, the member may be alone, or say that his or her colleague does not wish to speak. It's the political party that chooses its critic. We usually try to give all members the opportunity to ask questions. That's what I've always said.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak at the report stage on Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection).

I would like to say, for those who are listening, that the Liberal Party of Canada supports this legislation.

Before I begin discussing the bill in detail, I wish to briefly address several remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in his speech several minutes ago. He said that there were delays with the bill and that the government was happy that the bill was finally at this stage.

I wish to inform people that the Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-22 in the House of Commons on June 22, 2006. The House then adjourned for the summer. It came back at the end of September.

It is the government's prerogative to determine when it wants to move second reading and debate of its own legislation. The government moved debate at second reading on October 30, 2006. This was after the Liberal justice strategy was announced, after Liberals and the then Liberal justice critic offered to fast-track Bill C-22 and a number of other justice bills that the Conservative government had tabled.

Debate at second reading ended on October 30, 2006, which meant that there was an agreement by all parties not to delay debate in the House and to get the bill into committee as quickly as possible. It was referred to the justice and human rights committee, which was already conducting hearings on a series of other government bills and private members' bills.

The justice and human rights committee held hearings on Bill C-22, the age of protection bill, on March 21, March 22, March 27 and March 29, 2007. Members will remember that there was a two week adjournment for the Easter period.

The House returned on April 16 and the justice and human rights committee, which is scheduled to meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays, met on Tuesday, April 17 and on Thursday, April 19. The committee concluded its clause by clause and reported the bill back to the House on April 23.

The government decides when to move debate at report stage and it only decided to move Bill C-22 at report stage this week. It was in a line of bills for which the government determines the order.

If any member of that government is dissatisfied with the length of time it has taken for Bill C-22 to pass through second reading debate, committee stage and reported back, and now be at report stage debate, they need only to look at themselves in the mirror.

As the House knows, the bill has returned to the House from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It has been reported with an amendment, as was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

The amendment added marriage as a defence where an accused is charged with: sexual interference, which is section 151 of the Criminal Code; invitation to sexual touching, section 152 of the Criminal Code; indecent acts, section 173.2 of the Criminal Code; and sexual assault, section 271 of the Criminal Code, in cases where the complainant is 14 years or older but under the age of 16. We Liberals worked alongside the other parties to bring this amendment through.

We are happy to see it included in the committee's report on the bill. We are also happy that, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative members on the justice and human rights committee, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, opposed the amendment in committee, those members have not brought forth a motion to amend the report stage bill and remove that defence.

I had proposed an amendment to the bill. The amendment would have repealed section 159 of the Criminal Code. This section sets out anal intercourse as a criminal offence. This outdated section of the Criminal Code is a relic of Canada's past and in fact has been found contrary to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Two appellate courts, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario, reached this conclusion.

When the government drafted Bill C-22, it could have acted then to remove this archaic section of the Criminal Code or, having failed to do that, perhaps through inadvertence--I gave them the benefit of the doubt that it was by inadvertence--the government at that point could have supported my amendment in committee, because even if an amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, if the government agrees to the amendment it is then admissible and can be debated, voted on and adopted.

The government, however, decided on two occasions, when it was forced to take on the issue with this outmoded, archaic section of the Criminal Code, which is clearly a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that it would instead champion discrimination and homophobia. I think this speaks volumes to that Conservative government's values and the members of that government.

Be that as it may, the bill did pass through the committee without other changes. The committee hearings on Bill C-22 proceeded smoothly and brought forth the views of many Canadian individuals and organizations who have a stake in this issue. Most stakeholders spoke in favour of the bill, while some did speak against it.

Among all parties there was a strong desire to support the bill and to see it clear the committee process quickly and efficiently. I believe the dates that I mentioned show that this is exactly what we achieved.

I would like to repeat that our party supports Bill C-22. Since October 2006, we have repeatedly offered to fast-track a number of justice bills. Surprisingly, the minority Conservative government has refused our offer. It would seem that the government addresses justice issues only when it thinks it can manipulate them for political gain. This is a government that would have Canadians believe it is taking action, but that is not delivering the goods. This is a government that is far more interested in grabbing headlines than getting results that will make Canadians and Canadian communities safer. This is a pattern that has been repeated a number of times already, as in the case of Bill C-22.

In October 2006, my colleague, the member for London West, who was then our party's justice critic, offered the government the chance to fast-track a series of six justice bills that the government had tabled in this House, including Bill C-22. The government turned us down flat. With my colleague, the member for Wascana, who is the Liberal House leader, I made the same offer again in mid-March, and again the government turned a deaf ear.

Towards the end of March, the Leader of the Opposition also made the same offer. The government again did not listen and completely ignored this last offer. To top it off, the government even had the audacity to oppose a motion I tabled to immediately move to third reading of four bills that the government itself had tabled, that is Bills C-18, C-23, C-35, and of course C-22.

Bill C-18 deals with DNA identification. Bill C-23, which is presently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, is an omnibus bill that makes corrections and technical amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to various procedures. Bill C-35 deals with the reverse onus of proof in bail hearings. This government has stated that this bill is all-important to its agenda and to its justice policy but has flatly refused to accelerate the process in the House. The last bill is Bill C-22, which we are currently debating. This is the first time, in my almost 10 years as a member of Parliament, that I have seen a federal government impede the progress of its own legislation. Who would have thought it possible? Anything is possible, its seems, for this minority Conservative government.

In conclusion, I simply wish to say that, from the time Bill C-22 was tabled in this House, in June 2006, the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition, has shown its support for this bill and has attempted to convince this government to fast-track it. However, it was the government that blocked any attempt by the official opposition to quickly adopt Bill C-22. We are very pleased that, finally, this bill is in the House at the report and third reading stage. We intend to vigorously support this bill.

[Tony Cannavino]

This bill, Bill C-35, expresses it very well because it addresses violent crimes and violent criminals, the ones who commit those violent crimes. So it is targeted.

Also, I think Mr. Wilson expressed the impact of this legislation very well, the fact that there's fear in the communities. When the onus is reversed, it's up to the criminal to prove he's not dangerous. It has a huge impact. Although we understand the judge has discretion to release him, I could give you.... We said the impact would be.... As an example, we witnessed a week ago what happened to one of our colleagues who was shot and killed. That person should have stayed in jail. If we had that, it would have been easier for the crown attorney to prove. When the person tries to prove he's not dangerous, if he's a drug trafficker, has a full load of guns, and kills a police officer, how can he find bail? How could he be released? If we had Bill C-35, he would still be in jail.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to thank you, Mr. Francoeur, for your testimony. It touched me deeply. This is why we have a deep respect not only for police officers, but also for police chiefs. As a former mayor, I know there is a difference between both positions, as they involve different functions.

Also, the evidence we have heard on Bill C-35—a bill that we support—has been generally supportive, but there has been a different view of how it will play out. The Criminal Lawyers' Association, and others, suggest that the effect of Bill C-35 is to basically codify what is happening on very serious crimes.

With serious recidivists, bail is hard to get. That all goes to our first discussions on justice issues; it's the discretion of a good magistrate or good judge. I think Bill C-35 is just that. With the reverse onus--which sometimes puts somebody's liberty at risk, so it's an important issue—I'm confident that a properly funded legal aid system will give the accused representation, and a properly appointed and instructed practising judge will make the right decision on the three grounds of bail or interim release. So I'm totally in favour of Bill C-35.

What gives me a little inquiétude is that some of the witness statements perhaps suggested that the reverse onus is a sure thing, that in every case the person is going to be out on a judicial interim release. I don't think we should lead the public to think that's the case. It shifts the likelihood that the person will be kept; it makes it more likely. I think we might all agree on that, rather than giving the public the idea that it's pretty much automatic that they're going to stay—It still depends on the discretion of the judge, and I have confidence in that.

We've had this discussion before, and we've been in Toronto to hear the police chief speak. I think the big thing that comes up—and Mr. Cannavino and Mr. Griffin are almost veterans, and they should get a badge of attendance here—is that it's really about guns. That's really where we should turn our focus. Many of you have talked about guns, but how are we going to get to the issue? There's the gun registry.

We have the current Minister of Justice saying in the Commons that he doesn't want to target duck hunters; he wants to target criminals. Well, I am a duck hunter and I have registered shotguns. I grew up interfacing with the outdoors and learning the responsible use of guns. I don't need the Minister of Justice to protect me. I don't think he has ever owned a gun. That kind of hyperbole bothers me.

As some of the witnesses have said, the issue really is whether you are going to use a gun if you have it. I think Mr. Wilson said that. There's legal use of guns. There are people who believe that handguns can be used for other things than shooting human beings.

I didn't grow up in that culture, but I think we have to have a cultural debate. I think there's a difference between rural and urban Canada. In some cases I think there may be a difference between western and other parts of Canada. Mr. Bagnell said that about the north, as well. I think it's a cultural thing.

Are there effective models for gun control, which if properly resourced—that means detection, prevention, education, etc.—could work?

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

All right.

I have a question for Mr. Francoeur. First, I would like to thank you for your testimony. Since I come from the Montreal area, the dramatic events which took place at the École Polytechnique also left me—

In your presentation, you talked about how guns moved around freely, how it was possible to get them. You also talked about Châteauguay and Kanawake, which are municipalities located in my riding. It seems that it is easy to get weapons there. Since we are talking about crimes committed with a firearm, can you tell us more about the problem of the free flow of firearms? This is all relevant to our study of Bill C-35. It makes sense. We have to be logical and consistent. When you want to pass this type of legislation but ignore the firearms registry, in my mind that just does not make sense. Now we are talking about the free flow of weapons. Can you tell me a bit more about what goes on?

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

I would first like to thank you all for appearing today. This is all very interesting.

Since we began studying Bill C-35, only one witness has expressed reservations; that was this morning. Everyone, except for one person, was in favour of the bill. One of the reasons why he was more or less in favour of enforcing the bill was that, in his view, most people who commit firearm offences are already incarcerated de facto.

I would like to know whether you have any statistics to that effect. You have some concerning Toronto and Montreal. I would like to know the proportion of criminals who are incarcerated under existing laws. We are studying this bill and we understand, on a philosophical level, the scope of your arguments, but do you have any figures to provide to us?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes, indeed.

My question is for you, Mr. Cannavino.

When Bill C-35 was tabled, I asked myself a number of questions. As you indicated earlier, currently, when an individual is arrested by the police, that person appears with his lawyer, and the Crown has to determine that the accused is dangerous in order for him not to be released. Of course, in the case of an individual without a criminal record, even if you do have information, the information cannot be used to detain the individual. You have no right to do so, and neither the Crown nor the judge would allow it.

I want to make sure I am properly understood. Bill C-35 adds a dozen serious offences. These are not minor offences, where reversing the burden of proof could create problems. I understand that the question I will be asking you, Mr. Cannavino, might be philosophical in nature, but it is important.

Many people, including senior citizens, watch television programs on TVA, Radio-Canada, TQS and other channels where stories of people shot in the streets are shown every night. For having worked in this field, I know that the problem is not security, but the sense of security. That is not only true for senior citizens. There are 50-year-olds who are scared, and there are 20-year-olds who are already scared.

Bill C-35 will ensure that people are brought before a judge, and as Ms. Jennings indicated earlier, will have to prove that they are fit to be released. Will the fact that an individual is not immediately released have an effect on people's sense of security? The Crown may postpone the trial by three days, as is currently done, and an arrangement can be made with the Crown on fairness issues to release the individual.

Could the fact that an individual is not immediately released, pursuant to Bill C-35—that does not mean he is guilty—create a sense of security? I call that philosophy, something you spoke about earlier. I do not want to speak about the case you alluded to where one of your police officers was killed, but I did see it on television. We all were shocked. I myself, as a defence lawyer, was surprised. I would like to know whether Bill C-35 addresses the issue of safety. The law is one thing; safety is another.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you very much for your presentations.

I have to admit that I like Bill C-35, despite the fact that I don't think it will really do much to make Canadians safer in their communities. In fact, based on the information we received, as a general rule if someone is accused of committing a firearms-related offence, the judge considers this as an aggravating factor. In such cases, the accused may be held in prison while awaiting his trial.

What I like about this bill is that when an accused person meets with his legal counsellor or attorney, his representative will not tell him that the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond all reasonable doubt in a bail hearing that the accused constitutes a threat and therefore must be detained until he goes to trial. The lawyer is going to have to tell his client that it is up to him to prove that he should be released. That's a major change in philosophy. And that will probably have a bigger effect on the accused person than the process itself. Currently, the accused can simply off-load the burden of proof, which is actually quite substantial.

I read the Canadian Police Association's brief. There was something that really struck me on page 10 of the section entitled “The Canadian Judicial System Needs a Major Overhaul”. You stated the following:

We contend that the time is long overdue to reform our criminal justice system. An independent review of Canada's sentencing, corrections and parole systems remains a top priority for the Canadian Police Association.

I'd like to know if you feel frustrated at all by the fact that rather than carrying out such an overhaul and making sure an in-depth public inquiry is held on the sentencing, correctional, and parole systems, that a piecemeal approach is being adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Cannavino, if you would, please answer the questions about Bill C-35.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cannavino, Mr. Francoeur, good afternoon. I have a few comments to make. Mr. Francoeur, thank you for your testimony and, in particular, for pointing out the contradiction between the fact that the government wants to have stiffer sentences, but is not concerned about the easy availability of weapons. You will not have to work very hard to convince a number of us.

It seems to me that there are two types of measures that are really needed to fight crime. First, there is the firearms registry. If I were appointed Minister of Justice or Public Security, the first thing I would do would be to look at parole. I do not think that this bill will have a big effect on the problems you are describing.

Mr. Cannavino, you will be pleased to know that the Defence Lawyers' Association supports this bill. They told us—see how all is right with the world!—that in practice, magistrates, justices of the peace and judges did not release people on bail who had committed firearms offences. Obviously, not everyone might agree. I introduced a motion on street gangs, and I hope that my colleagues on the government side in a great gesture of friendship such as we have seen all too rarely over the past few years in this committee, will pass it on Thursday morning.

Mr. Cannavino, you were there when parliamentarians considered Bills C-84, C-24 and C-36. You know how concerned the Bloc Québécois and others are about gangsters and street gangs. People in Montreal and Toronto, especially your colleague Mr. Robinette from Montreal, have told us that drive-by shootings are not covered by the definition of criminal organization in the Criminal Code. Should we not include that immediately? When people are intercepted, a drive-by shooting is not enough to prove that they belong to a street gang and can therefore be charged. They can obviously be charged with homicide and other offences, but it would be better to have a charge of gangsterism, since that delays parole and results in longer sentences.

If we have to choose between a bill like C-35, which seems to us to entrench a practice which already exists, and not being more vigilant with the firearms registry and not changing the definition of criminal organization in the Criminal Code, I would opt for the latter approaches.

I would like to hear from your colleague, Mr. Francoeur, yourself or any of the other witnesses who might like to comment, but I would first say that I find the current system, which allows people to serve only one-sixth of their sentences, totally unacceptable. One-third would be understandable. But the revolving door scenario that you have described does not seem to me to have too much to do with Bill C-35; it stems more from the fact that people can serve just six months of a sentence—Some crimes that allow perpetrators to be eligible for release after one-sixth of the sentence are much more serious than these. Gun smuggling is a real concern. There are people eligible to serve no more than one-sixth of their sentences who pose a much greater danger to society, in my view.

I would have liked us to review this issue of serving one-sixth of sentences and of amending the Criminal Code to change the definition of criminal organization, which seem to me to be much greater priorities than bail for firearms offences, which is basically a non-issue in practice, if we are to believe the people who work on the frontlines.

[Yves Francoeur, President, Fraternité des policiers et policières de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal Inc., Canadian Police Association]

I did not bring any statistics on Montreal because they do not indicate the number of people out on bail pending trial. However, Montreal probably has the best statistics in Canada. People told me last week that only Montreal and Toronto had detailed statistics. One thing I do know is that, on Saint-Laurent Street in Montreal, 28 handguns have been seized since January 1^st, 2005, including 11 that were directly related to street gangs, with the rest connected to organized crime.

If Bill C-35 had been in force, Basil Parasiris, who murdered Laval police officer Daniel Tessier, would never have been on bail while awaiting trial. It was Basil Parasiris in this case, but in Montreal we are often dealing with street gangs. We might, for example, arrest three of them with handguns in a car. If a street gang member happens not to have a criminal record because he has never been caught before, he will receive a bail hearing in court and be released.

This legislation needs to be passed in its entirety. But we also need to look at firearms more broadly. Bill C-10 and the firearms registry will probably be back in the spotlight soon.

I am particularly sensitive on firearms issues. On December 6, 1989, at 4:40 in the afternoon, I was patrolling on Décarie Boulevard in Montreal, when I received a call to go to the École Polytechnique. Unfortunately, we arrived too late; there were 14 victims. For 12 hours, I guarded a crime scene a little larger than this room, where 6 female students had been killed and were lying on the ground. Against the back wall stood a metal ladder leading up to a small window. Those young women had tried to escape, and there were bits of flesh everywhere.

In Montreal and other major cities, we have seen a trend toward greater use of firearms. I was a patrol officer in Montreal from 1987 to 1998. During that period, we very rarely seized any handguns. We seized sawed-off weapons, prohibited weapons, because handguns were not available. These days, anyone can get hold of a handgun. I work for the police in Montreal and I could bring you to an Indian reserve in Châteauguay and find you a 357 or 9 mm handgun to buy.

Bill C-35 is a first step in the right direction, but it is up to you, as our current decision-makers, to ensure that future generations, our children and grandchildren, will be able to live in a society without firearms. So please, it is important to begin by passing this bill.

Thank you.

[Tony Cannavino, President, Canadian Police Association]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good afternoon.

I would like to introduce the colleagues who are with me and who are members of the Canadian Police Association's board of directors. They are Yves Francoeur, President of the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal; Dave Wilson, President of the Toronto Police Association; Daryl Tottenham, President of the BC Federation of Police Officers. I am also accompanied by the Executive Director of the Canadian Police Association, David Griffin. I will begin my presentation and then my colleagues will be available to answer your questions.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to present our submissions to the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

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.

The Canadian Police Association is acknowledged as a national voice for police personnel in the reform of the Canadian criminal justice system. 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.

Urban violence has been a significant concern for our association. 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.

Make no mistake about it, repeat offenders are a serious problem. Police understand this intuitively as we deal with these frequent flyers on a routine basis. Statistics released by the Toronto police homicide squad for 2005 demonstrate this point. Among the 32 people facing murder or manslaughter charges for homicide in 2006, 14 were on bail at the time of the offence, 13 were on probation, and 17 were subject to firearms prohibition orders.

In November 2006, statistics provided by Toronto police indicate that of the nearly 1,000 crimes committed so far that year involving firearms or restricted weapons, nearly 40% were committed by persons on bail, parole, temporary absence, or probation. The revolving door justice system is failing to prevent further criminal activity by these repeat violent offenders.

Gun violence requires a non-partisan approach. Stopping the gang violence in Canada's major cities is a concern for police officers across this country. The solution begins with bringing an end to Canada's revolving door justice system.

Canada's police officers have lost confidence in a system that sees violent offenders regularly returned to the streets. We need to restore meaningful consequences and deterrence in our justice system, which begins with stiffer sentences, real jail time, and tougher parole eligibility policies for violent offenders.

We need to protect Canadians from offenders who commit crimes with guns or any type of weapon. We support the introduction of reverse onus legislation for offenders charged with serious offences involving firearms and other regulated weapons.

Support for tougher measures to thwart gun violence transcends party lines. During the last federal election, all three major parties promised tougher legislation for crimes involving firearms. The NDP platform promised to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for possession, sale, and importation of illegal arms such as handguns, assault rifles, and automatic weapons, and to add mandatory minimum sentences to other weapons offences, including a four-year minimum sentence on all weapons offences such as possession of a concealed weapon.

Former Prime Minister Martin promised to introduce reverse onus bail rules and to toughen penalties by reintroducing legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, by doubling the mandatory minimum sentences for key gun crimes.

On Thursday, November 23, Prime Minister Harper, Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty, and Toronto's Mayor David Miller held a joint news conference in Toronto to announce new federal legislation to toughen bail conditions for gun-related crimes.

Premier McGuinty has been a proponent of tougher measures to deal with gun crime. On December 29, 2005, following the Boxing Day shooting death of Toronto student Jane Creba, Premier McGuinty wrote a letter, entitled “An Open Letter from Premier McGuinty to Federal Leaders on Gun Crimes”. In the letter, the premier proposed the following initiatives to address the gun crime concern: impose a ban on handguns; impose a mandatory minimum sentence of four years for illegal possession of a handgun; impose increased mandatory minimum sentences for all gun crimes; create two new Criminal Code offences with mandatory minimum sentences for robbery with the intent to steal a gun and for breaking and entering with the intent to steal a gun; impose a reverse onus on bail for all gun crimes; and set more severe penalties for any breach of bail conditions.

Premier McGuinty supports reverse onus legislation. As he stated, “When you pick up a gun and commit a crime, you lose your right to be free.”

In January 2006, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant released the province's anti-gun strategy, which includes a call for reverse onus bail.

Toronto Mayor David Miller stated that he supports the new legislation, because “guns are different than anything else. Witnesses need to know that if they help police in apprehending a criminal using a gun, they'll be able to come forward and speak without fear, because the criminal will remain in jail.”

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has “pledged that his caucus is prepared to offer the Conservatives the vote they need to pass 'reverse-onus bail hearings' legislation that would make it more difficult for those arrested on firearms offences to be released on bail”. The Liberal crime strategy announced on March 14, 2007, includes a commitment to “continue to support reverse-onus bail hearings for those arrested for a gun crime”.

Canadians are rightly concerned that our criminal justice system does not provide an adequate response to firearms offences. They are looking to Parliament to move swiftly to fulfill these commitments.

Gang violence is a major problem in many of our cities, as we have seen in recent months in the city of Toronto. But make no mistake about it, urban violence is not only a Toronto problem. Statistics Canada confirms that the cities of Regina, Winnipeg, Abbotsford, Edmonton, Saskatoon, and Vancouver have had consistently higher homicide rates than Toronto for the past decade.

The tragedy at Dawson College in Montreal has reinforced the need to strengthen Canada's controls over civilian firearms possession. To our knowledge no new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited categories in Canada for over a decade, yet many new firearms are being offered for sale that would arguably meet existing criteria. As a consequence, some weapons are being legally sold in Canada despite the fact that they meet existing criteria for restricted or prohibited status and present significant concerns for public safety.

Retailers understand and exploit those loopholes, as demonstrated by the posting of the website for Wolverine Supplies in Manitoba—you'll find it in your brief. We submit that further steps must be taken to close the loopholes by updating and maintaining the restricted and prohibited firearms classifications.

In conclusion, stopping the gang violence in Canada's cities is a concern for Canadian police officers, and the solution begins with bringing an end to Canada's revolving door justice system. Canada's police officers have lost confidence in a system that regularly releases violent offenders and lets them go free in our streets.

Bill C-35 is a positive step in addressing the pre-trial custody of persons accused of serious crimes involving firearms and regulated weapons.

In addition, we need to restore meaningful consequences and deterrents in our justice system, which begins with stiffer sentences, real jail time, meaningful intervention and rehabilitation, and stronger parole eligibility policies for violent offenders. We need stiffer minimum sentences for offenders who commit crimes with guns or any type of weapon.

Bill C-35 provides a positive component in an integrated strategy to address current shortfalls, specifically pertaining to the concern with gun violence. We urge Parliament to proceed swiftly with passage of Bill C-35.

We thank you for your attention, and we welcome your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is meeting no. 6. As the agenda indicates, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, the committee is considering Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

As witnesses we have, from the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Tony Cannavino, the president; David Griffin, executive officer;

Mr. Yves Francoeur, President of the Fraternité des policiers et policières de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal—I doubt that the community exists anymore, but in any case—

Dave Wilson, the president of the Toronto Police Association; Daryl E. Tottenham, sergeant, Westminster Police Service.

We also have, from the Canadian Police Association,

Mrs. Amanda Connolley.

We're going to have two presentations. The first one is by Mr. Cannavino. Mr. President, the floor is yours.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you to both of you.

One of the things we heard overwhelmingly from witnesses before—and I heard it from you today, Mr. Muise—including the chiefs of police.... And I think we did hear, Professor Doob, that this could be affecting a relatively small number of people.

What we've heard overwhelmingly as a committee is that a relatively small number of people are the problem, when they're out on the street. We heard testimony that when you take this small number of serious repeat offenders off the street—the people who are committing offences with a firearm, such as the serious ones Bill C-35 addresses—in some communities crime rates can dramatically fall from very high rates.

So I'm wondering, Mr. Muise, if you can comment on that, in your experience, because it's certainly something we've heard time and time again. Also, I think you wanted to make some comment on a question from Mr. Comartin, so I'll allow you time for that.

Could both of you keep your remarks brief, as I do have a couple of other questions.

[Dr. Anthony Doob]

Well, it's not my study. I've only seen the citations of it, and I don't believe it's a published study, so I don't have access to it.

The second problem we're talking about is how many of those people were not just on bail, but also on bail for firearms offences. So I think we have to be careful about who is the target of this, in terms of public safety. It's people who are charged with a firearms offence, who are going to go to a bail court, who are going to be detained, and who would have been released were it not for this bill—that is, who would be detained because of Bill C-35—but then commit another offence. So you're talking about a minuscule potential impact, because you're talking about this group.

My starting point from the Ontario data I'm aware of is that these folks are going to get detained. So when you change it by reversing the onus.... In reality, the onus is already reversed, as the previous witness has already told you. So you're talking about a minuscule number of people who might now be detained, but otherwise would have been released. Now you're saying, what proportion of that tiny number would commit another offence? This isn't public safety.

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

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you as you deliberate on BillC-35. Looking around the room, I know that I've appeared before some of you, but for those I haven't, my background informs what I say, and I'll tell you a tiny bit about it.

I just wrapped up a 30-year career in law enforcement last year at the Toronto Police Service. My last posting was as a detective sergeant in the homicide squad, where I managed the retroactive DNA team in the major case management section. During my career I worked in both plain clothes and uniform, including stints in the drug squad in the early 1980s, and at the first-of-its-kind street crime unit in the early 1990s. It was a community-based education enforcement hybrid that partnered with local high schools for the purpose of tackling youth violence and gang crime in schools and communities. The original model that I participated in the development of has been copied in whole or in part in many communities across the country.

The last six out of seven of my years at the police service I spent on secondment to the Ontario Office for Victims of Crime, an advisory agency to the provincial government. We provided advice on public safety, support for crime victims, and criminal justice reform to several attorneys general and other justice sector ministries in two governments.

I'm going to touch on some of the points that the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness believes are pertinent in relation to Bill C-35.

Are the proposed amendments appropriate? The Criminal Code currently provides for reverse onus to switch the onus or burden of proof from the Crown to the accused when bail is being considered. It includes a variety of offences, and I think you know all of them, including certain offences perpetrated against the state as set out in section 469, an indictable offence committed while the accused was already on bail, certain organized crime and terrorism offences, offences committed by an accused who lives outside of the country, murder, and certain drug trafficking offences. It should be noted that this onus with respect to both the Crown and the defence is decided based on a balance of probabilities.

Despite the pronouncements in sections 7 and 11 of the charter, the Supreme Court has supported these provisions, as set out in two cases, one called Morales, and one called Pearson. Morales in particular determined a number of points, including that the right to be presumed innocent, as set out in section 11 of the charter, was not a relevant factor at bail hearings. In other words, guilt or innocence was not being considered, and punishment or sentence was not being imposed. Rather, the hearing was about granting preventive detention or not. The court ruled that public safety was an appropriate ground for denying bail. The court also ruled that the reverse onus provisions continued to be valid.

The court determined that the so-called public interest portion of the section was too vague and, as a result, unconstitutional. After that ruling, Parliament amended that section and it stated the following--and I think it's important:

on any other just cause being shown and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, where the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, the gravity of the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment.

This was added to the original clauses. Pearson made some of the same kinds of decisions.

As you know, in the sections currently contemplated in this bill are offences that involve carrying and using guns in the commission of serious firearm offences and that carry a minimum sentence of three years and up, some more than three years. As a result, they should fit in section 515 in relation to reverse onus.

Is violent crime on the rise in Canada? When it comes to statistics about crime rates, a whole lot of cherry-picking goes on. Criminologists, lawyers, law professors, and other academics are quick to remind you about sticking to the facts and getting it right. I certainly agree with them, but sometimes they're guilty of relying on short-term or year-to-year increases or decreases to make their cases. This can be misleading and inappropriate.

A check of the violent crime rate, calculated on the basis of 100,000 population and dating back to 1962, shows the rate for violent crime of 221 per 100,000 in 1962 increasing to 1,084 in 1992, and levelling off since then to slightly under 1,000 for the past nine years. This is an extraordinary increase by any measure, and the levelling off that has taken place over the last dozen years still has us light years away from the good old days. When one considers the new vocabulary of crime that exists today—and more on that in a moment—this extraordinary rise since 1962 is significant, and I don't think we can go to sleep.

Although the CCAA does not have access to corresponding long-term tables for firearms offences, we are confident that, if available, they would mirror or exceed the general violent crime rate, where similar offences are tracked. The CCAA strongly encourages the committee to obtain from department officials the same long-term tables in relation to firearm-related offences.

Law enforcement officers and other professionals working on the front lines of the criminal justice system know intuitively that there are a small number of offenders who commit a disproportionately large number of serious and violent crimes. They also know that a large number of serious violent crimes are committed by offenders out on bail or other forms of conditional or judicial release.

The LEGISinfo discussion paper prepared for this bill commented as follows:

According to statistics cited by the Government of Canada, of almost 1,000 crimes involving firearms or restricted weapons committed in Toronto in 2006, “nearly 40 per cent ... were committed by someone who was on bail, parole, temporary absence or probation.” According to the Toronto Police, 70% of people charged in a homicide in 2006 were under a court order at the time of the slaying.

The CCAA is confident that if these numbers were parsed, many offenders responsible for the commission of serious violent crimes would be found to have been out on bail or another form of conditional release at the time of the offence, including out on bail where firearms were used in the predicate offence. Again, the CCAA recommends that this committee obtain from department officials any information available in relation to these issues.

What about gun play in Toronto in the past 30 years? We want to provide an anecdotal sense of the history of firearm crime in Toronto. We suspect that the same things were occurring in other urban jurisdictions across the country.

I had a unique perspective as a law enforcement officer in the Toronto Police Service from 1976 until 2006. In those early years it was exceedingly rare, even in the busiest downtown divisions, that offenders were arrested in possession of illegal handguns or semi-automatic weapons. Even the most organized narcotics and drug traffickers did not carry or possess these kinds of firearms. I know; I worked in the drug squad. Uniformed, plainclothes, and undercover officers rarely confronted these kinds of weapons.

That changed in the late 1980s and coincided with the crack--that is, freebase cocaine--trade. It continued in the early 1990s and onward with the proliferation of American-style street gangs, usually arranged along ethnic lines, which now commit crime in support of territory and profit.

The results are in full view, often in areas where socially assisted housing predominates and from time to time on our crowded downtown streets: drive-by shootings, shots fired because of a perceived disrespect, brutal and often random home invasions, no self-respecting crack dealer who will leave home without his trusty Glock pistol or 9mm handgun, and whole communities marginalized and living in fear. We have a new vocabulary of violent and brutal crime, and the violent crime statistics I gave you earlier reflect that reality.

Most Canadian citizens neither witness nor experience the gun and gang play that exists in certain urban settings. They often see it only when they tune in to the nightly news. But for a large minority struggling in the lower social strata, the gun and gang play is all too real, wreaking havoc on communities and those who reside in them. It is not hyperbole to suggest that for some, guns and gangs have reduced their communities to virtual urban warfare danger zones, where if you don't join the bad guys, you keep your head down, hope for the best, and pray that you or one of your family members doesn't get shot.

What about stitches for snitches? Against the backdrop described above is the tremendously powerful credo that you don't rat or snitch to the police, ever. This notion has been alive and well for a long time. Started by prison inmates and organized crime groups, it is a particularly powerful social dynamic that has enveloped the communities described above. Urban law enforcement agencies have tremendous difficulty getting witness support where guns and gangs are involved. It is likely the single greatest reason why these offenders are not being brought to justice in the most serious of cases, particularly for homicide.

Allowing offenders who use firearms to get out on bail when they shouldn't contributes to further undermining the administration of justice. And it drives witnesses and victims, if they're still alive, further underground. This problem is not going away anytime soon.

In conclusion, this proposed amendment has received a significant degree of support from a wide variety of stakeholders. Those who possess and use firearms, as set out in this bill, have made very specific choices about how they choose to lead their lives, more so, at least from a public safety perspective, than any nickel-and-dime pot dealer. When you decide to pick up a firearm to use in a crime or as a tool that forms part of your criminal arsenal, you may not know how long you're going to jail for, but you certainly know the consequences if you fire that weapon, and you have made a clear choice. You have to know that serious violence and catastrophic victimization might occur.

The CCAA hasn't and wouldn't support any recommendation that attacks one of the fundamental principles of our justice system: the presumption of innocence. It is a cornerstore of the Canadian criminal justice system. The question we pose is, where do you draw the line? We would suggest that reversing the onus for a small number of similar offences involving firearms that all carry a significant minimum mandatory sentence is an appropriate place.

We would suggest that this is a legislative tweak rather than a dramatic shift in how the law is applied when it comes to bail. At the end of the day, it will still fall to our courts to decide on a balance of probabilities whether the accused should be held pending trial or not. Let us provide those same courts with this small tool to help in making decisions in support of enhanced public safety.

We encourage all members of this committee and all parliamentarians to work together to pass the legislation.

I've left copies of my brief with the clerk, and also a copy of the table with respect to the rise in violent crime.

Thank you.

[Dr. Anthony Doob, Professor, Centre for Criminology, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you.

I'm obviously aware of the fact that this bill has received wide support from various political parties and individual politicians at various levels of government. Notwithstanding this support, I'd urge you, in your decision about this bill, to think about the message that you're giving Canadians about the operation of the justice system.

Over the past 25 years or so, I have carried out research on, among other things, the public's understanding of the criminal justice system. My concern about this bill has less to do with its direct effect on the operation of the criminal justice system than it does with the clearly incorrect messages that it gives Canadians about the relationship between crime and the criminal law, and the false pictures it paints of the operation of the criminal justice system.

The first message you are communicating is simple. You are telling the Canadian public that by making a few changes in one of the 849 sections of the Criminal Code, Canadians will be safer from firearms-related offences. I wish it were this easy. I wish that by making these changes in the Criminal Code, gang, gun, and drug crime would be reduced and that you would be contributing to protecting Canadians. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. But the message emanating form Parliament with this bill is that by toughening up on bail, you will have a measurable impact on the rate of serious crime with firearms. It won't.

I say this for a number of reasons. Our data in Canada on the operation of the bail courts are rather impoverished, but from the Ontario data that I have seen, serious cases of violence involving firearms are already almost invariably going to court for a bail hearing, and fewer than one-third of all non-trivial violent cases result in the accused being released prior to trial.

I have not seen data that deals specifically with violent offences involving firearms. It's very reasonable to assume that the release on bail rate for these cases would be even lower than the overall release rate for serious violent offences. If fewer than a third of all non-trivial violent cases result in a person being released, what effect should we expect a reverse onus provision would have on some of the most serious cases involving firearms?

The only data that I am aware of on the actual impact of reverse onus situations in Canada relate to a quite different type of judicial decision. In the mid-1990s the Young Offenders Act was changed such that, in certain cases, a youth would be presumptively transferred to adult court. We tracked the number of transfers to adult court for these offences during this period, and the changes in the law had no effect.

The studies that I am aware of on the operation of bail courts suggest that most releases from bail courts are with the consent of the Crown, and they're not the result of contested bail hearings. This is another reason one would not expect Bill C-35 to have a real effect on the operation of the bail courts. Crowns are not now likely to consent to the release of people accused of serious crimes involving firearms. Changing the law will therefore not change anything in terms of who is on the street.

Said differently, although you may tell your constituents that Bill C-35 will make them safer, I can assure you this is very unlikely to be the case. If you want to make your constituents safer, you would best spend your time looking at something else.

The problem is that solutions to the crime problem are not going to be as easy as making a few changes to one section of the Criminal Code. The evidence that has been repeatedly cited in support of this bill is interesting, largely because it does not address the relevant issue. We are told that in Toronto nearly 40% of crime involving firearms in 2006 was committed by someone who was on bail, parole, temporary absence, or probation. That may be an interesting statistic, and from my perspective it isn't terribly surprising.

The question one might ask of this statistic, however, is this. How many of these almost 40% were committed by people who had been released on bail for a firearms offence that would be captured by Bill C-35 and for whom the reverse onus might have made a difference? Though obviously available from the data used in that study, those who cite this study in the context of this bill do not provide more appropriate information.

More importantly, what we would like to know is that of all of those charged with firearms offences covered by Bill C-35, how many are released on bail, and of those who are released on bail, what proportion commits serious offences while on pretrial release? That's an answerable question by those who have the data.

It should be remembered that logically this is not a bill designed to reduce firearms offences; it is a bill that deals only with bail hearings for those who have already been charged, according to the police, with committing an offence involving a firearm. The firearms offence would have already taken place.

As best we can tell, offenders who are apprehended for serious violent offences, particularly those charged with offences with firearms, are increasingly held for bail and detained. Some lawyers, the one who appeared before you immediately before me, as an example, have publicly expressed the view that in many parts of Canada—Toronto would be a good example of this—release on bail has effectively already become a reverse onus for almost all cases. In reality, the accused must present an argument as to why he or she should be released and must also develop a plan to demonstrate that he or she will appear in court and commit no further offences.

So my concern is not that you are going to fill provincial prisons with additional remand prisoners. My concern, as I've already said, is that you're giving two incorrect messages about the criminal law and the criminal justice system. The first incorrect message is that Parliament, by adding another reverse onus provision to our bail laws, will protect us from crime. The second related concern is that you're giving a message that our bail courts are generally prone to release people who are likely to commit serious offences and that we need to restrict our bail laws in order to make ourselves safe.

Let me give you a picture of what our bail decisions really look like.

In this slide, I've plotted the overall rate of provincial imprisonment for Canada and its two largest components: those sentenced and the pretrial remand population. This slide and the next three give a picture of the people who are in provincial institutions on an average night in each of the years that is pictured. The number of people in custody is provided as a rate in order to take into account the population increase that has occurred in Canada.

The picture that you see from this graph is easy to describe. First, you see that the overall imprisonment in provincial institutions is fairly stable over this period, starting from the late 1970s and going up to about 2003. Second, you see an increase in imprisonment rates for those on pretrial remand--more than doubling--such that in the latter part of this graph there are just about as many in prison serving their sentences as being punished before being found guilty.

That's the picture for Canada as a whole. When we look at Ontario, we see the same pattern, except it's more extreme.

In Ontario, you see the natural consequences of tough decisions on bail. On an average night, Ontario has twice as many people being punished before being found guilty as being punished as a result of a sentence handed down by a judge. You may be thinking that this is the result of guns, gangs, drugs, domestic violence cases, and other violent things that males do. And certainly you would get support from looking at this slide, which shows the same information, but only for the male offenders.

But when we look at the pattern for women, we see something that might be surprising. We see more or less the same pattern. So if you were thinking about drugs, gangs, guns, and so on in the previous slide, it seems unlikely that the increased tough decisions made about bail would have created the effect for women that we have now, which is that twice as many women are serving their sentences before being found guilty as are serving their sentences after being found guilty, in Ontario's prisons.

Unfortunately, I was not able to find national data that broke down the imprisonment rates for men and women separately. I cannot comment, therefore, on whether the national rate for women looks the same as the rate for Ontario does.

Few of us really believe that the increase in pretrial detention for women is due to these serious crimes. What we're seeing is what's happening to a group of accused people who are not likely to be firearms-wielding offenders.

The picture tells you about the operation of our bail courts more generally. If women are being locked up at higher and higher rates, do we really believe that people who commit serious offences with firearms are being dealt with leniently? What relevance does this have for your consideration of Bill C-35?

I would suggest that one of the messages you are giving when you support Bill C-35 is that the criminal justice system is lenient in the manner in which it treats those who are arrested and brought by the police to court. We know that in Ontario, in recent years, more and more people are being brought before a court for a bail hearing. The police are reluctant to release people on the street who are at the police station. Not only are more people being brought to court, justices of the peace in Ontario are reluctant to release those accused of crimes. It's no wonder, then, that our pretrial remand population is increasing.

I know there has been a fair amount of concern expressed on other parts of these graphs, in particular the reduction in the size of the sentenced population. The most likely reason for this is obvious, as you heard from the previous witnesses. Judges are required to take into account the amount of time people have served when they hand down their sentences.

Taking into account the amount of time served in pretrial detention is an inexact science, as you already heard. When we hear stories about people preferring to serve “dead time” rather than sentence time so that they can be released on time served, it assumes that sentences are almost perfectly predictable. They are not, although they obviously become more predictable when there's a joint submission from the Crown and defence.

It is said that many accused prefer to serve their sentences before trial because they get a two-for-one credit for time served in pretrial detention. But I think the two-for-one credit for time served is often misunderstood. We have to remember what a sentence of imprisonment means. An offender in a provincial institution will almost certainly not serve more than two-thirds of his or her sentence. If the sentence is a reasonably long one, the offender will likely be eligible for parole or for temporary absence passes. The result is that they're likely to serve between one-third and two-thirds of their sentences.

Let's imagine that the proper sentence for an inmate is 100 days. The inmate might be expected to serve anywhere from 33 to 67 days. Let's assume they'd get the midway between these extremes of 50 days. If the inmate instead served 50 days in pretrial remand and got a two-for-one credit, it works out to be exactly the 100-day sentence he or she would be expected to get. In other words, two days of credit toward the sentence for each day served is a fair trade-off in the way our system works. Nevertheless, it's typically talked about as if it were a deep discount, but it isn't.

I'm not a big fan of our parole or discretionary release system as it currently exists. Twenty years ago I was part of a commission that recommended discretionary parole, as we know it, should be abolished. But two-for-one credit, as it currently operates, does not seem wildly out of line for an individual prisoner.

But if you think it doesn't matter whether or not people serve their sentences before or after they're found guilty, I disagree with you for two reasons.

First, such approaches distort the meaning of sentences. When ordinary people hear that an offender was sentenced to time served or got a short-sounding sentence because of a two-for-one discount on the sentence, they understandably have no way of evaluating what this means. It would appear that the offender got a light sentence, when he or she may have in fact served exactly the same time as if there had been no time in pretrial detention.

Second, as most correction authorities will tell you, the term “dead time” for those in pretrial detention describes quite well the usefulness of this time in terms of rehabilitation programs. Pretrial detention prisoners, at least in Ontario, are not normally eligible for correctional programming for a very simple reason. No one knows how long these prisoners will actually be in custody. Therefore, no one knows whether or not they will have an opportunity to finish any programming they start.

Bill C-35, then, contributes to many of the problems perceived and otherwise that we have in the justice system generally, particularly with bail. As I've said, I don't think it will result in appreciably more pretrial detention prisoners of the type covered by this bill. They already seem very likely to be detained. But the bill contributes to the perception that bail needs fixing and that in detaining more people before they're found guilty, we will contribute to public safety. I would suggest this bill reinforces a false perception of the justice system.

Finally, I'd like to remind you of the times that we live in with respect to crime. In the past 10 years or so, we've seen an overall decrease in crime. I've given you the figures for both Canada and Ontario. Although crime has apparently decreased, the operation of our bail courts has become tougher. We see the same pattern when we look at violent crime.

Of course, I am aware of the fact that the Prime Minister noted there were increases in 2005 in four categories of violent crime: homicides, attempted murder, robbery, and serious assaults. He failed to note, of course, that there were year-over-year decreases in robberies with firearms, the most serious sexual assaults, and various other categories of crime. But whether or not you're talking about robbery rates or robbery with firearms rates, year-over-year changes tell us little about crime trends.

I would suggest this is a time when we need to seriously think about how to reduce our levels of crime. If crime rates were increasing, it would be harder to have a reasonable discussion about how to invest to reduce crime. But with crime rates essentially stable or perhaps decreasing, we should be able to take advantage of the situation to carefully consider how best to make Canadians safer.

Unfortunately, I see no evidence of thoughtful discussion on this issue. Thus, given that the causes of crime are largely outside the criminal justice system, I would like to end by returning to the point I made earlier.

Changes in the criminal justice system of the kind you're considering will not affect crime. If we were interested in doing something about crime, we would investigate seriously where we might best invest our resources. We might ask, for example, whether resources would be best invested in public health, the police, schools, or our communities. These are not easy choices, but we have to make these choices. This bill does not encourage us to think about the choices that you and other levels of government need to make. Saying that we're going to do both, toughening the justice system and investing in communities, is inadequate if the focus is almost exclusively on the first.

Again, I realize that most of you favour this bill. In that context, therefore, my wish is only that you would cease making false promises to Canadians about its impact on safety. Crime is a serious problem that needs serious attention.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

With your permission, I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is our 5th meeting on Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences)

Our witnesses are, as an individual, Monsieur Anthony N. Doob, professor, from the Centre for Criminology, University of Toronto; and from the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, Monsieur John Muise, director of public safety.

I want to remind my colleagues that we need to be finished by 11 o'clock. There is another committee here at 11 o'clock.

We'll start with Mr. Doob's presentation, please.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you very much for being here.

There is a question that's been on my mind ever since we had our meeting the other night with the statisticians. It's over one particular slide they had, on which they indicated that of those arrested in relation to Bill C-35, 40% were found guilty and 60% were not.

I looked at that, and the first thing I thought was, holy cow, what's going on here? Is somebody not doing enough investigating, and they're coming up with insufficient evidence to convict on a charge? Or is Canada full of sharp lawyers like you who are able to get some of these guys off on technicalities or loopholes or whatever? If, out of all the arrests, 60% are found innocent and only 40% are found guilty, that draws a picture in my mind. According to a stat like that, we'd better be on the safe side and bail everybody out.

Yet in my riding there was one instance of a sexual assault with a weapon in which the individual was let out on bail, and as a result, two people are dead, and one is seriously injured. What kind of conclusions can you draw out of these situations?

To me, our job is to provide public safety.These statistics just blow my mind. When you have examples of a case or two in which tragedy has resulted because bail was granted, maybe we ought to be on the safe side and let society know that we will not release people, even on bail, until we're absolutely certain that they're not a threat to society.

Do you draw any conclusions from this 60-40 statistic?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Good morning, and thank you for coming to join us today.

You know that we are debating Bill C-35 in a climate where crimes committed with firearms as well as the crime rate in general are going down. Of course, I am skipping over the reality of the street gangs in some large urban centres, above all Toronto and Vancouver, and we should not be afraid to say Montreal too. I do not want to be complacent, and I would be rightly criticized if I were.

But I am a little taken aback by your evidence. We were looking at two factors. First, reverse onus, that already exists at the judicial release or release on bail stages, does not seem to be based on a specific number of cases. It would add to the list of offences where reverse onus would apply, that is, cases where the accused and not the Crown would bear the burden of proof.

In your testimony, you said one thing that shocked me a little, and I would like you to give me some more details about it. You seem to be saying that when a case involving firearms comes before a judge, or a justice of the peace in Quebec, a kind of reverse onus already exists. The practice seems to have been alive and well before legislators made the decision to write it into law. Could you explain that? I assume that you are basing your remarks on those of the lawyers who are members of your association.

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

I'm pleased to hear that the Criminal Lawyers' Association has no fundamental objections to Bill C-35. As you may know, the Liberals support Bill C-35 and offered several times to have it fast-tracked by the government. The government decided not to take us up on it, but it was finally debated at second reading and is before committee now.

You talked about the fact that Bill C-35 meets the test of specificity. Can you expand a little more on that in relation to the decisions that have been made by the Supreme Court of Canada on reverse onus cases?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Bonjour, tout le monde. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the meeting of the legislative committee on Bill C-35, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

As a witness this morning, from the Criminal Lawyers' Association,

we are pleased to welcome this morning

Mr. Michael Lomer, the treasurer.

Welcome, Mr. Lomer. The floor is yours for your remarks, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express my support for Bill C-343, introduced by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

The government agrees that there is a pressing need to reduce the high rate of vehicles stolen every day in this country. This bill, by creating a distinct offence for motor vehicle theft, aims to do just that.

It is true that there are many offences in the Criminal Code that already address motor vehicle theft, such as theft, fraud, joyriding, possession of property obtained by crime, and flight from a peace officer. However, this bill will create a distinct offence, with penalties in the form of mandatory minimum sentences.

The sentence for a first offence will be a minimum fine of $1,000 or a minimum term of imprisonment of three months, or both. A second offence would result in a mandatory minimum fine of $5,000 or a minimum prison term of six months, or both. A third and subsequent offence would result in a minimum fine of $10,000 and a minimum term of imprisonment of two years, up to a maximum term of 10 years.

I am aware that not all members will agree on the penalty that a distinct Criminal Code offence for motor vehicle theft should have. However, I am certain that most members can agree on the utility of creating such an offence. Accordingly, the bill should be sent to the appropriate committee for review on its merits, including the proposed penalties.

I would like to note that the idea of a distinct offence for motor vehicle theft was supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on March 20, 2007, when he introduced Motion No. 295 calling for, among other things, an amendment to the Criminal Code to include auto theft as a distinct, stand-alone offence. Clearly this is an issue that cuts across party lines and is one that most members of the House can support.

Winnipeg holds the dubious distinction of being the car theft capital of Canada. For example, in Winnipeg, the auto theft rate in 2005 was 1,712 thefts per 100,000 population, whereas in Toronto there were 306 thefts reported per 100,000 population.

It is clear that the rate of auto theft in Canada is simply unacceptable. In 2001, the per capita rate of auto theft was 26% higher in Canada than it was in the United States. In the 1999 international crime victimization survey, Canada ranked fifth highest for a risk of car theft, with 1.6% of the population being a victim of car theft. Overall since 2001, the auto theft rate has remained roughly the same.

While in recent years auto theft rates have held steady at unacceptably high rates, the number of stolen vehicles that are recovered has been on the decline. It used to be that over 90% of stolen cars were recovered. Today, that rate has fallen to 70% nationwide, with recovery rates varying by city. In large cities in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, organized crime groups are believed to be more active in thefts, thanks in part to readily accessible ports that allow cars to be shipped out of the country quickly and with relative ease.

Out of the approximately 170,000 automobiles stolen every year, police and insurance experts estimate that about 20,000 of these cars are shipped abroad to destinations such as Eastern Europe, West Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

Stealing and reselling a vehicle is an extremely lucrative way for organized criminals to make money.

Let us take, for example, the scenario when a new luxury SUV is stolen. It is valued at $65,000 on the lot. It would cost an organized criminal around $1,000 to pay a youth to steal the car and approximately $1,500 to have the car “re-VINned” if it is being sold in Canada, or if it is exported to another jurisdiction, around $3,000 for shipping and handling. The automobile would likely be sold for around $45,000, resulting in a profit of nearly $40,000 per car.

Clearly the rewards for motor vehicle theft are enormous. There is a great incentive for young future career criminals to get involved in motor vehicle theft rings.

The involvement of youth in motor vehicle theft is a serious problem. Almost 40% of those charged with stealing motor vehicles are between the ages of 12 and 17 years. While vehicles are often stolen by youth for joyriding, it is also frequently the case that youth are enticed by organized criminals to steal an automobile and deliver it to a predetermined location all for a set fee. This involvement in organized crime unfortunately often has the effect of cementing criminal behaviour in young offenders. This influence on Canada's at risk youth is another tragic aspect of motor vehicle theft.

Not all of the news is bad though. Advances in technology, such as alarm systems, steering wheel locks, and GPS tracking units are making it harder to steal motor vehicles. However, as technology advances so do the skills that professional car thieves use to defeat these technologies.

So while the smash and grab method employed by most joy riders will no longer work on newer cars outfitted with sophisticated anti-theft devices, the new career car thief will ultimately find ways to outfox these devices.

It has already been mentioned that auto theft costs Canadians more than a billion dollars a year in insurance costs, medical costs, legal costs, police costs, and costs to the victims, such as insurance deductibles.

However, what about the costs that are impossible to calculate? I am referring to the human toll that motor vehicle theft has on our society. All too often when a car is stolen, the offender will drive erratically or at a high speed and not always because of police pursuit. Each year motor vehicle theft results in over 30 deaths and over 50 people being seriously injured a year in Canada.

Recently, a 10 year old girl in Regina was killed after a driver of a stolen pickup truck smashed into the minivan she was travelling in while he was attempting to escape the police.

As a society we do not tolerate impaired driving and our laws should treat this type of dangerous driving with the same seriousness. It is time that we reaffirm our commitment to making Canada's roads and highways safer.

I am proud that the government is taking a number of measures to tackle crime in Canada. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation that deal with serious criminal offences.

Bill C-10 was introduced to ensure that criminals who use guns in the commission of an offence or if an offence is gang related receive a very serious sentence with escalating mandatory minimum penalties for first and subsequent offences.

As well, the government also introduced Bill C-35 which seeks to protect the public from gun crime by amending the bail provisions in the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments would reverse the onus to the accused to prove why he or she should not be denied bail when the accused is charged with a serious offence committed with a firearm or charged with smuggling or trafficking firearms.

The government is serious about making our roads and highways safer. We introduced Bill C-19 which created five new offences to combat street racing. It also gets these dangerous drivers off the road by providing mandatory minimum periods of driving prohibition. I am pleased that this bill received royal assent on December 14, 2006.

Another step the government has taken to make our roads and highways safe is with Bill C-32 which aims to significantly increase fines and minimum jail terms for driving while impaired. This bill tackles driving while under the influence of both alcohol and drugs. Although it is already a crime to drive while impaired by drugs, currently police officers have to rely on symptoms of impairment to driving behaviour for an impaired driving investigation. There is no authority in the Criminal Code to demand physical sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples.

Bill C-32 would authorize the police to demand roadside testing and a drug recognition expert evaluation at the police station, and if this evaluation shows impairment, the police will be authorized to demand a sample of bodily fluid to identify that the impairment was caused by an illegal drug. Refusal to comply with these demands would be a criminal offence punishable by the same penalties for refusing to submit to an alcohol breath test.

The government is also committed to crime prevention. The 2007 budget allocates $64 million over two years to establish a national anti-drug strategy to crack down on gangs, grow ops and meth labs, prevent elicit drug use and illicit drug dependency. As well, the government has set aside $14 million over two years to combat the criminal use of firearms.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has brought forward a very important issue for the House to consider. I urge all hon. members to vote to send this bill to committee for further review.

[Craig Grimes]

What we can speak to are the number of cases. There are 871 cases, representing 1,633 charges. We are able to look at all of the charges in the case, and in order to present all of that information, we present the most serious, and the most serious are defined first by the decision. So in your example we can't speak to plea negotiation, but we do know that generally within the data set, 90% of convictions come with a guilty plea, and for these cases that contain one of the Bill C-35 offences, it's down to 84%. But some of those Bill C-35 offences also contain mandatory minimums.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

Cases with at least one Bill C-35 charge had a 40% conviction rate. Where it was the most serious charge, it was a 31% conviction rate.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Nobody can take a stab at it? Okay.

That's really unfortunate, because if we don't have any data on it—and it's not your fault, of course—in terms of public policy we're rather flying blind here. This legislation is a bit of a shot in the dark. I have intended to support the legislation, but I regret that we don't have the data, and I just put that on the record.

Secondly, there are two notable statistics in the deck you provided, from my point of view. They should be noted as benchmarks. One is that only 40% of the Bill C-35 charges result in convictions. That's a 40% conviction rate.

Would I be correct in saying that if we increased the pretrial incarceration rate above 40%, we would probably be keeping innocent people in jail pending their trials?

Maybe you can't answer that.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

What we've provided for you is essentially the volume, the number of incidents that are specific to the Bill C-35 legislation. From that you can get a sense of the volume of these types of offences that were taking place in 2005.

[Craig Grimes]

It becomes a presentation issue, because I may have a case with four or five charges and I'm trying to present those in two dimensions.

We can describe the cases, as we've done in this deck, in terms of the most serious offence. One of the characteristics of the cases for this deck is a Bill C-35 offence, and we can describe whether or not the Bill C-35 offence also had a conviction. We can do those things, but it becomes a presentation issue in a deck like this.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

Just for clarification purposes, what you'll find on slides 2 and 3 are offences involving firearms that are covered under the Bill C-35 legislation—robbery with a firearm, discharge of a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm, and a series of weapons-trafficking offences covered under Bill C-35.

On page 2—that has national coverage—you can also see the number within those overall offences that were cleared by charge by the police.

In slide 3, this is a subset of police services, but these are offences involving firearms as listed in Bill C-35, for clarification purposes.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

What I can do from the point of view of Statistics Canada is provide you with information relevant for your consideration. I cannot speak beyond that point. I can tell you the number of incidents that occurred in 2005 for a Bill C-35-related offence. I can tell you the number of court cases that were disposed of in 2003-04 for a Bill C-35-related offence. I can tell you about conviction rates and I can tell you about remands. That's what I can tell you.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to express my complete astonishment. This is the second time that, as parliamentarians, we have been asked to vote on bills without being given convincing and conclusive data. This is not the fault of the people before us, although they could have provided us with more details. I do not understand how the government can submit a bill to members of Parliament when we do not know the real extent of the bail granted by the courts. I have to say that it is beyond me how we can ask people to do thorough work when we do not even have statistics. This proves that Bill C-35 is all about ideology, and that it is not based on any statistical reality in the administration of justice. I am disappointed because I have a high opinion of you, but we cannot work like this.

Nevertheless, let us try to see what kind of information we need. I am going to provide Mr. Petit with all kinds of fond memories, since he has appeared before the courts often. Subsection 515(6) of the Criminal Code states that the burden of proof is reversed for seven offences, including indictable offences, terrorism and violations of conditions, and that the judge will not grant bail. Otherwise, the person is released.

So I thought we were talking about release on bail.

I want to come back to some specific questions on the figures that you have prepared. When the burden of proof is reversed and there are grounds to believe that evidence will be destroyed, that the person is a security threat, or that he will not appear at his trial—it is all in subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code—he must not be granted bail. This is the bill we are discussing. The government says that we are going to reverse the onus for seven other offences. The seven offences that it wants to add to subsection 515(6) are robbery, discharge of a firearm, weapons trafficking, kidnapping, attempted murder, extortion and sexual assault.

On pages 2 and 3, you list the seven offences that will be added to subsection 515(6). I suppose that the figure 3,505 indicates the number of charges that have been laid by the police or the Crown. Of the 3,505 counts of robbery, 1,117 have been by indictment, and therefore not by summary procedure.

Is that what these figures mean?

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

So you're unable to say whether or not the end result would be different. If we had the statistics, it might show that 75% of people who are being accused with Bill C-35 types of offences right now are being refused bail. Nobody can say. I can go out in the public and say that and nobody could contradict me. The only thing you could say is, “We don't have the statistics to show whether what she's saying is true or not”, and people could choose to believe me. Someone else could go out and say, “Every single person charged with a firearm-related offence that comes under Bill C-35 gets bail”, and we would not be in a position to contradict them, except to say, “Well, we haven't seen any hard facts to back it up”.

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

Right. The bottom line is this. While you can tell us how many people, year by year, are being charged with at least one offence that is listed in Bill C-35, you're unable to tell us what percentage, year by year, of these individuals get bail, win their bail, are able to convince a judge that they can remain in the wider community while awaiting trial and not be a danger to the community. You're unable to provide us with that information. As a result of that, it then means that while we can safely assume that a minimum of 871 cases of Bill C-35 types of offences would exist as a result of Bill C-35, therefore, there would be a reverse onus on 871 individuals accused—because you're talking about cases in which there is at least one, so I'm assuming we're talking about approximately 800-and-something.

Let's just say “the accused”, because I see Ms. Barr-Telford shaking her head. So somebody might be up on several cases.

Is it time?

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

Thank you.

Given the statements that you've just made, because of the way the court dockets are actually produced, you're unable to say what percentage of people, year by year, are brought up. You can tell us how many are brought up on Bill C-35 types of offences, but you're unable to tell us what percentage get bail before going to trial, or do not get bail but at some point before there's an actual judgment in their case are released into the community. Is that the reason, when one attempts to find scientific evidence, actual longitudinal studies about whether or not bail itself is effective, about whether or not it's an actual effective tool in the deterrence of crime, in effective justice, in effectively protecting communities, that we're unable to find any serious research, at least here in Canada, that has been done on that over the years? Is it because the statistics are not there? Statistics Canada doesn't have any. Is that it?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Sorry. If 100 people went to court today on a Bill C-35 offence, without this bill, how many would stay in custody until the trial and how many would get out?

[Craig Grimes]

Being a reverse onus offence under Bill C-35, we have 871 cases. Notwithstanding the possibility of having two cases for one individual, the number would be 871, less those who were able to prove that they should be allowed to have remand.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Let's not get into that. I don't want the technical details. Could you just tell me approximately, if you could guess or extrapolate, how many of those people today, if they went to court on a Bill C-35 offence, would get bail and how many wouldn't, or how many get out and how many wouldn't? I'd like just a rough estimate from all the statistics you have.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

If I understand your question correctly, we can tell you, for any given year that we have in the data in chart 8, the daily count, the average count of those who are in the non-sentenced custody. We can provide you information on those counts. What we can't tell you is the number of individuals or the number who are in remand for an offence that is particular to a Bill C-35 offence.

Craig can talk a bit about some of the difficulties we have in the data in terms of identifying, by the section and subsection of the Criminal Code, these particular offences.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So you can't tell us the percentage. We're doing a bill that will put more people in prison while they're awaiting trial. We can't tell how many people are in custody, what percentage of people are in custody now on Bill C-35 offences, if it's 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%.

We can assume, I guess, from that chart at the end, where it's going up, that even without this bill we're keeping more and more of them in prison before trial. But you can't tell us specific numbers, whether we're keeping 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, or 60% of persons who go, to see whether they'll get out before their trial or not.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

The next slide that you see documents the length of time served in remand following release from the remand facility. The footnote to the slide notes excluded jurisdictions. We've seen an increase in the length of time spent in remanded custody over the past decade, and this is an important factor in the changing composition of the provincial-territorial custodial population.

Between 1995-96 and 2004-05, the proportion of adults who served less than a week in remand decreased from 66% to 53%. The proportion of adults who spent between 30 days and three months in remand during the past decade increased from 10% to 15%. The proportion who served more than three months in remand nearly doubled, going from 4% to 7%.

To summarize, we see that robbery with a firearm makes up the large majority of Bill C-35 offences, and the rate of robbery with a firearm is down about 50% over the past decade. There were 871 cases disposed of in adult court in 2003-04, with a Bill C-35 offence identified, and robbery accounted for over 40% of these cases. The overall conviction rate for cases with a Bill C-35 offence was 40%, and 31% where the Bill C-35 charge was the most serious offence. Adults in non-sentenced custody represented more than half of the adults in provincial-territorial custody in 2004-05.

Thank you.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

Absolutely.

Let's repeat that for offences that resulted in a conviction, the rate of imprisonment was 85% and the average prison sentence was 1,554 days.

Also not included on the slide, but further information, the average case processing time for the cases where a Bill C-35 offence was the most serious offence was 227 days.

I'll ask the committee to turn to slide 8. This provides information on remand and other temporary detention coming from our Correctional Service program. We've seen a decline in the provincial-territorial sentence custody population, and it's coincided with an increase in the non-sentence custody remand population. This has dramatically shifted the composition of adults in custody in provincial-territorial jails.

In 1995-96, adults in non-sentence custody represented 28% of all those in provincial-territorial custody.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

What we will do for the committee is provide you with the complete set of speaking notes and so forth following the presentation. Once they're available in both official languages we'll provide them to you.

In this slide you can see, by offence type, the percent resulting in a conviction. Where the Bill C-35 offence was the most serious, the overall conviction rate was 31%. You see it listed by offence type within the slide, but the overall was 31%.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

We are on slide 7. If we look at only those cases where we had a Bill C-35 charge as the most serious offence, we saw that the overall conviction rate was 31%. According to our courts data, we found that 84% of these convicted cases, where the Bill C-35 charge was the most serious offence, had a guilty plea. This was lower than the overall 90% of guilty pleas for convicted cases.

[Lynn Barr-Telford, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada]

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today to present data for your consideration with respect to Bill C-35, reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences.

Let me begin by outlining where we can and cannot provide data relevant to this bill. We cannot provide data on the granting of bail—for example, how often bail was granted when an accused was charged with a firearm-related offence. We also cannot identify where an offence was committed by an accused on bail.

What we can provide is information on the number of police-reported incidents where the offence involved a firearm and to which this bill specifically applies.

We can present national data for three offence types under consideration: robbery, discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm, and weapons trafficking. We can also present information on kidnapping, extortion, attempted murder, and sexual assault levels 2 and 3 from a subset of police services representing just over 60% of the national volume of crime. As well, we can provide data from our courts statistics program on the processing of cases involving firearm-related offences. Finally, we can look at the use of pretrial detention with our Correctional Service data. For any data, the limitations are noted in the footnotes on the slides.

If you turn to slide 2, for the three offence types with national coverage of police-reported incidents, we see that in 2005 there were just over 3,500 robberies with a firearm. Of these, 1,117 were cleared by the laying of a charge by police. There were 252 police reported incidents of discharge of a firearm with intent, and 111 were cleared by way of charge. In addition, as a group, there were 147 weapons trafficking offences, which in our data set include Criminal Code sections 99, 100, 101, 103, and 104.

On slide 3, with respect to the other offences covered by Bill C-35, we have information on the number of incidents involving a firearm from a sample of police services representing 62% of the national caseload; thus this chart may underrepresent the total number of such incidents.

Kidnapping includes forceable confinement and hostage-taking. There were 258 such incidents reported in 2005, and 134 of these were cleared by way of charge. We also know that based on this sample of police services, with respect to Bill C-35 offences, robbery with a firearm makes up the large majority of such offences, about 80%. This is the largest offence by volume on the list.

Turning to slide 4, we also know that the rate of robbery with a firearm has been dropping over the past decade. It's down about 50%. In total, there were almost 29,000 robberies in 2005. The robbery rate was 3% higher than in 2004; however, this was about 15% lower than a decade ago and 25% lower than the 1991 peak.

Over half of the robberies reported to police in 2005 were committed without a weapon. Firearms were used in 12% of robberies in 2005, while just under one third involved another type of weapon.

If we turn to our courts data for 10 jurisdictions, where we can identify a firearm offence, we can look at the processing of offences identified in Bill C-35. For 2003-04, we found that 871 cases, representing 1,633 charges with an offence identified in Bill C-35, were disposed of in adult criminal courts. These 871 cases include cases where multiple charges have been laid, and at least one of these charges was for a C-35 offence. It may not, however, be classified as the most serious offence. So while it may be labelled on the graph as a drug-trafficking case, there is within this case a Bill C-35 charge.

Given what we saw on our police-reported data, it is not surprising to find that robbery accounts for over 40% of BillC-35 cases disposed of in 2003-04. Weapons trafficking represented 15% of Bill C-35 cases. In approximately two-thirds of the cases—563 of the 871—a Bill C-35 charge was the most serious offence in the case.

If you turn to slide 6, also from our courts data, we see that the overall conviction rate for cases with a Bill C-35 charge is 40%. This is significantly lower than the 58% overall conviction rate for all federal statute offences in 2003-04 and lower than the overall conviction rate of 48% for crimes against the person offences. One possible reason for this, as we've seen in our data, is that an accused person is less likely to plead guilty to a more serious charge and/or one that carries a mandatory minimum sentence, which we know applies for a number of the Bill C-35 offences.

Once a Bill C-35 case is found guilty, 77% of these cases result in a term of imprisonment. The average length of custody for these cases was 1,101 days. This reflects the average sentence imposed on the most serious offence in the case. Overall, the average case processing time for cases with a Bill C-35 charge was 221 days, which is almost the same as the average for all federal statute offences in 2003-04.

If you turn to the next slide—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, we are going to be considering Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences.

As witnesses this afternoon, from Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, we have Mrs. Lynn Barr-Telford, the director; Mr. John Turner, the chief of the policing services program; and Mr. Craig Grimes, project manager for the courts program.

I understand you have one opening statement. Who's going to do it?

Go ahead please, Ms. Barr-Telford.

[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.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Certainly, Monsieur Petit, the bill is designed to address problems of the type that you've set out, without getting into where gangs are a problem or where they're not a problem. Certainly when offences of the type described in Bill C-35 are committed, the public, whether they be in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, or indeed any other community within Canada, have a real right to be concerned, and they look to people like you and to this committee to try to respond to those concerns.

Quite frankly, that's why I believe this bill does have widespread support right across this country; it does address one of the concerns. Is it the only concern of the Criminal Code? No. I have other concerns with respect to the Criminal Code, and you, as a committee, are dealing with the legislation that reflects the government's concerns and the priorities that we talked about with Canadians during the last election.

Again, it's one more component of bringing our Criminal Code into line with the hopes and the aspirations of Canadians. I'm very pleased to be associated with it, and I hope all the members of this committee can take some satisfaction and some pride that we're moving ahead with these improvements.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Minister, I want to be certain that I understand everything clearly. Does Bill C-35 with its reverse onus proposal in fact address a genuine need? Legislation must ultimately meet a need and according to what Mr. Mauser told us, there was in fact a problem in 2006.

Can you apply, as I have done, the situation he is describing to cities like Montreal or Vancouver? Could Bill C-35 minimize the chances of having many people who are on probation or otherwise have been released commit offences?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

Good day, Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Kane, Ms. Besner. I have a question I'd like to ask in an effort to get some idea of where we are heading with Bill C-35. I want to be certain that everything is clearly understood. In the background material given to us by the Library of Parliament analysts, a criminologist by the name of Gary Mauser notes that according to the statistics on violent crime quoted by the Government of Canada, of the nearly 1,000 crimes committed in Toronto in 2006 with firearms or restricted weapons, nearly 40% were committed by a person out on bail, parole, temporary leave or probation. Therefore, according to law enforcement officials, 70% of the people charged with homicide in 2006 were under some kind of court order when the offence was committed.

The findings for Toronto, a city of three to four million, can also be applied to Montreal, which is grappling with the same problem, despite what everybody says. Gangs are very active in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. People are shooting at one another on street corners and we're dealing with many problems. When you collected this data, did you...

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think the support we have is a little broader than that. Across this country I think people are in support of what we are doing. I know you have your position with respect to the firearms registry. We have been very clear about the waste that we believe was incurred. We believe the whole firearms registry had less to do with fighting crime and more to do with creating bureaucracy. So we have some serious concerns with respect to that.

You ask, how can we be consistent and be against crime? Well, I think we are being consistent. Bill C-35 as well as other pieces of legislation that you presently have or have had before this committee are all part of our efforts to make our streets safer, to protect our communities, and quite frankly, to increase people's confidence in the criminal justice system. That's always a concern to me, as I think it should be to all Canadians. We want people to believe that the system works and it works to protect them.

Indeed, you would be aware that I announced several weeks ago the creation of the victims ombudsman, so that we have an individual and an office that is specifically tasked with the concerns and the issues of the victims of crime. I think you would agree with me that sometimes they are the forgotten ones in the process. I'm very comfortable that with the legislation we are moving forward on, as well as some of the other initiatives, we are directly targeting crime. But you and I will perhaps have to agree to disagree on the firearms registry.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think you've made a very good point. This has actually received widespread support. Just before the question period I was over at the Canadian Police Association meeting. The CPA is very supportive generally of the initiatives we have taken as a government and are supportive of a bill like Bill C-35. We have heard back from provincial and municipal governments, prosecutors. Indeed, in my hometown of Niagara Falls I've been stopped twice on the streets recently by police officers who just wanted to tell me that they are supportive of the initiatives, including initiatives like this. My colleague, Mr. Dykstra, would know about the Niagara Regional Police; so many of those individuals have come forward and expressed a complete support for this.

So I think there is widespread support, and I have certainly been very pleased. Quite frankly, I'm actually encouraged by the possibility that we're going to be able to move forward on this. The Liberal Party have at various times expressed support for this. Today they said they're largely in support in principle, and I hope the devil isn't in the details. I'm hoping that the way it is now we're going to move forward on that. The New Democratic Party has indicated that it is supportive of this particular legislation, and I am hoping the Bloc will see the light and will come on board with this move to improve the criminal justice system in this country. I say to them that I'm sure that when they go home and explain this to individuals in their constituencies, overwhelmingly the people will tell them this is on the right track; it's a step in the right direction.

So in the end, Mr. Moore, I'm hoping this will have the unanimous support of Parliament, because the bottom line is that this can't or shouldn't be a partisan matter. This is just improving the Criminal Code and making it better and safer for all Canadians.

[Julie Besner]

Yes.

In terms of some of the dissents in the Supreme Court rulings, specifically in Pearson—I believe Madam Justice McLaughlin was one of the dissenting justices in that decision, and she highlighted that the section should have failed because it didn't distinguish between small-time drug traffickers and large-scale drug traffickers.

With respect to Bill C-35, I can indicate to the committee that the firearms trafficking and smuggling offences targeted under Bill C-35 are the more serious offences that target that kind of activity. There are lesser included offences in the Criminal Code; for example, “unlawful transfer”, which I believe is at around section 102 or 103. There is also an equivalent “illegal importing” offence, which doesn't amount to as serious an offence as the smuggling offence.

The point I'm trying to communicate is that there are other offences that are available to address less serious breaches as criminal activity, though certainly where there is something that is of great concern to law enforcement, tools are available in the Criminal Code, and would be with a new reverse onus provision, for serious firearms traffickers and smugglers.

If you would like me to point out those offences in the code, I could. They're all in the area between sections 99 and 103.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very pleased to be here. This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to establish a reverse onus in the case of bail hearings for firearm-related and other regulated weapons offences.

The issue of providing a reverse onus for bail hearings for certain serious firearms offences is one of the government's criminal justice priorities. In my view, the legislative reforms proposed in Bill C-35 are appropriately tailored to the concern that has been expressed by many Canadians recently about the release from custody of individuals accused of serious gun crimes, who pose a threat to public safety.

Bill C-35 proposes a reverse onus for eight serious offences when committed with a firearm. They are the following: attempted murder, robbery, discharging a firearm with criminal intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, and extortion.

A reverse onus is also proposed for any indictable offence that involves a firearm or other regulated weapon if committed while the accused is under a weapons prohibition order. These indictable offences are not limited to those that involve the actual use of a firearm or weapon. Furthermore, a reverse onus is proposed for the offences of firearm trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and firearm smuggling.

Bill C-35 contains another amendment, which is not a reverse onus proposal. It provides that the courts give consideration to the fact that a firearm was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, to decide whether or not the accused should be kept in custody, in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Finally, it proposes that the court also consider whether the accused faces a minimum term of imprisonment of three years or more for a firearm-related offence.

The presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause are both constitutionally protected rights in our criminal justice system. Bail, however, can be denied in certain circumstances, and the Criminal Code provides specific grounds upon which the courts are justified in keeping someone in custody before their trial. Bail can be denied when detention is necessary to ensure that the accused does not flee justice, to protect the public--for example, if there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will reoffend if released--or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Normally, the Crown is the party that must show just cause for keeping the accused in custody before trial. However, in certain specific cases, the onus is on the accused to show that there is no justification for keeping him in custody.

The protection of the right to not be denied reasonable bail without just cause has led to a few important constitutional challenges, which were brought to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision.

It's worth noting that our Supreme Court has maintained that constitutional validity of certain circumstances triggering a reverse onus on bail. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that this special bail rule is necessary to combat the pre-trial recidivism and absconding problems by requiring the accused to demonstrate that those risks will not arise.

It should be noted that there is unfortunately very little research available in Canada and elsewhere on the rate of reoffending by people out on bail. This is the case for offences in general and therefore also with respect to firearms offences specifically.

To date, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has not gathered such data. Some police services gather statistics on whether a person newly arrested was previously under some form of supervision order; that is, whether they were on bail, prohibition, parole, or subject to a peace bond. I believe the data the department has on this issue was provided, as it had been requested during the technical briefing shortly after the introduction of this bill.

It's important to note, however, that the approach taken with several of the proposals in Bill C-35 is consistent with the principles that underlie the current bail regime. The reform proposed in Bill C-35 builds on the existing reverse onus scheme to specifically include certain serious firearms offences.

I think Bill C-35 is not only a very sensible and focused piece of legislation, but it also reflects much of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court on the bail regime. Bill C-35 takes a very similar approach to the bail regime that already exists, but it focuses on the current gun crime problem, particularly as it relates to serious firearms offences or offenders who ignore court orders not to possess weapons. It also recognizes that firearm trafficking and smuggling operations are similar in nature to drug trafficking and smuggling, in the sense that such illicit activities form part of a larger organized crime setting.

I hope the committee, after studying Bill C-35, will agree that this bill will improve the state of law and therefore greater protect Canadians from the threat of firearm violence.

Officials from my department and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. In that regard, I am pleased to have with me Julie Besner as well as Catherine Kane, both from the Department of Justice.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me those opening comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good day, everyone.

Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences). We have the pleasure today of having the Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice.

Welcome, monsieur le ministre.

Also appearing before the committee today, from the Department of Justice, Ms. Catherine Kane, Acting Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, as well as Ms. Julie Besner, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section.

Welcome, Ms. Kane and Ms. Besner.

The floor is yours, Mr. Nicholson. You can start.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

The final motion is that amendments to Bill C-35 be submitted to the clerk of the committee 48 hours prior to clause-by-clause consideration. Agreed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

I see a quorum.

On the agenda today is the legislative committee on Bill C-35, and the orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 103(3). It's an organizational meeting.

You've all received the orders of the day.

The first item on the agenda is the appointment letter of the chair by the Speaker of the House, and it's dated February 22, 2007: “Dear, Dr. Patry, pursuant to”—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Friday, March 23, 2007, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-35.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Pursuant to order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-35 are deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 27 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

(Division deemed demanded and deferred)

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem with my colleague's remarks is that it is not at all what Bill C-35 is about.

The bill is about detention before trial. It has nothing to do with the detention of a person who has been convicted. A person who is convicted is given a sentence and must serve that sentence. We are not questioning that. What we are saying is that to determine if an accused will be detained before the trial, the Crown has to prove that there is good reason to believe that it would be dangerous to let that person out on bail. That is how things are done now. In the example given by my colleague from the Conservative Party, I am pretty much convinced that any court would have concluded that someone who shoots people should probably not be out on bail.

That is how things are done now and it works. We have never heard of a case where it did not work. Therefore, there is no need to reverse the onus before the trial, claiming that what is already in the law is unacceptable. It is already in the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very curious about one of the things which Bloc members and some Liberals sometimes bring up and that is their objection to this reverse onus.

It seems to me that if somebody came up to me, and it has never happened thankfully, and pointed a gun at me and pulled the trigger, and through some providential stroke of luck missed, that person might be guilty of attempted murder. By that very action that individual has already demonstrated that he or she is at least somewhat dangerous. To me there is no doubt about that.

If it were proven in court that the individual was actually guilty, which is the premise in Bill C-35, then it would be up to that individual to somehow come up with evidence proving otherwise. I think it would be virtually impossible to let these individuals out on the street just because they do not think they are dangerous. These people are dangerous.

I think it would take an extraordinary effort on their part to prove they were not dangerous. On the other hand, once a person has done that, how can a crown prosecutor prove that he or she is dangerous if this measure is not enacted? I think there is a bit of a problem here, logically speaking, in terms of objecting to this reverse onus measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the hypocrisy of this Conservative government, which is claiming to table this bill in the name of preventing crime and specifically crimes committed with firearms. In the meantime, it wants to dismantle the firearms registry and it refuses to have stricter gun control.

To me it would be more logical to have an effective firearms registry and legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms—as the police are asking for. In fact, it would be much more effective to prevent the crimes than to reverse the onus of proof once the crimes are committed.

There is another aberration by this government which clearly shows that it is not serious about prevention. Most members in this House are probably faced with this situation in their ridings: currently, programs from the crime prevention research centre are on hold. Everywhere, community organizations working to promote crime prevention are waiting for the minister's signature to launch their projects. In my riding, Tandem, which is an organization that fights crime—by promoting prevention—is waiting for the minister's signature. Other organizations, such as Chantier d'Afrique, are also waiting.

If the government were serious, it would invest money and approve these projects, so that we can move forward in the area of prevention. It would also maintain the firearms program.

In this regard, I would like to quote some relevant figures that the Conservatives would rather not mention. These figures show that the gun registry works. Currently, 7.1 million firearms are registered. All the information gathered is far from being negligible.

Moreover, 90% of these guns are hunting rifles. Every day, the register is consulted an average of 6,500 times. Since December 1st 1998, a total of 1,154,722 guns have been exported, destroyed, neutralized or withdrawn from the Canadian information system, thus reducing by that much the risk of guns being used.

Experts are very skeptical about the effectiveness of the government's proposed measures to fight gun violence.

First, the bail system has not been the subject of as many studies as other aspects of the criminal justice system have. There may not be an answer for even the most simple questions, such as: how many individuals charged with committing a crime involving firearms are currently out on bail? This is a process that remains unknown, because it has yet to be the subject of empirical research.

According to Alan Young, a criminal law professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, in Toronto, the reverse onus proposed by the Conservatives is a “complete shot in the dark”, because we do not even know if the current system is effective or not. The information is too fragmented to know the rate of recidivism or compliance, following court orders.

The need for this bill is dubious to say the least. The Prime Minister claims that 40% of offences involving firearms are committed by individuals out on bail. The Prime Minister quoted a police report which shows that, out of about 1,000 crimes involving guns or restricted weapons, some 40% may have been committed by individuals who were on parole, bail, probation or temporary absence.

However, according to Tony Doob, a criminologist at the University of Toronto, these statistics do not tell the whole story, since someone could be released on bail as a result of simple theft, a situation Bill C-35 does not address.

In addition, people accused of offences involving firearms are already faced with something like reverse onus. The question is whether the bill will make it possible to imprison a dangerous person who would not otherwise have been incarcerated.

Mr. Doob also said that Canada is not particularly lenient when it comes to releasing someone on bail. This is especially interesting since the Conservatives give the impression that this is a big threat, while the numbers do not seem to confirm that the system is lax when it comes to releasing people on bail. Statistics on incarcerations consistently show that there are more people behind bars awaiting trial than people serving sentences. I think this is worth repeating. Statistics on incarcerations consistently show that there are more people behind bars awaiting trial than people serving sentences. So we can believe that the current system does not disproportionately release people on bail.

In support of the point I have just made twice, I will add that according to Statistics Canada, in 2004, there were 125,871 Canadians in prison awaiting trial, while 83,733 people behind bars were serving court-ordered sentences.

I would also like to quote Louise Botham, president of the Criminal Lawyers Association. According to her, the court is already very careful in how it awards release on bail. She also wonders about how the bill before us will serve as a deterrent.

Studies show that mandatory minimum sentences have no deterrent effect on crime. I don't know why a reverse onus would.

It seems quite a stretch to state or to believe that a criminal on the verge of committing a crime with a firearm will say to himself, at the very last minute, that he will not do it because of bail conditions or because of the reverse onus of proof. That is not at all what goes through a criminal's mind when he is about to commit a crime.

In the United States, incarcerating an individual in order to prevent a crime is known as the incapacitation effect. At least one study suggests that hiring more police officers is a more effective use of taxpayers' money than incarcerating individuals.

Thus, the Conservative government, true unto itself, is improvising again in matters of justice. As is too often the case, it is legislating without really knowing what it is doing because it does not have any serious studies to guide its actions.

Its measures, which may seem appealing at first glance, challenge fundamental legal rights and principles without ascertaining beforehand whether or not these measures have real benefits in terms of safety. Nevertheless, we do know that some measures—measures that the Conservative government is not implementing—would have real safety benefits. As I already mentioned, the first is maintaining the firearms registry. We know it works and that it helps police officers to do their jobs. The government proposes to dismantle it.

The other measure consists of the crime prevention programs that I described earlier. All my colleagues have been through this. We are waiting for the Minister of Public Safety to make the money available. We do not need a bill requiring three readings and debates in committee and in the House for that. We only need the Minister of Public Safety to sign the authorizations for this money to go to community groups that are very good at preventing crime. It would be much more logical for the government to take that approach than the one in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-35, which is before us here today. First of all, you will not be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois is against the principle of this bill, in part because we are opposed to upsetting the balance between the principles of security and the presumption of innocence. We believe that a person accused of a crime must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In accordance with this presumption of innocence, it is important that the onus be on the Crown to demonstrate that the individual should not be released before his or her trial.

The Crown is in a better position to bear the burden of proof, given its expertise and resources, while the accused is left to his own devices, sometimes without even a lawyer to represent him. As a result, any encroachment on the presumption of innocence must be done with great caution, which is unfortunately not the case with this bill. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that certain exceptions already exist, but refuses to contribute to any violation of the key principle of presumption of innocence.

I would like to begin my presentation by putting things into context. The bill was tabled in the House of Commons on November 23, 2006 and proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to provide that the accused will be required to demonstrate, when charged with certain serious offences involving firearms or other regulated weapons, that pre-trial detention is not justified. In lay terms, we could say that the bill ensures that, for certain crimes, accused individuals awaiting trial must remain in prison, unless they can prove that they do not belong there.

I would like to give an overview of the bill. At present, the general rule states that it is up to the crown prosecutor to demonstrate that the accused should not be released on bail because he or she poses a danger to the public. The Criminal Code provides for some exceptions, however, and in such cases the accused must prove that pre-trial detention is unjustified. These exceptions are: breach of release conditions, involvement in organized crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling or production, murder, treason or war crimes.

With Bill C-35, the Conservative government is trying to broaden this range of exceptions. If passed, the bill will require the accused to prove to the judge that he or she may be released without causing concern for society for in connection with any and all of the following offences: attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, extortion, firearms trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, any offence involving a firearm if committed while the accused is bound by a weapons prohibition order.

This bill has been widely criticized, not only by the Bloc Québécois but also by the legal community. It is clearly in response to the shootings in Toronto, the city in which the Prime Minister chose to announce the introduction of this bill. He was accompanied at the time by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, a Liberal, and by Toronto Mayor David Miller, an NDPer. Support for this government bill from these two public figures prompted the Prime Minister to say that, between the three of them, they covered a large portion of the political spectrum, which meant there was some unanimity.

But when the Ontario premier and the mayor of Toronto suggested banning handguns, the Prime Minister was quick to reject the idea. “Simply banning guns we don't think would be effective,” commented the Prime Minister, “What we do need to do is stop the smuggling of illegal weapons”.

This is how the government has come to jeopardize a right that is critical to democracy, namely the presumption of innocence. But at the same time, it will not give a chance to the firearms program, whose costs—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a perhaps somewhat more radical approach and simply speak to the bill. When I go back to Surrey North and my constituents ask me what I said about Bill C-35, I am not going to say to them that I stood up and criticized the Liberals first, then the Conservatives, then the Liberals, and then the Conservatives again.

I want to tell them that I spoke to the content of the bill because this is about the safety of people who live in our communities. Whether we know them, whether they are our loved ones or our neighbours or strangers, it does not matter. Across this country this piece of legislation has the potential of keeping more people safe, and I do not think that belongs to any particular party.

Surely all of us want people in our communities not only to be safe, but to feel safe, and there is a difference between being safe and also feeling safe. I do take note of the comment from my colleague from North Vancouver that people have to know that a piece of legislation works, that it is actually going to work. He is correct.

I want to talk about Surrey North for a moment as it relates to the bill. When I knock on doors in Surrey North, people do not have a long list of things that are top of mind. I suppose if I spent an hour on each doorstep we would get to more issues, but we can be very sure that if I get to only three issues crime will be one of them, and very often it will be the top one.

Therefore, any step we can take so that people do not to have to say that crime is their very first concern is an important one, because nobody wants to live in fear. Nobody wants to feel that they are raising their children in an atmosphere of threat.

In the lower mainland over the last 10 years, we have had probably close to 100 young men injured and killed with illegal handguns, a significant number of them in the last five years. There are families and extended families grieving because they have lost a family member due to the number of illegal handguns on our streets. They are angry that someone who has injured or killed their loved one has been before the courts before or is out on bail for this very offence.

We have also seen that sometimes young children live in the home of someone who has an illegal handgun but does not keep it anywhere special. The last time this happened, we heard that the handgun was on a coffee table. The children pick up the gun. They do not know it is real; they have just watched a TV program. They pick it up and they fire it at their younger brother, sister or someone else. In the last case I mentioned, it was fired at a brother, and the brother died, so now we have a four year old who will live the rest of his life knowing that he killed his brother, of course not with intent, as he is four years old, but with an illegal handgun that should never have been there in the first place.

I have long since learned in my life that I do not know the only stories that are out there, so if I can tell those stories from one of 308 constituencies, there are many more like them.

I believe there are some very important parts to this piece of legislation and I think there are some challenges to following up with regard to this legislation. In the NDP's justice policy, we talk about prevention, policing and punishment. This is part of that.

We know that many firearms crimes are committed by people who are out on bail after having committed previous crimes with firearms. That is not at all an uncommon story. We can open the local paper, turn on the television set or talk to a neighbour and we will hear about somebody who has used a firearm and was out on bail from having used a firearm before.

Knowing that this is a tragedy for families and communities, huge police resources are required at this stage, in many cases, to actually take on this challenge in an incredibly vigorous and proactive way. I want to use the Toronto example for why this kind of legislation not only will make a difference but will actually save resources that perhaps can then be redirected, as my colleague has said, toward prevention.

In the Toronto example, in order to actually be able to find charges to have repeat firearms offenders who had been granted bail incarcerated, because many times these are repeat offenders and the police know who they are, the police were actually given huge resources from the province. They would follow each and every one of these repeat offenders practically 24 hours a day until they were caught, and they were bound to catch them with some prohibition or some breaking of their bail conditions. Then they could bring them back to jail, where they could be kept because they broke a condition of their bail. It takes enormous resources to do that.

By the way, they were very, very successful. They spent all that money to follow people and wait for them to break their bail conditions and then return them to jail, which means using not only police resources but the resources of the justice system, because obviously they have to go before a judge before they can be reincarcerated, and they might have to wait, et cetera.

What can change? It is likely that many of those judges, left to their own devices, would have kept those people because they would have known those people were likely to reoffend. Most people who commit a crime using a handgun do not do it once. They do it many times.

The legislation would ensure that when people were arrested for carrying an illegal handgun, for using a handgun during a crime, they would have to prove why they should be allowed to be back out. Nobody will say that they should. What would be the case? What would be the reason they would give for that? There is no conceivable, logical reason they could give that would make sense to allow them to then walk out the door on bail, free to commit another crime.

In the last federal election our platform called for support for reverse onus on bail for all gun related crimes. Therefore, we will support the bill.

Many people remember the tragic shootings almost two years ago in Toronto at Christmastime. Two out of three of us live on the other side of the mountains in British Columbia and not everybody always hears about what happens there. It is always interesting that people can always remember what happens in Toronto, and I was born and raised in Toronto, so it is nothing against Toronto. When this tragic crime happened in Toronto, a 100 young men were killed in British Columbia. That is why I so strongly believe that anybody using a handgun should not be granted bail.

I know thousands of people regularly watch the parliamentary channel. I am always interested to hear when I go home that people watch what we say. If people have just turned on their television sets, we are talking about establishing the reverse onus on handguns and bail, meaning the onus is on those accused to establish they are not a serious risk before they get bail.

Some people would say we should not use reverse onus. I think we have to use it very carefully. Reverse onus is used in other situations where the accused is already on bail for an indictable offence and is then subsequently charged with that offence. As well, for organized crime, terrorism, some kinds of drug trafficking, smuggling and other kinds of offences, reverse onus is applied. I do think it has to be monitored. We have to look very carefully at how it is being used so it is never abused. However, it certainly is not the first time it has been used and there are many precedents for this.

I will return to some earlier comments.

The leader of our party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has talked for a long time about being smart on crime, which is why we have talked about the three streams being prevention, policing and punishment. With this legislation, which I support, other accompanying things need to happen and the Conservatives, the Liberals, ourselves and the Bloc must ensure they happen and it will take resources.

I do not want to be sitting somewhere in five year's time saying that the legislation is working well but we have just as many people, if not more, in the situation of being denied bail because they used the handgun. I want to see fewer people, not just good legislation, but a reduction in the number of people coming before the courts under those circumstances. That will only happen if we address the other things that are necessary to reduce the use of handguns or to reduce the involvement of youth, teenagers and adults in a life of crime. When I say “youths” they are sometimes as young as 11 or 12.

This is the kind of prevention at which we need to look. I know it is hard for people because they do not see it for 10 years, but it starts with how do we support infants and their families, young children and their families, school-aged children and their families, so those parents can do the very best in raising their children. We want the community to provide them with the best options possible for having things to do, whether it is kicking a soccer ball, going to a community centre or whatever that might be. Those things take resources.

I have talked about this for most of my adult life. I originally trained as a pediatric nurse and I have always worked primarily with children. If we cannot see an instant response to helping an infant and the family, then people move on to the quick answers, to legislation.

It is not that this legislation is not needed, but it cannot stand on its own. We cannot expect it to reduce crime by itself. It will certainly keep in jail those people who should never be allowed out on bail, and it absolutely should, but I do not want to see more people before the courts.

I know this will be difficult because we will not see results for 10 years. For politicians who work in terms, sometimes that is difficult. It is also often difficult for the community because it wants the quick answer to solve the problem. The community wants to feel safe immediately and they deserve that.

As members of Parliament, we have a societal responsibility to ensure that parents and children get the support they need. Maybe if there were not so many children having to, not choosing to, come home on their own after school and having all this time by themselves, this might help. This happens because there is no child care in their communities, and there will not be any new child care for them. If there happens to be child care, they are be unable to afford it anyway.

We know that gangs target children at the ages of 10, 11 and 12 because these gangs believe that the law will not be hard on children. The older gang members plan and recruit those 10, 11 and 12 year olds to commit those crimes. Those young children should not be mentored by gang members. They should be mentored by soccer coaches, people at community centres or whatever the activity, such as Brownies, Guides, Boy Scouts, Cubs. They should be the mentors, not gang members. We should not be putting children in the position where they can be mentored by gang members either.

The whole issue of what we do to prevent children from becoming involved in crime will also tell the tale of whether this legislation will also help not only keep people safe and keep people in jail, but will also reduce the number of people committing crimes.

If we are to pass the legislation, it should be done quickly. Perhaps an omnibus bill would have moved this crime legislation through more quickly. However, we also need new facilities and more staff and we need the judicial appointments filled because more people will be kept in jail. I expect resources will be provided to go along with that.

I support the legislation, but it has to go along with those things that will ensure we see fewer numbers of people, with firearms charges, before the courts because we have been able to reach out to them earlier.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

I have long been a strong advocate for tough, smart and effective law and order measures in my riding of North Vancouver. In my previous role as mayor of the district of North Vancouver, I worked closely with local law enforcement officials to address crime and justice issues in our community and to ensure that North Vancouver is safe for residents and families.

Superintendent Gord Tomlinson and the North Vancouver RCMP detachment do excellent work in our communities with a comprehensive policing approach which includes working with concerned members of the community to ensure we are all doing our part.

The North Vancouver block watch program immediately comes to mind. Designed to build safer neighbourhoods by providing support, guidance, training and resource materials to develop and operate neighbourhood block watch programs, block watch has flourished in my riding by informing and engaging citizens about keeping our neighbourhood safe.

The North Vancouver RCMP also facilitates the local citizens on patrol program which utilizes local volunteers to monitor areas where the community is requesting more patrolling and where history and statistics demonstrate crime is more likely to occur.

Volunteers are paired up, given a combination cell phone-radio and they patrol in their own vehicles looking for any suspicious activity, which they phone in to the RCMP. The volunteers receive training on what to look for and how to react when they observe suspicious activity.

The decision to start this program in North Vancouver was prompted by the success of similar programs in Coquitlam, Mission and Vancouver, and it is part of the way the RCMP is expanding its level of service throughout British Columbia through the use of enthusiastic local volunteers.

As well, community policing offices located in neighbourhood shopping centres across North Vancouver are staffed by local volunteers and provide a friendly local face and convenient location for residents to come to for information on policing services and crime prevention programs.

While Bill C-35 makes appropriate changes to better deal with those already charged with firearms related offences, we cannot forget the value that preventive measures, such as block watch, citizens on patrol and community polices offices, have in preventing crimes from being committed in the first place.

While I have always been an advocate for being tough on crime, government can do more to prevent crime in the first place. We can be tough and smart on crime at the same time, while building safer communities with a view to future generations. Constituents in my riding understand this. It is therefore disappointing to see the government is more content playing politics with its law and order agenda.

Like my constituents, the Liberal Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, understands this and is not soft on crime as the Conservative government is attempting to portray him with its latest republican style smear campaign.

A Liberal government would sit down to negotiate with the provinces to give municipalities more money to hire more officers and give the RCMP an extra $200 million to hire 400 officers for rapid enforcement teams across Canada that would boost local police and communities in their fight against guns, gangs, organized crime and drug trafficking.

Unlike the Conservative government, we will walk the walk and not just make hollow promises when fishing for votes. A Liberal government would also give provinces more money to hire more crown attorneys to speed up trials and to establish organized crime secretariats in every province, similar to Ontario's very successful guns and gangs task force to fight organized crime.

In addition, we will actually fill the judicial vacancies that currently exist across the country. How can the Conservatives claim to be tough on crime when they sit on their hands as judicial vacancies grow and the courts get more and more backlogged by the day? That is not providing justice for Canadians. Justice delayed is justice denied.

There are examples at all court levels of charges being dropped due to unreasonable delays in proceeding to trial. It is not good enough.

While the government has failed to convince Canadians it is capable of doing more than just talking tough on crime, let us turn to Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to provide that the accused will be required to demonstrate, when charged with certain serious offences involving firearms or other regulated weapons, that a pre-trial detention is not justified in their case. These offenders have shown they are a danger to the public simply by using a firearm in the first place. Why should the onus be on a prosecutor to oppose bail being given in light of the serious nature of the crime for which they have been charged? Surely our law-abiding citizens deserve to feel protected from perpetrators of serious crimes.

The bill also introduces two factors relating to such offences that the courts must take into account when deciding whether the accused should be released or detained until the trial. Bill C-35 would require the courts to specifically consider: first, the fact that a firearm was allegedly used in the commission of the offence; and second, the fact that the accused faces a minimum penalty of three years or more imprisonment if convicted.

I strongly support amending the Criminal Code to add this provision. Police officers in my riding support this change, and constituents who simply want safe communities for their families support this change.

In addition, the Liberal opposition supports this change and we have demonstrated that in the House on repeated occasions.

For the fourth time in the past six months, the Liberal opposition this week attempted to get this bill and several other justice bills we are prepared to support, Bill C-18, the DNA identification act, Bill C-22, the age of consent bill, and Bill C-23, criminal procedures, passed without delay through all stages of consideration by the House. Had all members of the government and the NDP agreed, these bills could have cleared the House yesterday and now be on their way to the Senate as we speak. They would have been closer to law and the Liberal proposal would have advanced more than half of the government's entire justice agenda.

That is what my constituents in North Vancouver want. They do not care about politics or the next election. They just want safer communities and results from the minority government. It is too bad the Conservatives are not more interested in getting results than getting headlines.

I support Bill C-35 because I believe that the offences for which it would require a reverse onus for bail provisions are serious and that the bill would help ensure a safer community in North Vancouver.

These offences include any one of the following eight serious offences committed with a firearm: attempted murder, robbery, discharging a firearm with intent, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, kidnapping, hostage taking or extortion.

In addition, the reverse onus provisions will be required for any indictable offence involving firearms or other regulated weapons if committed while under a weapons prohibition order: firearm trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking or firearms smuggling.

I am more than comfortable with a change to the Criminal Code that would require individuals charged with these offences to make the case why they should be back on the streets while awaiting trial. I know citizens in my riding, who are going above and beyond to do their part to create a safe community, such as Block Watch and Citizens on Patrol, would be more than relieved to know there will be less of a chance of encountering individuals charged with such offences.

The government, in its effort to unjustly brand the Liberals as soft on crime, repeatedly attempts to assert that the opposition is opposed to these reverse onus measures as they are not in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While this party's commitment to the charter is unwavering, such an assertion is factually incorrect. It is true that the charter protects the presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause pending trial but within this basic presumption, however, bail can in fact be denied in order to ensure that the accused does not flee from justice, to protect the public if there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will reoffend and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Although the prosecutor usually bears the onus of demonstrating why an accused should be denied bail, there are currently situations where it falls to the accused to demonstrate that detaining him or her is not justified. For example, the onus already shifts to the accused if they are charged with: an indictable offence committed while already released on another indictable offence; if they fail to appear in court or allegedly breach a release condition; for certain organized crime, terrorism or security of information offences; for drug trafficking, smuggling or drug producing offences; and, if they are not ordinarily a resident of Canada.

The Liberal opposition has made repeated efforts to have Bill C-35 fast-tracked through all stages of the House only to be blocked by the government. The Liberal Party's support for measures similar to those found in Bill C-35 go well beyond this debate today and even this 39th Parliament.

I was pleased, as were law enforcement and residents in North Vancouver, with our party's proposals during the last election in support of the reverse onus bail hearings for firearms related offences.

Our position on this issue has not changed. Canadians sent us to Ottawa to work together and that is what the Liberal opposition is attempting to do with our proposal to fast-track Bill C-35 and the three other bills.

The Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, MITA, from the previous Parliament, will be reintroduced later today as a private member's bill by the Liberal justice critic and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I can only hope the government will not block this bill too. The government needs to prove that it is more interested in getting results than headlines.

I will continue to support Bill C-35 and I encourage the minority Conservative government to work with this Parliament, including the Liberal members, and pass these laws that will enhance Canada's Criminal Code and justice system. Families in my riding want these bills passed. Police officers favour these changes and I stand here today to demand that the government listen to Canadians and do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member asked for my commitment. I certainly will be supporting this bill and will do anything possible on my part to help pass this legislation.

However, I would also remind the hon. member that if he was in the House the other day, the hon. critic for justice brought in a motion to speed up the legislation that I mentioned: Bill C-18, the DNA identification bill that would help police solve many missing persons cases; Bill C-22, the age of consent bill that would have made our children, our sons and daughters, safer; Bill C-23, the criminal procedures bill, a bill that would help to make our justice system more efficient; and Bill C-35, the reverse onus bill that we are debating today.

In fact, if the hon. member were here, he would have noticed that the House leader on the Conservative side raised a point of order not to support that option that we brought in to speed up not only one of those bills, but four of them.

I was in Surrey last month, where the mayor of Surrey along with all the stakeholders put a crime prevention strategy in place. In six months they are much further ahead of where we are today with the Conservative government delaying and playing politics. So, I would ask the hon. member to ask the House leader and his Conservative colleagues to support and get those bills passed so we can protect our streets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. One of the themes that he kept talking about was that we should be fast tracking some bills and so on.

I am just amazed at this because we had a number of bills introduced by our previous minister of justice and now our present Minister of Justice on strengthening the criminal justice system, on making sure that people who are repeat offenders are dealt with properly, and making sure that, as in this bill, people who commit gun related crimes are dealt with severely and quickly.

The member is pleading for us to fast track this legislation. As a matter of fact, it is the opposition that is preventing us from getting these bills through in a timely fashion. It is the opposition that is bringing in a bunch of amendments to our bills.

I was talking to some people in the riding last week. I told them these guys with their amendments are gutting the bills and then they are trying to serve us the guts. We want to have a real meaningful and workable plan to solve the criminal justice system.

I would like the member to simply give a commitment that he will help us, today for example, finish Bill C-35 and that we can get on with this. It is a very important agenda for the Canadian people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for North Vancouver.

It is an honour for me to rise in the House here today to discuss Bill C-35. I cannot understand why my Conservative friends on the other side continue to delay this bill becoming law.

I must point out that the Liberal Party has already gone a long way to putting in place laws to make the jobs of our men and women in uniform easier. I think of legislation like the anti-gangster law.

I would also like to point out that during the 13 years of the previous Liberal administration, we saw crime rates drop by more than 20% in some cases. This bill will only enhance those provisions that the Liberal Party has already provided.

Bill C-35 will make the streets safer by keeping criminals who use guns in prison, instead of out on bail to commit more crimes.

This is a bill I am proud to support and I cannot understand why my Conservative colleagues keep on postponing passage of this legislation.

This bill is designed to change the Criminal Code so that reverse onus will be required if an accused is charged of crimes with a gun. This bill will also be used against those charged with gun trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking or gun smuggling.

I would like to remind the House that it was the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard who brought me into this political arena. In the 2006 election he supported the idea of reverse onus bail hearings for gun related offences. I was proud to support this initiative with him then and I am proud to do so now.

The presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause are rights protected under the Charters of Rights and Freedoms. I firmly believe that this bill is in keeping with the spirit of the charter. It enhances our safety while still respecting our basic rights.

When I talk to people such as Chief Superintendent Fraser MacRae of the Surrey RCMP detachment or Chief Constable Jim Cessford of the Delta police department, I know how important is this legislation. I hear it everywhere from my constituents of Newton—North Delta. These voices from my riding of Newton--North Delta must be heard. It is so important that they be part of the process.

Why is the minority Conservative government not listening? These men and women, the ones on the street keeping us safe every day, are the ones who best understand what is needed to keep our homes, our families and our children safe. We must do all that we can to support them. That is why I am saddened by the cynical partisan games that the government is playing with such important legislation.

The official opposition has tried more than three times in the last six months to speed up many government bills dealing with justice issues. Each time the Conservative Party has shown that they are more interested in politicking than in actually passing their own legislation and making our families safer.

I would remind the House that it was my hon. colleague, the Liberal justice critic, who tabled a motion that proposed the immediate passing of four bills: Bill C-18, Bill C-22, Bill C-23 and Bill C-35, the very bill we are all here still debating today.

If it were not for this cynical government's obstruction, we could have sent all of this legislation to the Senate and put it on the fast track to becoming law. In one swoop we could have passed more than half of the government's entire justice agenda. We could have taken major steps in protecting our families and our communities, but the Conservative House leader raised a point of order to block the Liberal motion and caused more delays in passing serious anti-crime legislation.

Why will the government not take yes for an answer and pass its own legislation for the sake of our safety? The government knows that a majority of MPs in the House of Commons want to pass these bills and the government will just not stop dragging its feet.

The fact that the government is blocking its own legislation proves that it is not serious about crime. It only wants to use these bills as an election issue, not as a way to make our neighbours and communities safer. The Canadian people deserve better. They deserve a government that will not play politics with the Criminal Code.

The late Pierre Trudeau said, “just watch me”. Well, the Canadian people are watching. The people of the riding of Newton—North Delta are watching. The people are watching the government play politics with the safety of our children and families. Canadians and the good people of my riding of Newton—North Delta deserve better. They deserve a government and a leader who will put the safety of our families ahead of politics.

When I look at the justice platform put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have hope that the government might also finally get one. The Liberal Party has proposed a new plan, one that would have a major impact on the way we approach safety and justice in our country. It is not enough to simply talk tough on crime and then do nothing as the minority Conservative government has done so far.

We must deal with every aspect of fighting crime on our streets. We must work to prevent crime. We must work to make it easier for our police to catch criminals. When criminals are caught we must work to see them convicted through competent and quick administration. When they are convicted we must work to rehabilitate those criminals, so that when they get out of prison they do not commit more crimes.

I would encourage the government and all members of the Conservative Party to support the legislation and also support the Liberal idea to fast track those bills that I mentioned earlier. I encourage them to support our men and women in uniform who keep our streets safer and to support the official opposition when it has the guts to do what must be done to see this legislation pass to improve our safety and justice system.

We want no more delays, no more partisan politics and tactics, and no more games. Let us get the job done. Canadians are counting on us.

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Comments by Government House Leader

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

Mr. Speaker, for a final time, let us see if we can get unanimous consent of all parties, including government members, for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported without amendment by a legislative committee, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third time and passed.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the opposition House leader takes a very broad view of the definition of technical. However, we hope that Bill C-16 will progress and will be approved in a form that is appropriate and reasonable to approve and that we will have it here to deal with in the House quickly. That has not happened yet, however, and therefore today we are going to continue with the Liberal opposition motion and the business of supply.

Tomorrow we will continue debate on second reading of Bill C-35, which is the bail reform bill. This is one that has been the subject of positive words from the opposition, and we hope that we will be able to move to unanimous approval.

That would allow us to get on with other issues such as Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; Bill S-3, which deals with defence and justice matters; and Bill C-33, which is an Income Tax Act item.

On Monday, we will be having day three of the budget debate. On Tuesday, we will have the final day of the budget debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday we will continue with the unfinished business from this Friday, including hopefully, the addition of Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory minimum penalties, which I know the opposition House leader will want to add to his package of justice bills he wishes to enthusiastically support.

On Friday, March 30 we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill.

I would like to designate, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), Wednesday, March 28 for the continuation of the debate on the motion to concur in the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and Thursday, March 29 for the continuation of the debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health.

There is one further item that the opposition House leader raised which was the question of the labour bill. I believe he heard a very generous offer from the Minister of Labour today. I believe the ball is now in the opposition's court on this.

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

Thank you so much for being here today, Minister, and thank you for your presentation.

As you know from the speeches the Liberals made at second reading of this bill, Bill C-22, and from our Liberal justice strategy, which we announced in October 2006, Bill C-22 is in fact one of the bills the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus supports. And back in 2006 we offered to fast-track it for the government, to work with the government to see that it was fast-tracked.

I'm pleased to hear in your response to my colleague Brian Murphy that you're delighted that the Liberals are supporting C-22 and that you want to see it come into effect and be enacted as quickly as possible.

So you have obviously been made cognizant of the Liberal opposition day motion, which will be debated tomorrow as part of the supply day for opposition, which makes an offer, for the third time, to this Conservative government that we are prepared to work with the government to have Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification; Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act—on which you're appearing before us right now—Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments); and Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences) deemed to have been considered by the House of Commons at all stages.

Should the government agree to vote in that way, this bill, C-22, Bill C-18, Bill C-23, and Bill C-35 will have been deemed to have gone through the House of Commons at all stages.

So I would hope that, given your delight in hearing that we're prepared to support Bill C-22.... You're not learning of this for the first time, because that was announced back in October 2006. The offer was made back then. Unfortunately, the government only took us up on three bills: C-9, conditional sentencing; Bill C-19, street racing; and Bill C-26, payday loans. But Bills C-18, C-22, and C-23 were part of that offer. You and your government, in its wisdom, decided not to take us up on it in October. The offer was again made when we came back after the Christmas break. The government decided not to take us up on it.

We're now making it for a third time, this time in writing, as part of an actual motion on which you and your colleagues will be called on to vote. I'm hopeful, and I'm asking if you will be prepared to recommend to your Prime Minister, to your colleagues, that they vote in favour of the Liberal opposition day motion, which would deem Bills C-18, DNA identification; C-22, age of protection; C-23, criminal procedures; and C-35, reverse onus for bail hearings, to have been considered by the House at all stages and adopted.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), I have the honour to present the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I raised the issue of Bill C-22, it was not at all my intent to delay the review on the judicial appointment process suggested by Mr. Ménard in his motion. It was, in fact, because we felt that these two issues were equally important. The review of the appointment process was done by the government without any consultation.

This was, moreover, what prompted me to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that the government consider referring Bill C-22 to a legislative committee, despite the fact that the House had referred it to the Standing Committee on Justice. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that associate members of a standing committee can sit on legislative committees. So it isn't true that only the regular committee members can sit on it.

I would also like to correct a statement made by Mr. Moore to the effect that legislative committees are established further to an agreement or consensus amongst the parliamentary leaders. If that were the case, there would not have been the government motion before the House on Bill C-35, which is aimed at reversing the onus of proof in cases awaiting trial. The parliamentary leaders were not consulted: the government acted unilaterally.

If committee members feel that Bill C-22 is as important as we, the members of the opposition, feel it is, by agreeing to study the judicial appointment process which was done unilaterally by the government, I move that Mr. Moore go back to his minister, his parliamentary leader, and, if necessary, his Prime Minister, and suggest that the parliamentary leaders consult with one another during their meeting on Tuesday afternoon. A suggestion could be made that another motion be tabled in the House requesting that the House review its decision, namely, that it refer Bill C-22 to a legislative committee rather than the Standing Committee on Justice.

In my opinion, that would suit everybody. The government would ensure that Bill C-22 is examined without delay and all of the members of this committee would be able to review the judicial appointment process, which was reviewed by the government without any consultation.

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 the debate on the Liberal opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will resume debate on Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill, with Bill C-35, the bail reform bill as backup.

Monday we will call Bill C-31, elections, if it is not completed tomorrow; Bill C-44, human rights; Bill C-11, transport; Bill C-33, technical income tax; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; and the statutory order. We have an ambitious agenda there.

Tuesday, February 20, and Thursday, February 22, will be allotted to the business of supply.

On Wednesday we will continue with the business outlined on Monday.

Next Friday, I will consider beginning the debate on Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries.

With respect to the debate on the statutory order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, if an agreement on debate is not reached before February 28, certain provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act will sunset. It is the government's view that all members should be given the opportunity to decide the fate of these provisions because they involve the safety of people they represent.

Recent events have made us aware that the terrorist threats continue to specifically target Canada, but if the terms of the law are not extended by March 1, the protections that we have in place right now will cease to apply.

If an agreement can be reached, I am prepared to call the motion sooner and sit as long as necessary on that day to bring the debate to a conclusion.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-35 to amend the Criminal Code to reverse the burden of proof in bail hearings for individuals arrested for having committed firearm-related offences.

Since arriving in this House, I have commented on several government bills pertaining to justice. With regard to this new proposal, I believe that it is essential to put Bill C-35 into context because this bill lacks a solid factual foundation to determine if it will be effective with respect to firearms-related offences.

At present, it is up to the crown to prove that the accused must not be released on bail because he or she represents a danger to society. In the Criminal Code, the burden of proof rests with the accused only in very specific cases.

I would like to provide the context for amendments suggested by Bill C-35. First of all, there is reverse onus at the bail hearing for certain firearms-related offences. The accused will have to prove that he should not be detained prior to his trial. The bill adds two factors that the judge must take into account in making a decision to release the accused or to place him in custody for the duration of criminal proceedings. These two factors are the use of a firearm and an offence that involves a minimum prison term of three years or more.

In this sense, the Conservative government's bill seeks to broaden the existing range of exceptions that reverse onus. As I mentioned earlier, the accused bears the burden of proof for certain, specified offences, such as breach of release conditions, involvement in organized crime, terrorism, trafficking, contraband or drug production.

If this bill passes, it will add to these cases, which we consider serious, another set of exceptions in which people accused of committing a crime with a firearm will have to prove to the judge that they can be released without fear for society. This is very difficult to prove, especially for someone accused of attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, sexual assault with a weapon, and so forth.

As I was saying, I have had a chance to study some of the government’s justice bills. Once again, Bill C-35 raises considerable concern because it is of the same ilk as some of the previous ones and falls back on the rhetoric of toughening up the law, instead of looking at crime prevention, in order to give the impression that the government is doing something.

This demagogic approach is apparent in the repeated government gestures in the area of justice. For example, they attack judicial discretion, make lists that fail to deal with the particular realities, and concentrate on repression when there is no scientific basis for it. Here once again, they are attacking the basic principles of our justice system. These gestures make me wonder, therefore, what they are doing and the reasons for this bill.

I would like to focus on two concerns that I think pose a threat to our current legal system. First—and this is something we have already seen in previous bills—Bill C-35 undermines judicial discretion in sentencing. In the British legal tradition, it is incumbent upon the Crown to show that a person cannot be released because of fears for public safety. I do not believe that putting the onus on the individual in the legal system is the right way to proceed or that it affords the opportunities to which everyone is entitled. We know very well that there are already exceptions in very serious cases, but they should not be made the rule.

At present, judges can impose any reasonable conditions they consider appropriate, such as curfews or a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol or drugs. They can attach other conditions as well, such as the need to appear before a law enforcement officer at certain times, remain within a certain geographical jurisdiction, and provide notification of any change of address or employment.

Secondly, there have not been as many studies of release on bail as of other facets of the criminal justice system. We might not have answers to even the simplest of questions, beginning with this one: how many people accused of committing a crime with a firearm are actually released on bail?

With regard to this glaring lack of relevant information, I wonder about a press release issued on November 23, 2006, in which the Prime Minister mentioned that more than 1,000 crimes had been committed with a firearm in Toronto alone. According to his police sources, 40% of these crimes were committed by someone who was on parole, bail, temporary absence or probation. Why does this government mix all the release categories together to justify Bill C-35, when its bill specifically targets people who are on bail? Does the government have any relevant statistics for this particular release category?

I would also like to mention the article in the November 24, 2006, issue of La Presse indicating that even the Montreal police could not say how many crimes involving firearms were committed by repeat offenders.

What is more, according to Tony Doob, a criminologist at the University of Toronto, the statistics in this area do not tell the whole story, because someone could be out on bail as a result of simple theft, a situation Bill C-35 would not address. People accused of offences involving firearms are already faced with something like reverse onus. The expert adds that the question is whether the bill will make it possible to imprison a dangerous person who would not otherwise have been incarcerated.

Speaking of relevant statistics, I will add that there are more people behind bars awaiting trial than people serving sentences. According to Statistics Canada, in 2004, there were 125,871 Canadians in prison awaiting trial, while 83,733 people behind bars were serving court-ordered sentences. I can therefore conclude that the main objective of the bill—to reverse onus in the case of release on bail for all people accused of crimes involving firearms—lacks judgment and clarity.

For all these reasons, I am opposed to Bill C-35, even though there are some exceptions.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of the answers that were given to specific questions, in particular by the last member, the Liberal lawyer. Bless her little pea picking heart. She just does not get it. She just does not understand exactly what it is that we are getting at.

I am putting it as plain as I can. A person is assaulted. It is traumatic and shocking. There is an arrest. The accused is in jail. The victim is at peace. The police did their job. Then the courts allow bail. How does that make the victim feel?

Do not fear. The judge tells the accused not to go near the victim. That does not mean squat to these criminals. When we are talking about violent offenders using guns and getting released on bail, it creates further trauma in the lives of victims. I really do not see why Liberals have so much difficulty understanding that.

I am extremely proud of the ministers in my party, both past and present, for pushing these kinds of pieces of legislation forward. They heard the message that I heard and that I have been hearing for 13 years: Canadians want us to do something about crime in this country, particularly violent crime. I applaud these people for bringing forward legislation that addresses many people's concerns.

I am pleased to hear that the NDP is supporting this bill, but to say the Conservatives only put it forward for political gains is nonsense. I know that every member in the House today heard the same message in their ridings. Canadians want us to clamp down on crime, particularly those involved with the use of guns. I am proud to be part of an organization that is attempting to do that.

The other thing I want to mention is the omnibus bill. Bloc and NDP members all seemed to insist that in order to do legislation properly there should be more pieces put together to form a big bill and cover all these things. For 13 years the justice committee has been dealing with omnibus bills brought forward by the previous government.

Here is the problem. In some of these omnibus bills there were certain aspects that I kind of liked and that my party was supportive of, but then there were other portions that we did not particularly like. Efforts were made to amend those portions to make them better and then finally we end up with a total package. The omnibus bill then comes before the House and we have to cast a ballot.

Like the old saying goes, if one takes a spoonful of sugar before the medicine goes down, one can swallow the whole idea more easily. I never ever felt good about supporting an omnibus bill that had certain sections in it that I could not support and yet other sections I could.

The biggest example I can think of is the child protection act. Over the years when we worked on that particular piece of legislation, we could never get one aspect right and that was how to deal with child pornography, one of the most evil acts in the country which has grown into a $1 billion industry because we did not do anything about it right from the very beginning. We attempted to, but could not do it because the legislation was concerned about the rights of certain individuals being trampled on, like freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

Then, some judge in a court case decided that child pornography might have some artistic merit. I think we all remember that. Suddenly the police had to take every item of child pornography they managed to confiscate and examine it carefully to make sure it did not have some artistic merit.

We all agreed about this in the House, and even the government thought it was a good idea, so it brought in another bill and tried to get rid of certain wording to make it right so that we could get after this child pornography. The Liberals tried “public good”, but nobody could agree that any child pornography would have any public good. Then they tried another term: “useful purpose”. After much debate, we could not go along with that either, so the omnibus bill had to leave in certain things that left it open to child pornography, such that people who offended others with that material could use some of those excuses to carry on with what has grown into a billion dollar industry today.

I do not feel very good about that, nor should any member of the House who has been here for the last few years. Nor should any member who is here today feel good about that happening. We should have broken up the omnibus bill and dealt with child pornography with legislation that would defeat one of the most evil things that occurs in our society. But we do not do that.

I know that bail has caused a lot of trauma in the lives of a lot of victims simply because the offenders are out again. Violent offenders are released on bail. It happens. My personal belief is that there should be no bail for any violent offender, but as for putting reverse onus on them, I can go along with it.

If the onus is on the individual to explain to me why he should be allowed bail, I will go along with that. I will not go along with this constant letting out on bail of people who have traumatized victims across the country only to traumatize them again because they are free again. It does not matter what kind of court order there is for these people not to go within 1,000 yards, or not to go to that site, or near a school or whatever. That does not matter to these offenders. Getting out is what matters to them.

This bill is an attempt to just bring in another measure of safety to our society, a little more protection. Our Canadian society has demanded a lot of things. We need to adapt to the changing times and the changing crimes going on today. We need to update and enhance our bail regime to reflect our collective denunciation of gun crimes, which I know we all do.

Let us leave the duck hunters alone. Let us leave the deer hunters alone. Let us go after the criminals. Somebody once said to me that we needed to get to the root cause of crime but we did not know where to start, and suddenly, eureka, someone discovered it: the root cause of crime is criminals.

Lo and behold, it is a new discovery: criminals cause crime. What makes that happen? We are not too certain in a lot of cases. We use some things to try to give them an excuse sometimes. We have to quit doing that. We need to address the fact that people in this country have to make choices, and the choices cannot be crime, because if that is the choice, they will not like the results.

Fighting crime includes preventive measures. I consider Bill C-35 part of those measures.

With Bill C-35, those accused of serious offences involving firearms or other regulated weapons will have to justify why they should get bail, and rightfully so. Canadian citizens expect those who pose a significant risk to public safety to be kept behind bars. That is what Canadian citizens expect. They want a criminal justice system that protects them from violent crimes. That has to include an effective bail regime.

This is only a small part of the things we need to do. Yes, I believe in rehabilitation, and I believe in prevention. I believe in getting to the root causes. We must deal with them, but at the same time we have to get a message out there to those who violently attack people with guns, or without, that it is no longer going to be acceptable, because Canadian citizens, who expect to be protected from these people, will be protected. I am pleased to be part of a group of people running this country at the present time who want to do exactly that.

We need new tools to combat crime and to ensure that our streets and our homes are safe. One of those tools is to make it more difficult for a person charged with serious violent crimes to get on bail. Bill C-35 will make that happen.

Bill C-35 will make bail more difficult to obtain for an accused who is charged with the following: a serious crime involving the use of a firearm, possession of a firearm for the purpose of trafficking, firearms smuggling, or with any weapon-related offence allegedly committed while the accused is bound by a weapons prohibitions order.

I ask all members of this House to please support these kinds of measures for the sake of the safety of our communities. Several of our large urban centres are now facing a new brand of criminality. The member from Edmonton who was in the House a few minutes ago made that point about the changes that are happening in his city involving the criminal use or illegal possession of firearms.

Innocent people are being affected by inner city gang violence, random shootings and armed robberies. We only have to go back to Boxing Day, that dreadful day, to remember that. And there are killings in schools. We need to protect Canadians from these threats.

On the recent trends with respect to gun crimes, I want to illustrate the threat that such crimes pose to public safety. According to 2005 statistics on crime, rapes, homicides and attempted murders increased in 2005.

Homicide is the most serious of all criminal acts, including first and second degree murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Following a 13% increase in 2004, the homicide rate increased by a further 4% in 2005. Police services reported a total of 658 homicides in 2005, 34 more than 2004. The rate of two homicides per 100,000 people was the highest since 1996.

The rate of attempted murders also increased by 14% in 2005. There were 772 attempted murders, 100 more than in the previous year. The rise in the number of homicides at the national level was primarily driven by large increases in Ontario, where there were 31 more homicides than in the previous year, and in Alberta, where the number of homicides for 2005 increased by 23.

Even if the overall crime rate was lower in Canada this past year, the crime rate for these violent offences was on the rise and continues to be on the rise.

According to a Statistics Canada 2005 homicide survey, gang related homicides as a percentage of all homicides continue to increase. The percentage of firearm homicides reported as being gang related was 2.1% in 1993, with 13 victims. It was up to 9.1% five years later in 1998, with 51 victims. In the last two years, there was an average of 78 victims each year, representing 13.4% of all firearm homicides.

According to this same report, the number and percentage of handguns used in firearm homicides have continued to increase over the last three decades. In 1974, 76 or 27% of all firearm homicides were committed with handguns. In 1984, 66 or 29% of all firearm homicides were committed by handguns. In 1994, the number increased considerably to 90 incidents, representing 46% of all firearm homicides. In spite of a very significant decrease in overall firearm homicides since the mid-1990s, the number of handgun homicides increased to 112 in 2004, which is 64% of the firearm homicides.

There has been a lot of emphasis in the speeches today with regard to the gun registry. Obviously these figures tell me that it is not the registry that is going to save the day. It is not working. It is causing a lot of grief for duck hunters and law-abiding people, but it does not appear to be causing enough grief for the criminal element.

With respect to firearm robberies, it should be noted that while firearm robberies have declined considerably over the last decades, the portion of handgun robberies has increased. In 2004, 85% of all firearm robberies were committed with handguns. The number of firearm robberies doubled in Nova Scotia between 2003 and 2004. Several metropolitan areas have firearm robbery rates well above the national rate. The rates for 2004 were: in Montreal, 24 per 100,000 population; in Winnipeg, 19.7 per 100,000 population; in Toronto, 18.6 per 100,000 population; and in Vancouver, 17.8 per 100,000 population.

All of these remain much higher than the national rate of 11.8 per 100,000 population. In spite of a downward trend in crime, as they say, it is beginning to skyrocket in other major centres.

Increases have also been noted in the use of handguns in other violent crimes, including firearm crimes such as attempted murder and extortion. The statistics compiled by the homicide squad of the Toronto police service for 2006 reflect these trends. There were 62 murders in Toronto as of November 22, 2006. Of the 46 persons that were arrested, 14 were on bail at the time of the murder and 17 were on court-ordered firearms prohibition orders. Let me repeat that: 14 were on bail at the time of the murder.

Whether we live in a big city such as Toronto or in a rural setting like mine, we all want to feel safe in our homes, on our streets and in our public places.

Communities, as well as participants in the justice system, have reason to be concerned about the release from custody of people involved in gun and gang related crimes. We need to protect Canadians who wish to go about their daily lives without the fear of being the victim of a crime. Most certainly, we need to go about our daily lives without the fear that some person in jail because of a very violent and heinous crime dare be released on bail only to traumatize the residents of that large city or that rural setting. The point is that this is happening far too often.

I applaud my minister for bringing forward legislation that attempts to help make our communities and our society safer. I will fight for that cause for as long I stand in the House of Commons. I never will give up that fight.

I beg all members of the House to hear the Canadian citizens. They are calling for measures to do what this bill would do, which is make our communities safer. Please support the bill.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Throughout the various testimonies that were heard by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, one of the main issues was that, in my province and especially in Montreal, firearms can be found in any restaurant in Montreal within half an hour.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Ahuntsic published a book that effectively summarizes the situation in Montreal, namely, that there are currently 34 street gangs in the city, which are giving firearms to children as young as 11 and 12. Why? Because they are engaged in drug trafficking and prostitution.

All of this was summarized in the book, which is an excellent read, incidentally. I urge everyone to consult it. They will then see why Bill C-35 is needed at this time.

My colleague often tells us that we have a right-leaning ideology, because we propose bills that perhaps go against their ideology, which tends to promote certain things that would take away from the sense of security that we wish to ensure. However, the sentiment must also be accompanied by legislation and changes to legislation.

Can my colleague tell me how the reversal of onus, which Bill C-35 proposes—and which will be introduced—goes against section 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states: “Any person charged with an offence has the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause”?

How do the two or three short sentences of Bill C-35, which are referred to as amendments, infringe on section 11(e) of the charter?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the justice critic for the official opposition, I am very pleased to rise in this House to discuss Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

Before I begin my speech, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his kind words of congratulation on my appointment to the critic portfolio.

No doubt everyone is aware that Bill C-35 amends the Criminal Code to provide that the accused will be required to demonstrate, when charged with certain serious offences involving firearms or other regulated weapons, that pre-trial detention is not justified in their case.

The bill also introduces two factors relating to such offences that the courts must take into account in deciding whether detention is justified or not.

I can say right now that the Liberal Party is not opposed to the principle of reverse onus on bail issues. This principle is already in use in Canadian courts. It is in the Criminal Code for serious offences, such as murder.

Therefore, our party would in fact like to see this bill referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that we can ensure it will accomplish what it sets out to do, that it does indeed meet appropriate safeguards, such as that of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that legal and criminal experts do concur in its usefulness.

Accordingly, I would normally have respectfully asked my caucus colleagues to support sending Bill C-35 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights at second reading. However, the motion that the government has tabled would have this bill go to a special legislative committee. As such, I have not had an opportunity to study the ramifications should the House decide to send it to a legislative committee. I honestly believe that the bill should go to the justice committee. However, I would welcome comments from the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government as to the reasons for sending it to a legislative committee rather than to the justice committee.

Getting back to the bill itself, given that the bill would amend the current provisions of Canada's bail system, perhaps we should begin our inquiry with a look at how bail arrangements now function.

It is the charter that sets out the basic measures regarding bail. The charter's section 11 lists the fundamental legal rights of Canadians who stand accused of certain crimes. The charter states:

Any person charged with an offence has the right:

a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

That means a person cannot be forced to incriminate himself or herself.

d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; and

e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause--

The charter sets out the very conditions by which our criminal provisions must operate. It has as a principle that an individual who is charged of a crime is not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.

As I mentioned, the Liberal Party is not opposed in principle to reverse onus in the case of bail. We ourselves have brought in provisions over the years since Confederation on the creation, adoption and subsequent modification and amendment to our criminal justice system provisions that provide for reverse onus for certain crimes. That is not the issue here.

Members may then ask about the last point, which makes clear that liberty pending trial is the presumption and basic entitlement of every Canadian under the charter. We are all presumed innocent, as many of my colleagues who have spoken to this bill have underlined, and we are all granted the right not to be denied bail without just cause.

Then let us talk about which reasons could motivate a judge to deny bail to a suspect accused of a particular crime where there is not already a reverse onus provision in the Criminal Code. Charter section 11(e) which states “not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause”, presumes then that the individual charged with a criminal offence has the possibility of getting bail and it is up to the Crown to show to the judge why that accused should not be awarded bail.

Current provisions hold that bail can be denied on one or more of the following three grounds. The first or primary ground is to ensure that the accused does not flee from justice on any charges currently before the courts. This could be someone who has been charged for a crime but who has not yet stood trial but who is then found, on reasonable grounds, to have committed another criminal offence and is charged with new charges. This is a primary ground where the judge could and would probably refuse bail on the grounds that the accused was a real danger of flight risk.

The secondary ground on which a judge may refuse or deny bail to a suspect is to protect the public if there is substantial likelihood that the accused will reoffend if released.

The tertiary ground is to maintain Canadians' confidence in the administration of justice in their country, for instance, in light of the gravity of the offence. Many times if someone is charged with an offence that is particularly heinous and quite grave, the judge will take that into account and deem it necessary to deny bail in order to preserve Canadians' confidence in the administration of justice.

Under the circumstances that I have just outlined, the prosecutor bears the onus of demonstrating why an accused should be refused or denied bail.

However, as I said a few moments ago, there are some cases where the accused has the onus of demonstrating that pre-trial detention is not justified.

There is a range of situations in which the accused—the accused, not the Crown—must satisfy a judge that he or she deserves to be released before trial. I would like to offer a few examples.

When the suspect is charged with an indictable offence committed while already released and awaiting trial on another indictable offence. In that case, it is the accused who will have to satisfy the judge that there are reasons and grounds that justify the judge granting release on bail.

When the suspect fails to appear in court or has allegedly breached a release condition. This is another situation in which it is the accused who must satisfy the judge that he or she deserves to be released while awaiting trial.

When the suspect is charged with an indictable offence involving organized crime, terrorism or security of information.

There is also the case of a suspect charged with an indictable offence consisting of drug trafficking, smuggling or production.

And last—although this list is not exhaustive—when the suspect is not a Canadian resident and is charged with any indictable offence.

These are situations in which, under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, the accused has the burden of proof and must satisfy the judge as to the reasons why he or she should be released.

The reverse onus already exists in those situations. That is proof that the Liberal Party is not opposed in principle to the idea of reverse onus for release on bail.

As well, a person charged with murder, treason, certain war crimes or other rare indictable offences is automatically kept in detention until he or she is granted interim release after a hearing before a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

We can therefore see that there are a variety of situations in which the principle of no pre-trial detention, a principle found in section 11 of the Charter, is already reversed in the Criminal Code. Thus there are various reasons that can justify the reverse onus.

Speaking as justice critic for the official opposition, as I said earlier, we would like to see this bill sent to a committee, but to the Standing Committee on Justice.

I stand to be corrected if information is wrong. The government is offering as its reason that this will expedite matters, that the Standing Committee on Justice is buried in work and that it would not be able to examine a bill like this expeditiously and effectively.

But a legislative committee will for the most part be composed of the same members—as the House is aware—because it is the members of the Standing Committee on Justice who have expertise and experience in this field.

We are simply going to divide them in half, and the work will not get done any faster.

Before addressing this subject, I would like to point out that the government has not answered certain questions. Here are a few examples.

When the government publicly announced its intention to rewrite some of our bail laws, there was interest and support but questions were asked. At the time, some of the concern, which no longer appears to exist, about the then long promised legislation, focused on whether the law would survive constitutional scrutiny. In my view, it most likely will, but if the bill should become law, we can expect to see challenges to the courts on the constitutionality of the bill.

However, most experts, leaving aside the constitutional issue, which most experts now seem to downplay, are still troubled with the larger issue, which is whether bail laws are an effective tool for cracking down on gun violence.

I believe the government would admit that bail has not been researched as extensively as other areas of our criminal justice system and that some of the most basic questions regarding the effectiveness of our bail laws as they exist today remain unanswered. For instance, how many people who are currently charged with gun crimes are actually granted bail? In a longitudinal study, how many individuals convicted of committing a gun crime have been released on bail? Under the current criminal provisions, it is possible for a person to actually reoffend while awaiting trial and reoffend in a firearm related offence. We do not have any of that information.

I noted the comments made by the member for Wild Rose, in response to members of an opposition party, when he said that we need to act. I agree that we need to act, but I do not think we need to act cautiously. We need to act in full knowledge so that we know that the legislation we bring forward will achieve the objectives that we want it to achieve.

We also want to ensure it will be effective. The worst thing any government or any Parliament can do is adopt legislation on the basis that it will make our communities safer but in the end does no such thing. It gives a false sense of security to Canadians, which is not a good thing. When Canadians realize that the legislation does not make them safer, it becomes that much more difficult to convince Canadians that other legislation is effective.

It is difficult to bring in legislation, but particularly legislation that restricts the scope of freedom, the liberty and the rights we all enjoy in particular situations. The bill is being touted as one that would make our communities safer. It may very well do that but we need the information.

In 1995 the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario criminal justice system found that blacks accused of a crime were more likely than white people accused of a crime to be imprisoned before trial. That means to be denied bail while awaiting trial. That difference in the numbers could not be explained away or justified by the factors normally considered in granting bail.

In 2004 there were 125,871 Canadians in prison and awaiting trial, and 83,733 behind bars serving sentences. That is according to Statistics Canada.

I hope the government would agree that this bill should go before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The government should bring us the information that will assure us and Canadians that should the bill be adopted, it will in fact be effective and achieve the objectives it is supposed to and make our country--

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work on the justice committee. I will take this opportunity to congratulate her on her appointment as justice critic, which often puts me on the receiving end of that criticism, but that is fine because that is the way our system works.

Actually there are about 35,000 individuals in Canada who are currently under a prohibition order. The answer to the hon. member's question is no, those prohibition orders do not always result from the serious offences that I set out, but could result from a number of other offences that may involve a firearm but are not listed in Bill C-35.

The bill groups three different groups of individuals together: those who have committed one of the eight serious offences that I listed, and I will not list them again; the three offences specifically related to firearms, firearms trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking and firearms smuggling; and those that are currently under a firearm prohibition order. Those are the three groups that are captured by the bill. All of them in some way knew they had committed an offence involving a firearm, a serious offence. They have been involved with illegal acts involving a firearm, such as trafficking or smuggling, or they are under an order not to be in possession of a firearm. They are all firearms related.

We are saying that if an individual is arrested for an offence involving a firearm and is before a judge, the onus is on the individual to prove why on balance the judge should grant bail. Bail is not a right in our system; it is something that can be obtained, but the individual is going to have to prove why he or she should receive it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, had to say.

I was struck by one of the figures he mentioned: that there are currently 30,000 Canadians who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Does he have more specific details than just that one number? Were these people found guilty of a criminal offence involving a firearm?

I am in a quandary. It is all very well and good to say that 30,000 Canadians are under a prohibition order to possess a firearm. That would presume obviously and clearly that those individuals have been convicted of some criminal offence, but it is not clear whether or not they have all been convicted of one of what we would call the serious offences on which Bill C-35 would actually place a reverse onus for bail. If not all of them, what percentage of them were actually convicted of the specific offences that would be touched by Bill C-35?

I would truly appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary would provide that information. If he cannot at this moment, I am sure he or the government officials would be more than happy to bring that information to committee, should this bill go to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to rise to speak in support of Bill C-35. This government bill would amend the bail provisions of the Criminal Code to provide a reverse onus for firearm related offences.

It was with great interest that I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the exchange in questions and answers. I think parts of it were quite informative.

The government said it would tackle gun crimes with effective measures that would be targeted at the right group. That group, as all right thinking people know, are those who would use a firearm for a criminal purpose and not law-abiding firearms owners.

We have seen the effects of targeting the wrong the people. When we have a problem, we should all know intuitively that we have to target the problem and not target what is not the problem.

In Canada the law-abiding firearms community, people who are duck hunters or who represent us at the Olympics in shooting sports, are not the problem. The problem, as we all know, are those who would use a firearm in the commission of an offence against an innocent Canadian, against another person.

Like Bill C-10 on mandatory minimum penalties for serious and repeat firearm offences, Bill C-35 is appropriately directed at the gun crime problem that we must address in Canada.

I am proud that the government has come forward with this important legislation. It aims to protect Canadians from the threat of gun crimes.

In the context of studying and debating Bill C-10, both in the House and at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we have heard from many witnesses, professors, criminal justice experts and police representatives, all describing the gun crime trend in Canada. We have received many statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. As a general overview, I believe it is fair to say that while there has been a decline in most firearm offences in Canada over the last few decades, there has been a growing problem in many parts of the country with respect to guns and gangs.

This is precisely why the government, in Bill C-10, has targeted specifically individuals who use handguns and other prohibited weapons in the commission of a crime and gangs that use firearms to victimize other Canadians.

In many areas the problem largely revolves around the drug trade or turf wars, particularly in many of our large urban centres. Police officers have expressed the concern for some time that they have come across more illegal guns, particularly handguns, in their investigations. The problem with guns, gangs and drugs is not only communicated to us by the police. There have been several cases reported on in the media in the last year to confirm the prevalence of gun violence in many different parts of Canada.

In the last year or so there has been the Dawson College shooting in which a student was killed and approximately 20 others were sent to hospital, many with very serious injuries.

There was the shooting of three police officers in Winnipeg late last fall. Earlier in the year a Windsor police officer was killed in the line of duty.

There was a shooting in London, Ontario last fall where the accused, charged with four counts of attempted murder, was released on bail. I will repeat that one. Bill C-35 seeks to address the issue of bail.

Also, there was the 2005 Boxing Day shooting in downtown Toronto, which resulted in the tragic death of another innocent young woman.

These are just a few examples, as Canada has on average a couple of hundred firearms homicides each year.

Some people may say that, as parliamentarians, we ought to be cautious and not react too swiftly with legislative reforms to address a few high profile horrendous cases. However, we must be alert to the undercurrent behind an emerging trend and be prepared to act decisively to address the problem.

I have always found it problematic when individuals say that it is just anecdotal or that it is just one example. Of course it is just one example. These are the life stories of many Canadians, in fact the life and death stories of many Canadians. It means something to them and to their families. We should all agree in the House that if we can prevent one of these anecdotal crimes, then we would be doing a great service to those individuals and our country.

Bill C-10 was the government's first step in tackling the problem of gun crimes. This initiative was coupled with other measures to help prevent crime, such as funding for programs directed at keeping at risk youth from getting involved with guns, gangs and drugs in the first place.

This is another aspect that we hear all the time at justice committee and public safety committee. People ask these questions. Why do we not go to the root cause of crime? Why do we not address funding shortfalls? Why we do we not put more resources to youth at risk? I am pleased to say we are doing that. We are addressing youth at risk. The Minister of Public Safety recently announced funding for programs targeting at youth at risk.

We are also using preventative measures such as putting police on the streets. From many jurisdictions where this has taken place, we know that putting police on the streets does have an impact on crime. However, sometimes there are those cases where the crime does happen. In spite of all the preventative measures we take and in spite of the police being on the street, someone commits a crime with a gun against another Canadian.

That is where our Criminal Code comes into place. It is our responsibility at the federal level and as parliamentarians to ensure that the Criminal Code is up to snuff, it is up to date, it is up to the task of preventing crime and protecting Canadians.

I feel that Bill C-35 is an important component of our plan to fight gun crime at the beginning of the criminal justice process. Bill C-35 deals with bail hearings. After people are charged, they are brought before the court for a bail hearing, unless they are released by the police because they do not pose a threat to public safety nor represent a risk of absconding.

During bail hearings, the prosecutor usually bears the onus of demonstrating why an accused should be denied bail. In some situations, the onus falls on the accused. Bill C-35 proposes to add other reverse onus situations to specifically include serious offences involving firearms.

Why does this make sense? Evidence has shown that someone who is involved in an offence regarding a firearm or someone who is violating a prohibition order involving a firearm could indeed pose a significantly greater threat than someone who perhaps stole a stereo, for example. We need to crack down on all crime. I cited an example earlier in my speech where someone, who is out on bail, committed horrific acts against innocent Canadians.

Bill C-35 proposes a reverse onus for the offences of weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking and weapons smuggling. It also proposes a reverse onus for any indictable offence that involves a firearm or other regulated weapon if the offence is committed while the accused is under a weapons prohibition order.

It should be noted that this reverse onus is not limited to offences that involve the actual use of a firearm or other weapon.

Bill C-35 proposes a reverse onus for eight serious offences when committed with a firearm. Those offences are as follows: attempted murder, robbery, discharging a firearm with criminal intent, sexual assault with a firearm, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking or extortion.

Bill C-35 proposes another amendment to require the bail hearing court to consider the fact that a firearm was allegedly used in the commission of other indictable offences, when deciding whether the accused could be kept in custody in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Lastly, an amendment is proposed to provide that the courts must also consider whether the accused faces a minimum term of imprisonment of three years or more for a firearm related offence.

The new reverse onus situations proposed in Bill C-35 will assist in ensuring that persons involved in serious weapon related offences are not released back into the community without full consideration by the courts of the risks such individuals pose to the safety of the public. It will help address the underlying problem that has emerged in recent years with respect to guns, gangs and the drug trade.

When we talk about guns and gangs in the urban centres, we often focus on the urban centres. It is not limited to the urban centres. Firearms offences take place in probably all areas of Canada. In my province of New Brunswick and in my riding of Fundy Royal we hear about these offences. The Criminal Code applies equally to all areas of Canada because all Canadians are deserving of that protection. This is not something that is limited only to the cities.

We have heard overwhelmingly from the cities. We have heard from the city of Toronto, Canada's largest city, that this legislation is exactly what is needed to deal with some of the problems it is experiencing with gang and gun violence.

I urge all members, whether from a rural or an urban area, regardless of their political stripe, to listen to what the experts and front line workers have to say, those who work with victims, those who work in the justice field and those who work in corrections. Listen to what the mayors of the cities have to say about people who have committed offences, or charged with them, and are out on bail. Hear what they are saying about putting the onus on those individuals to prove why they should be out on bail, or released onto the streets, especially when the incident involved a firearm or a criminal act while they were on a prohibition order for a firearm.

I urge all hon. members to consider supporting this worthwhile bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address some comments to Bill C-35, a government bill that at its essence introduces the use of the reverse onus to a number of new offences under the Criminal Code and provides a framework within which that reverse onus would be applied in our courts.

Bill C-35 is typical of the government's agenda. It has consistently presented short, individual issue bills to the House that have tied up debate in the House quite extensively. This certainly has tied up the justice committee very extensively and has put us way behind in coping with those bills.

It was not necessary. This is all about a political and ideologically driven agenda of the government. If it were really serious about dealing with crime and these particular issues of crime, in this case gun related ones, we could have been moving much more quickly, effectively and efficiently by having a number of these bills combined into an omnibus bill.

I am happy to say that I have carried on some discussions with the new Minister of Justice. I am hoping that we may in fact get a more positive response from him than has been reflected by his predecessor or by the government to this point, so that Canadians can have assurances that gun crimes and other crimes, serious ones in particular, are being dealt with as effectively as possible by the House and by the government, and that the criminal justice system will serve them to its absolutely peak of efficiency.

That is not the case with the government, because to a great extent, and there are some elements in the bill that I think reflect it, the government really is not serious about getting tough on crime. What it really is serious about is using the misfortune of so many victims of crime for its own political ends: to get elected and to try to form a majority government. That is really what this is about. That, quite frankly, is to the government's shame.

Having said that, I note that this bill, like so many others that have been introduced, has some basically solid elements to it, but again like so many, our position on it is that the government may have very well strayed over into the extreme, which it has a very strong tendency to do. I think the government is repeating that here.

Because I think the bill is fixable in committee, even though the government is sending it to a legislative committee rather than the justice committee, I believe it can be amended to bring it into line and to make it more effective and more usable.

I think it is important to make this point, and again, this is to perhaps repudiate some of the sales job that has gone on from that party and the government around this particular bill. The point needs to be very clearly made because oftentimes I hear members of the Conservative Party who do not really understand our existing law trying to portray this new one as covering fields that have already been taken care of.

The reverse onus already applies in the situation whereby an individual accused has been charged with an indictable offence and released on bail and then is charged again. On the second time, the reverse onus applies to that, so they are not released on a second offence unless they can establish to the satisfaction of the court that they are not a safety concern for society as a whole. That is already in our existing law, as is the reverse onus in a number of other types of crimes. Organized crime, terrorism and certain drug trafficking, drug smuggling and drug producing offences all have the reverse onus already applied.

We could go on. A number of them are applicable at this point, as are some of the more serious ones such as murder, treason and war crimes. All of these have reverse onus already applicable. What this bill is proposing to do is to extend it to more serious offences. I believe the government's number was eight offences.

Again, the government may very well have crossed over the line on some of these. Our courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, have made it quite clear that reverse onus can be used in appropriate circumstances. Where it has been tested up to this point, the courts have supported its use in the sections of the code that I have already mentioned. The government may have crossed the line with some of these, so it will be important at the committee stage to take evidence to try to ascertain whether the government, as it has so often in the past, has taken an extreme position and whether we have to bring it back somewhat from that.

However, certainly there are areas in which we do need to use the reverse onus more extensively than we have up to this point, so we will be supporting the bill with the expectation that at committee we will be able to make the proper amendments.

The other thing that I think is really important to appreciate is the fact that the whole bill of course is open to an attack under the charter, so we have to be very careful with regard to the way it is drafted. There is some wording that is unusual, let me put it that way, wording that I have not seen in the Criminal Code in the past at any time. There may very well have to be some amendments made to make sure that it is not so general and so vague that it will be subject to an attack under the charter and therefore struck down. There may be amendments along those lines. I can see a couple of areas where that is probably going to be necessary in the course of the work that the committee will do.

There is another major point, and again I think it is to the shame of the Conservative Party, which constantly brings forward this kind of legislation without understanding, or perhaps caring, about the circumstances. In this bill, there are going to be some consequences in terms of additional pressure on our courts, on our police officers because of the additional time they will probably end up spending in court testifying, and certainly on our prosecutors and our judiciary.

In all of those cases, the costs of those additional judges, the extra courtrooms, the prosecutors and, in a number of cases, the costs of the defence counsel through the legal aid systems in the provinces, are borne by the provinces. Up to this point in the roughly one year that this government has been in place and has been introducing these bills, we have seen a total disregard on the part of the government to take into account those consequences.

We have not seen any analysis in the previous bills that we have had before the justice committee. Whatever analysis we had on costs was drawn out by the opposition parties. I will take some particular credit for that, but all of us have looked at it and have drawn some of it out so that we understand the consequences of passing this legislation.

Because the analysis has not been done, there have been no arrangements made by this federal government to in effect subsidize or in any way financially assist the provinces in meeting these cost commitments that we impose upon them. That of course is having a deleterious effect on the relationship between the provinces and the federal government, as we have seen in a number of other areas in the past when we as a federal legislature pass laws that commit the provinces to spending money and provide no assistance for them to do that.

I have to say with regard to costs that my biggest concern is the number of additional incarcerations. We have to expect that this will happen. It is an inevitable consequence of this bill and is what the bill is intended to do. There will be additional incarcerations and those incarcerations will be in institutions that are owned and operated by the provinces.

We have no idea of how many there will be. We attempted to see if the minister had any sense of how many when he was addressing the House this morning. As is so typical, the government has not done the analysis. That will have to come out of the work the committee does. This is probably where the major cost is going to be. It is a cost that is borne entirely by the provinces. At this point, the provinces will have no idea of how much that is going to be because the analysis has not been done at the federal level.

There is another point, though, with regard to that. We know from evidence before committee that all of our provincial institutions in every province, without exception, is either at capacity or has an overcapacity for most of the institutions that house alleged criminals pending their trials. They are all overcrowded or at best are at capacity. By adding additional bodies to those institutions as part of the incarceration group, we will be taxing the facilities beyond their ability to respond.

That is significant in two ways. A judge looking at that situation will be much more prone to say that he or she is going to release the person, that the person may in fact be a danger to society but the judge is going to release him or her because there is really no capacity to deal with the person. The provinces have not been able to afford to expand the physical plants, says the judge, so he or she is going to release the person simply because of that.

Or, what is much more common, and which causes one of these unintended consequences that the government never thinks about, is that we are going to have the situation whereby a person is ultimately either pleading guilty or is convicted and is before the court during sentencing after conviction saying that he or she had to spend six months, a year and maybe even longer in some cases in a facility that was totally inadequate by Canadian standards. We know that is going on right now. Those convicted persons are given extra credit for that time.

If the sentence is for five years, the court may very well say that the person has already spent a year incarcerated so the court is going to give credit for that. Plus, as a bonus, because the incarceration was so bad and the circumstances were so bad and the system is so poor, the court may give the person credit for another year or perhaps even more. That is beginning to happen. It is quite common to get two for one credits, but now the arguments are coming for three to one credits.

If we build this legal infrastructure without taking that into account and providing the financial resources to the provinces to provide adequate housing for people who are accused of crimes, that is going to be the consequence. Thus, at the end of the day, we are going to have people getting out of our federal institutions--that is where they end up if the sentence is for more than two years--at a much faster rate, which is the complete opposite of the intention of the government, certainly, and I think of most of us who are looking at this bill and at what we want for the criminal justice system.

We are in the situation where that needs to be looked at by committee. The bill is now going to a special legislative committee. This is obviously another attempt by the government to speed up the process of bills going through. It would be much faster if the government used my suggestion, which I have made repeatedly, of using the omnibus bill approach, but even there the reality is that the legislative committee cannot sit at the same time as the justice committee.

Again, I do not know if either the Minister of Justice or the House leader appreciate this, but the legislative committee cannot sit at the same time as the justice committee because it is a justice bill. We will be scrambling to try to find slots of time whereby those of us who are sitting on that committee, and I am assuming I will be one of them, will be able to fit it into our schedules. It probably is not going to save any time. It is going to be a slower process in many respects than if the bill had been sent to the justice committee.

I would point out again that this was done without consultation with the opposition parties. Again, this is a reflection of a course of conduct of just how serious the government is with regard to dealing with crime in this country.

At the end of the day, as a party we will be supporting this bill at second reading to go to committee, but at committee we will be expecting in some cases minor amendments and in other cases some fairly serious amendments to ensure that this does comply with our existing criminal justice system standards, the charter in particular, and also to get more background material so we fully understand the consequences of this legislation.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague who just addressed the House concerning Bill C-35. I would first like to draw his attention to the following point. The Alarie report clearly states that one of the reasons for the Bloc's loss of seats in the Quebec region is because the Bloc brought up same-sex marriage and the maintenance of the firearms registry. It is therefore absolutely false to say that the firearms registry is becoming an issue. It is no longer an issue in Quebec or in the regions, in general. I am not the one saying this. It was indicated in the report prepared by Ms. Alarie, Vice-President of the Bloc Québécois.

Additionally, I could not but notice that my hon. colleague is a good orator and an excellent debater. However, I would like to point out to him that the Bloc's research often leads it towards France and the French justice system. I bring this up because, in the French justice system, the accused is considered guilty until proven innocent. Quite often, the Bloc seems to admire French culture and French justice. Everything that is French should apply in Canada.

I therefore ask my colleague why he does not support Bill C-35, which represents just one small part of what goes on in France, which as the Bloc members must know, has now decided to move more towards English law. Why is my colleague so vehemently and absolutely against Bill C-35, when the country that he most admires uses these provisions and has been using them for more than 200 years?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-35, concerning release on bail.

I must say that the Bloc Québécois, my leader, my colleagues and my colleague from Châteauguay, will not be supporting this bill. Not because the issues raised are not important, but we believe that this government has an insidious reflex, a dangerous propensity and tendency to want to undermine the principles of natural justice.

This bill wants to narrow the important concept of presumption of innocence. There are litigators in this House. I know that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was an extremely vigorous, formidable and respected attorney.

I have a small anecdote. Yesterday, I was at my last law course on evidence and procedure when, quite nonchalantly, my professor told me and my colleagues that he had an idol. He was referring to the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. Obviously, I was flattered by association by this tribute to the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It was the part of the course when we were talking about plea bargaining. It was extremely moving to me to hear my professor tell me that in the courts of justice where the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin worked as a stern defence attorney, he was a tough and formidable man. The professor explained to us that there was something insidious in plea bargaining, but that without it, the judicial system would break down under the pressure of all these charges and all these cases that have to be tried.

I know that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin will agree with me that there is something absolutely sacred in the presumption of innocence. We have learned that we have to minimize cases where there is reverse onus. The presumption of innocence must never be lost. It is the responsibility of the prosecution, it is the responsibility of the Crown to prove that the accused breached a provision of the Criminal Code.

Of course the Bloc Québécois is in full agreement with the idea—in fact it made a significant contribution to it—of giving police officers the most effective tools for conducting investigations and bringing people to justice.

In Quebec charges are not laid by the police. They are laid by attorneys general. But we are constantly concerned about the need to provide the police with the most effective tools. This is why in the past we have asked for extended wire-tapping warrants. This is also why we demanded provisions in the anti-gang law to bring charges against organized crime in the 1990s.

The most worrisome thing is to hear the Minister of Justice say that the bill will help prevent crime. This could not be less true. If the government is really concerned about crime prevention, perhaps—and I am sure that many members feel as I do—the Minister of Public Security will sign some projects under the national crime prevention strategy so that community groups can get down to work in our various ridings at the grassroots level with people in the communities, and do some real prevention work.

So Bill C-35 proposes that, at the appearance stage and in some cases even at the preliminary investigation state, the onus be placed on the accused, the person charged. Therefore before the trial the accused has to be able to show that he can be set free.

The Bloc Québécois does not think that this should be automatic. Being set free when one has broken the law is not a constitutional right. The constitutional right is the right to be represented by a lawyer, the right to be heard and to have a fair trial.

What we do not understand is why the Crown, why the Crown attorney, should be exempt from demonstrating that we are in the presence of an accused who does not deserve to be set free.

Once again I want us to be clear about this. We agree that in some situations an accused should not be set free and should be detained until his trial begins. The Criminal Code has such provisions. I would remind members that we are not before a judge or in a trial. We are in a situation where bail is an option. We are weighing the evidence, we are at the stage of an appearance or a preliminary investigation.

There are situations, of course, when it is prudent, justifiable and perfectly comprehensible for the Crown to say that an individual should not be released, for example when evidence might be destroyed, when the individual may not appear as required for his or her trial, or when the individual poses a danger to the victim or the community.

We also already have provisions that require people charged with an offence to show themselves why they should be released. This is true, for instance, in cases of gangsterism.

I was a member of this House when we passed Bill C-95. In its original version, this bill stated that if five people had been found guilty of five offences over the previous five years, they were members of a gang. It was the crime of gangsterism. Nowadays, the term has changed and we speak of a criminal organization.

We agree that if the information or indictment involves Criminal Code sections 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13, this is a serious enough matter. If a person is accused of gangsterism and is one of the members of society that has been criminalized to this extent, we agree that there should not be any automatic responses and it should be up to the person to demonstrate that he or she does not pose any threat to society. In most cases, these people are not released.

This is true not only of the old charge of gangsterism but also, as the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant pointed out, of the new gangsterism provisions passed in 2002. It is true as well when release conditions have been violated, when someone who was already out on bail or probation violated the conditions. If an individual already tried once to dodge the legal system and violated the conditions, it is completely understandable that he or she will not be released.

The bill goes much too far and there is a problem and considerable concern about offences committed with a firearm. I can never say enough about the inconsistencies, contradictions and stupidity of this government. On the one hand, it asks us parliamentarians to pass stricter legislation on offences committed with firearms, while on the other, it is willing to leave more arms in circulation.

What a disappointment it has been to us to see this government maneuvering, ever since it was elected, to abolish the gun registry.

The police have reminded us that this registry is consulted all across Canada, not just by the RCMP; not just by the Sûreté du Québec, and not only by the Montreal police. Police officers and law enforcement officers consult the registry 6,500 times a day. That is not insignificant.

I want to thank the researcher for the Bloc, Olivier Bernard, for providing us with very precise statistics. I will share them with you. What a contradiction this is. The gun registry, with compulsory registration, has been in existence for several years, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservatives have tabled a bill to dismantle it. This registry that is consulted an average of 6,500 times per day is not unimportant. There are 1.2 million restricted firearms that were required to be registered. That means 1.2 million firearms that were taken out of circulation thanks to this registry.

What does this mean? The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is now debating that point. We are going through clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10. Unfortunately, it is not a good bill because it is based on a philosophy that has been refuted by I do not know how many studies.

The bill seeks to impose mandatory minimum penalties for a number of crimes committed with a firearm. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about rigour and consistency. When Allan Rock established the gun registry, he established minimum mandatory penalties for crimes committed with a firearm.

We would like to know what that has meant. Scientific studies presented to the committee show that there is no correlation between minimum mandatory penalties and any deterrent effect that the presence of those penalties in the Criminal Code could have on criminals.

As a legislator, it is normal to ask questions about the consequences of public policies before adopting them.

What inconsistency, what contradiction. I am anxious to see some sign of enlightenment in the Conservative caucus. Someone who was a bit enlightened could make the government see reason. They could make it understand that one can not, on one hand, adopt or table bills that call for more severe penalties for crimes committed with a firearm, and, on the other hand—as though there was a constitutional right to bear arms—freely allow firearms to be carried as if that were not something that had consequences.

I am again appealing to all members to ensure that the government listens to reason, as urged by the police association. Many stakeholders from civil society have told the government that it does not make sense to dismantle the gun registry.

The shortcoming of Bill C-35 is that it is much too general. In some cases, pre-trial release is not justified. We reiterate that point and we concur. However, at present, we are discussing a number of offences that, in our opinion, should not automatically allow for reverse onus.

We must not shift the presumption of innocence without concern for the consequences to the administration of justice. We cannot toy with the principles of natural justice. Very often, I heard Conservative members, whom I will not name out of kindness—although I have a terrible urge to look at them and point them out, I will not do so—say that it was as though the Charter were a necessary evil.

Naturally, it is easier to devise the judicial system when we think in black and white and when there is no need to reconcile respect for the burden of proof or for disclosure of evidence, for example. That is certain. There is obviously an imbalance when we want a society where, on the one hand, there is the Crown with all its resources and means and, on the other hand, there are the offenders.

The Bloc Québécois supported increasing penalties for the most serious offenders. Again this morning, I made a proposal to the committee in an effort to bolster the fight against organized crime, with its contemporary incarnation of street gangs. We know that street gangs are a significant phenomenon. They are a reality in Montreal and in Toronto and, I am told, are organizing in Calgary, Saskatoon and Halifax. And of course there is Vancouver, where street gangs are a very important reality.

We cannot just go along with this idea that justice will be administered more effectively and things will be more acceptable if reverse onus is generalized. We do not believe that this is the right approach.

Unfortunately, we cannot support the bill as it currently stands. What is more, I was very surprised to learn something, which I checked with my leader. I think the government could have had the courtesy to inform the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that it planned to create a legislative committee. Of course, the government has the right to create a legislative committee.

For the people who are watching, a legislative committee is a committee that has a limited lifespan, existing only as long as a bill is being studied. For example, legislative committees studied the language-based school boards when the constitutional amendment was made and also studied Canada's clean air act and same-sex marriage. Obviously, this means double the time for the people on the committee, and I believe I will be sitting on it with my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. In my opinion, the government could have had the courtesy to tell us about it.

The bill is too broad, because it targets all offences involving firearms. In my view, this is not the right approach. We repeat: the Bloc Québécois will always support legislation that gives the police more resources to conduct investigations, for example.

We recognize that, in a certain number of cases, maximum sentences need to be increased. We believe that. We support Bill C-10, which creates two new offences. We voted for the bill in committee, and we will vote for it at the report stage if the committee decides to send Bill C-10 back to the House. We will support the two new offences created by Bill C-10: robbery to steal a firearm and breaking and entering to steal a firearm.

In conclusion, I call on the government to take a much more moderate approach, and I hope that the members of this House will understand the risk that reverse onus poses to the administration of justice. Because of these concerns, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-35 at second reading.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh is incredibly right when he says that none of the Conservative bills have come before us with the attendant packages of what they will cost.

In fact, we could extrapolate. The hon. member from the NDP is indeed experienced enough, and smart enough for sure, to extrapolate the costs if he knew how many more people would be affected by the bail provisions. Bill C-35 comes with no package, information or background, which suggests how many more people will be denied bail by the reverse onus.

Surely responsible government means that one does the studies first and then the costing, and the bill is brought in and then is referred to committee. The way the Conservatives do things is that they write the bill on the back of a napkin, they rush down to the CTV news centre, they get Mr. Duffy to interview them on how tough they are, and then they throw the bill to a committee whose members who may not understand all the ramifications of the bill. They have no intention of backing up these bills with the resources. That is some way to run a justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question about firearms. It is appropriate to be speaking about the gun registry just before question period. I would like to add that our side supports gun control.

We think it is very important to regulate handguns and guns of all sorts. We think it is disgusting, frankly, that the Conservative government would bring in a bill, and I am speaking of Bill C-10, that excludes crimes committed with long guns and includes crimes done with restricted weapons.

In other words, a person could hold up someone and hurt them with a handgun in a 7-Eleven in Moncton, New Brunswick or Red Deer, Alberta and be subject to mandatory minimums of three, five and ten years, as the current legislation has proposed, but if the person went into the same store with a shotgun and did the same thing, the person would not be caught by that same provision. I ask members to tell me why that makes sense.

The hon. member asked questions about the long gun registry, but really he asked questions about the safety of our communities. The question goes back to him and to the members of the government, what are we going to do about controlling guns? Bill C-35 will not have much effect in getting guns off the street.

The remonstrances of the member for Wild Rose will do nothing to get guns off the streets and away from the borders. The minister said nothing about the money backing up Bill C-35, Bill C-10, Bill C-9 and other justice bills that will get guns away from the people who are using them.

We need to address that question in Parliament. When is the program coming? It is so close to question period that I wish the Prime Minister were here so I could ask him this question: what are we going to do to get guns off our streets?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his impassioned reply. I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I wonder why his government is shying away from him in sending this bill to a legislative committee and not having him look at it. I wonder why his government and his minister introduced their own omnibus justice bill. It is on the order paper.

To deal with the hon. member's serious discussion of Bill C-35, he will know that anything that toughens the laws is a good thing from his perspective, but perhaps what he does not listen to, while I know he respects all members on the committee, is that in order for laws to work they have to pass the test of the charter.

We have a charter. It is here and we have to deal with it. It is a wonderful institution. It enshrined the right of all Canadians to basic human and legal rights. We have it and it must be met. We cannot bring in laws just because we want to be on the news or drive around a ranch and tell people we are bringing in a bill. This is about whether the law works.

I take some umbrage at any suggestion that any member of the House in any party is against good law making our communities safer. This side, that side and every side wants good laws in this country and wants safer communities. It is a shame that the member, with his experience, would insult all members of the House on their integrity and desire to have a safe Canada.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not resist getting up because the member went on for quite a while about how well the Criminal Code works in this country's justice system. He knows very well that there are tens of thousands of victims who would not necessarily agree with that and of course thousands of supporters of these victims who certainly would not agree.

The member is a lawyer. I bring that up to him every once in a while in committee because he likes to talk in legal tongues quite often, and it makes it a little difficult for those of us who are not lawyers to understand quite what he is saying. I almost gathered from his speech that he was saying the Conservatives are going back to good Liberal law with Bill C-35, and I thought it was rather strange that a lawyer would suddenly want to be a comedian.

Going back to good Liberal law? I have been here 13 years. I have seen good Liberal law in action. I have seen Liberals bring forward omnibus bills, which he said should be brought forward, in order to deal with all the legislation, omnibus bills, for example, like Bill C-2, which was an act to protect children. That was the purpose of it.

Yet in regard to that omnibus bill, although there are many aspects of it I wanted to support, I could not, because the Liberals kept insisting that child pornography might have something like a public good or a useful purpose. It was in the legislation. How can we go from an omnibus bill that would address such an evil thing as child pornography to that kind of terminology when the bill contained some things that were pretty good?

It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever that the Liberals would dare bring forward an omnibus bill that would allow child pornography. What has happened in 13 years is that child pornography has now become a $1 billion industry. There are great arrests going on now, but this should have been prevented 13 years ago when that Liberal government had a chance.

I do not need any lectures from that member or anybody on that side because I have seen them in action for 13 years. They do not take their justice system seriously. They do not take protecting society seriously or they would not have come up with some of the garbage I saw throughout those years. I think the member would humble himself a wee bit instead of talking about going back to good Liberal law. He should think about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak here today to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

Before going any further, I feel it is very important to understand what Bill C-35 hopes to achieve, particularly the version of the bill before us today in the House.

Bill C-35 proposes changes to the bail provisions of the Criminal Code and would provide a reverse onus if an accused is charged with any of the following crimes, which are grouped into, relatively speaking, four groups of offences.

The first group comprises eight serious offences committed with a firearm: attempted murder, robbery, discharging a firearm with intent, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, kidnapping, hostage taking and extortion.

The second group of offences are those that are indictable, involving firearms or regulated weapons if committed while under a weapons prohibition order. The minister spoke at some length about that second part but the bill comprises various types of offences.

Another group of offences is firearm trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking and firearm smuggling.

Again, we would like to appear at the committee and the legislative committee, should I be on it, and ask the government what is being done to stop the trafficking and importation of firearms in this country.

These are all serious offences. Individuals accused of any of these crimes must be dealt with, with the greatest care, to ensure these potentially dangerous individuals do not cause any more harm to society. I think everyone in this House would agree with that principle. I see that the member for Wild Rose would agree with this comment.

We must also remember that in Canada everyone is innocent until proven guilty. These rights, such as the presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause in section 11(d) of the charter, are firmly entrenched in our Constitution. Although our system presumes the accused is innocent pending trial, there are reasons in our community to deny bail. This can be done to ensure, under the three grounds of bail, that society remains safe.

The primary ground for denying bail is clearly the flight risk. Will the accused leave the jurisdiction? The secondary ground deals with the protection of the public. The third, although somewhat ambiguous but very much a part of our Criminal Code for some time, is whether the bail order would maintain confidence in the administration of justice. That is the tertiary ground and it is the one we should be the most concerned about with respect to the perception in the public of how well their justice system works.

As a footnote I might add that the government, although not with this bill, is doing a great disservice to our communities, cities, towns, villages and rural areas in their feelings of security. It is doing much to scaremonger and make Canadians very fearful of situations they need not be fearful of.

We in this House should stand up as bastions, as protectors of the Criminal Code and the criminal justice system, and tell Canadians that the Criminal Code of Canada does work, that the justice system as administered in Canada does work and that we are a safe country.

Under Bill C-35, if an accused is charged with an indictable offence committed while already released on another indictable offence charge, if the person fails to appear in court or breaches a release of a condition, if that person is accused of being a member of an organized crime or terrorism unit or other such grave offences, including drug trafficking and smuggling, or if the accused is not an ordinary resident of Canada, then the onus already shifts. We see in the Criminal Code, as interpreted in the case of the Attorney General of Quebec v. Edwin Pearson, that the Supreme Court of Canada has already dealt with the reverse onus provisions as they existed in the Criminal Code for some time by majority decision in 1992.

I would hope no one would leave this place and talk to the public, the press or their constituents and say that this is new law. This is not new law. This is an extension of existing law written in the code. I will be non-partisan here and say that the Criminal Code was created by both Conservative and Liberal governments and that it was a Conservative prime minister who wrote it. It is the best legislation Conservatives have ever brought in. It is from the 19th century and that explains a lot about the evolution of Conservative legislative prowess.

Nevertheless, these extensions are very timely and, if they are pinpointed correctly, I have no doubt that the legislative committee will use its wisdom in refining the bill and asking the questions that need to be asked.

It is good to see Conservative governments once again following the Liberal pedigree of good criminal law.

Since the last election, the Conservative government has been all about making Canada a safer place. It is trying to convince Canadians that our towns, villages and cities are full of dangerous gangs and criminals, roaming the streets at night, armed to the teeth, ready to shoot at everything that moves. This is simply not the reality.

In fact, crime rates have gone down in Canada over the years. Of course, there is still much work to be done and nothing is perfect. However, contrary to the image that the Conservative government is trying to project, Canada is not like a wild west town where chaos reigns supreme.

The Conservative government also seems to think all criminals pending trial are running loose in our communities, when the actual numbers from Statistics Canada say otherwise. There were 125,871, maybe more since this date in 2004, Canadians imprisoned and awaiting trial. Close to 84,000 were behind bars serving sentences. There were significant numbers of people, and more now, awaiting trial and not on bail, as perhaps the new stories would counter-indicate. The bail system works. It needs to be tweaked. The bill will go to committee and it will be discussed in the fullness of time.

The government has been trying to convince Canadians that it is hard at work ending crime and violence, but the facts speak otherwise. It has a plethora of justice bills before committees. Instead of doing omnibus reform and criminal bills, several at a time, it has chosen to do probably 20 by the time it is finished, because that is 20 news cycles, 20 news stories.

We cannot find one measure aimed in the justice bill package at preventing criminality. There is no bill before the House or before a committee that talks specifically about preventing criminality and violence.

We have also seen harsher sentences. I only need draw the attention of the House to the fact that a month ago, Judge Sylvio Savoie, in Moncton's Provincial Court, gave a repeat drunk driving offender five years, when the prosecution asked for four. Those stories, the stories of when judges use their discretion to impose harder sentences than were called for, need to be told, and they are out there. We need to balance the story.

We have seen a bunch of showboat legislation. In the new spirit of cooperation, I think the Conservatives have finally come to realize that they must put bills through committees that will pass. It is a minority Parliament. There must be compromise. In light of that sense and that new desire from the other sides with respect to justice bills, that it is too important to play politics, I think this bill can be saved.

The bill does need to be explained in terms of public perception, that it will not cure everything and that not everybody who is accused of a crime will be denied bail. There will still be the three grounds. There will be a procedural reversal of onus, which I think will be upheld by R. v. Pearson and R. v. Hall. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to ask the justice minister. Nor did I hear from him ab initio whether he had received an opinion from the attorney general's department on the constitutionality of this legislation.

It is not a wild goose chase. When the Supreme Court of Canada had a split decision in 1992, on whether 11(d), the right to a fair hearing and the right to bail, was constitutional, and it was not a unanimous opinion, followed up later by R. v. Hall on the question of increased reverse onus on the procedural aspect of bail hearings, there is a good question as to whether this is constitutional. I hope the minister will be able to answer the question from our critic, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, or in other venues as to the constitutionality of that legislation.

We need to know and Canadians need to know, once again, that legislation proposed by Conservatives is more than just a repeat of the press release, which went on the night before the bill was tabled. We need to know whether the bill has the merit and the substance which is required to stand the test of challenge in our courts.

During the press conference last November 23 in Toronto, the Prime Minister of Canada said, in referring to Toronto, that almost 1,000 crimes involving firearms or restricted weapons had been committed so far that year. I cannot do anything else but wonder how come so many weapons are out there, and I think that hon. members have asked the minister the right questions. What is being done to clamp down on the trafficking and importation of guns in our country?

The Conservatives can blather on all they want about how horrible the long gun registry was, but what is the alternative? What are they doing about getting those guns off the streets, seizing them at the borders and getting them out of circulation? As much as I think Bill C-35 is a good bill in principle, it will not take the guns out of the hands of the people bringing guns into the country.

As much as I think Bill C-35 is a good bill in principle, it will not take the guns out of the hands of the people bringing guns into the country. By and large, and I think it is a non-partisan issue, people who traffic in guns are not deterred by new legislation brought in by the Canadian Parliament. Many of the guns on the streets of our cities come from international gun smugglers. Therefore, the reverse onus on bail provisions in Bill C-35 seem to throw out a real challenge as to how the cause and effect of the bill introduced and the reduction of firearms in general will result. We need to ask these questions.

What is the government doing with respect to the gun licenses for life approach of the Minister of Public Safety? Chief Blair gave very telling testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in Toronto. He said that with our existing laws, essentially the Criminal Code of Canada, and with the appropriate budget resources, he and his force were very successful in getting guns off the streets in certain parts of Toronto.

The question also becomes this. Where are the resources that will go to complement the Conservative justice agenda. Everything that is being proposed will cost money. Where is the money? Where is the plan with each bill and the costing thereon? These are good questions that will be put to the minister and others at committee level.

Harsher punishments and reverse onus in bail hearings, as Bill C-35 proposes, are good measures. We support these measures, but they will not help prevent crime or make Canada and our communities any safer over the long term.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to ask ourselves how we can prevent crime. Unfortunately, many questions are left without clear answers when we analyze Bill C-35. Would the money of Canadians be better spent on prevention, putting more police officers on the street? For example, would hiring more police officers in strategic locations be more effective than putting more people in jail and denying them their bail?

I will draw to the attention of the House the article in The Globe and Mail on January 24 by Bruce McMeekin. It is very important to consider that article is generally in favour of Bill C-35 and that perhaps the public would think the bill would have prevented some of the worst cases of slayings and gun crime in our history.

When we talk about the Boxing Day incident in Toronto and other events in that area, Bill C-35 would not necessarily have prevented those crimes. The existing bail provisions might have prevented them had the court hearing gone the other way.

What is important to remember is that the accused will still have an opportunity to get bail. Bail will still be awarded even if a person is accused for a second time for one of the listed crimes. The shifting of the procedural onus relates only to his or her ability to be free or not free pending the trial. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

Under the existing reverse onus provisions, the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. People will still be able, with legal representation, to get bail, and bail might not have been given in previous situations.

We support the bill going to the legislative committee. There are many questions to be asked. Overall, Parliamentarians owe it through their oath of office in this place and to Canadians in general to be fair in representing how well our justice system works and that the exceptions to the rule are not the rule. The exceptions to the rule are egregious. When we have serious crimes that occur to people we know, people related to us, we take it very seriously and it is very bad, but it does not mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. It does not mean that all that went before was useless in combatting crime.

When will someone stand from the other side and say that the criminal justice system works in many regards? When will someone say that by tinkering with bail provisions and by referring this to the committee, we by no means support it in whole, we have many questions about this legislation? When will a member from the other side and when will the Minister of Justice stand and say that they support the good work done in the criminal justice system by all the players, the Crown prosecutors, the parole officers, the judges most who have been under constant attack by the government? When will the government stand and say we have a safe community?

We need to work on making it more secure and safe. I suspect 100 years ago parliamentarians were also trying to do that when they enacted revisions to the Criminal Code. No one in this place wants to have weaker laws with unsafe communities.

Bill C-35 will go to the legislative committee no doubt and it will receive a rough ride on many fronts. There are many loopholes with respect to the considerations to be given to the bill.

In short, we are pleased to comment on the bill, but there will be many questions at the committee. I hope the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the members of that legislative committee will be ready for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, from his analysis of his own government, I must say that getting rid of the long gun registry would only save the government about $10 million a year, which would give us perhaps 15 more police officers.

In terms of Bill C-35, the minister has on a number of occasions, in his diatribe with the Bloc, given anecdotal stories about the type of impact the bill would have. I wonder if the minister has any hard facts as to how many of these offences occur in the year where the person gets out on bail and then commits another offence. Do those statistics exist and, if they do, would he share them with the House?

Similarly, the eight serious offences, to which this reverse onus would now apply, does he have the statistics on the number of those per year, or are we faced here with, as we just saw with Bill C-10, a very few number of offences where this is an issue?

If that is the case, are we creating a system that will be a real burden for our judiciary and our legal aid in terms of responding to the types of applications that would come out under Bill C-35?

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

moved that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-35 which proposes that additional reverse onus situations apply in bail hearings for firearm related offences.

Procedural law is an important issue because it relates to how our criminal courts operate.

During this session of Parliament our government has introduced 10 bills to strengthen or improve Canada's criminal justice system. We have taken action to increase the mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, ban house arrest for serious offences, crack down on street racing, impose stricter conditions on dangerous offenders, and bring our impaired driving laws into the 21st century.

In Canada the law provides that a person charged with an offence has the right not to be denied bail without just cause. That means that the accused must be released unless the Crown shows that it is justified to keep the accused in custody before trial. Occasionally, the accused is required to show why pretrial detention is not justified. This is called a reverse onus.

Parliament has already created several reverse onus provisions for bail hearings. The concept was first introduced into the Criminal Code in 1976. When creating reverse onus provisions, Parliament must be mindful of balancing the rights of the accused to reasonable bail with the need to safeguard the safety of the public and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The Criminal Code provides that there are three grounds that can be relied upon in order to justify keeping an accused in custody before trial. The first ground is to ensure that the accused will face the charges in court and not flee from justice. The second ground is to protect the public if there is a substantial risk that the accused will reoffend while on bail or if there is a risk that the accused will interfere with the administration of justice. The third ground is where the detention of the accused is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bill C-35 is consistent with the principles that currently underlie Canada's bail regime. I would like to take a minute to talk about the proposals contained in the bill.

Bill C-35 creates a reverse onus provision for eight serious offences when committed with a firearm. They are: attempted murder, discharging a firearm with criminal intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

These serious crimes carry a mandatory minimum penalty of four years and under Bill C-10 the minimum penalty would increase in certain circumstances to five years on a first offence, seven years on a second offence and if they still do not get the message, 10 years on a third or subsequent offence.

Bill C-35 also creates a reverse onus provision for any offence involving a firearm or other regulated weapon if committed while the accused is bound by a weapons prohibition order.

A mandatory weapons prohibition order is imposed upon conviction for over 70 offences, namely, when an offender is convicted of an indictable offence in which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted and for which the maximum penalty is 10 years or more; specific firearms offences; or trafficking, smuggling or producing drugs.

In other words, mandatory weapons prohibition orders are imposed on people who are convicted of violent crimes, drug offences or serious weapons related offences.

The courts are also empowered to impose prohibition orders after conviction for other less serious crimes if they consider it appropriate in the interests of public safety. These are called discretionary prohibition orders and they remain in force for up to 10 years. A mandatory weapons prohibition order remains in force for a minimum term of 10 years and in many cases for life.

It should also be noted that it is possible to have a weapons prohibition order imposed on a person even though the person is not charged with or convicted of a criminal offence.

An order prohibiting someone from possessing firearms or other regulated weapons can be obtained by the court for preventive reasons. If a peace officer or a firearms officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable or in the interests of the public safety that a person should possess firearms or other weapons, an order to prohibit possession can be obtained and it can remain in force for up to five years.

Weapons prohibition orders are an important tool in our criminal law to help prevent firearm violence, whether it is firearm homicides or the full range of other firearm related crimes, but also accidental injuries and suicides.

Whether the prohibition orders that are currently in force were imposed in a mandatory or discretionary way following conviction for a criminal offence or in a preventive manner due to public safety concerns, I would like to highlight that there are approximately 35,000 prohibition orders currently in force in Canada.

Therefore, this proposal, which provides a reverse onus for anyone charged with an indictable weapons related offence, if already prohibited from possessing weapons, has a very broad reach, given the large number of offenders currently subject to a prohibition order.

The idea of triggering a reverse onus for persons charged with serious weapons related offences if committed while prohibited makes sense. These people already have been considered by a court to be a public safety threat. That is why the prohibition order was imposed in the first place.

They should not benefit from a presumptive entitlement to bail when they have demonstrated their inability to abide by a court order on a matter of direct relevance: their alleged reoffending involving weapons in direct contravention of an existing court order not to possess weapons.

The courts must be required to take a serious look at these types of cases. The accused persons should bear the onus of demonstrating why it is not justified to keep them in custody.

I realize that I have taken a bit of time on this point, but I think it is an important feature of the bill. As I said earlier, from a public safety perspective it makes sense.

Bill C-35 also creates a reverse onus provision for the three following serious firearm related offences: firearm smuggling, firearm trafficking or possession of a firearm for the purposes of trafficking.

While these offences do not involve the actual use of a firearm, where the safety of the public is directly put at risk, they are still serious offences nonetheless.

Those who are involved with firearm trafficking and smuggling are responsible for the illegal supply of guns to people who cannot lawfully possess them and who are very likely to use them for a criminal purpose.

We also have a problem with an underground firearms market where guns that have been stolen from within Canada or smuggled into country are traded and sold to people who are not allowed to possess them legally. We want to get at those individuals who are trafficking in firearms and we want this bill to apply to them.

Today in Canada street gang members and drug traffickers arm themselves with guns, usually handguns, therefore creating the demand for illegal guns. They are well organized and sophisticated illegal operations.

Law enforcement officers tell us that some of the schemes involve drugs first being smuggled to the United States and sold there, and the proceeds are used to purchase guns that are smuggled back into Canada. Law enforcement officers also tell us that some firearms traffickers even rent out guns for the night, if anyone can believe it.

We have a reverse onus that currently applies to those charged with drug trafficking and smuggling. There is no good reason not to include a reverse onus for those who are involved in firearms trafficking and smuggling. From a public safety perspective, although firearms traffickers may not be the ones actually pulling the trigger and causing the death of a person, they certainly play a significant role in the firearm homicide problem.

In addition to the reverse onus provisions, Bill C-35 also proposes additional factors that the courts must consider in determining whether the accused should be detained before trial in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Namely, the courts must consider the following factors: whether the accused allegedly used a firearm in the commission of an offence; or whether the accused faces a minimum sentence of three or more years.

With respect to this provision, referred to as the “tertiary or third ground”, it should be noted that certain terms ruled to be too vague in the existing provision are being removed in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of R. v. Hall. Specifically, the phrase “on any other just cause being shown and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing” is being removed.

We know that Canadians are concerned about violent firearm offenders being released back into the community. The goal of Bill C-35 is to prevent the re-commission of offences, particularly gun violence, by persons out on bail.

Bill C-35 seeks to enhance the current bail regime by making it more effective with regard to serious crimes involving firearms and it does so in a way that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsection 11e) of the charter recognizes the right not to be denied bail without just cause.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that there are situations in which the reverse onus is necessary to prevent absconding or reoffending while out on bail, for example, in drug trafficking cases.

I consider these bail reforms to be a rational and constitutional approach to tackling serious gun and gang problems that currently exist in our communities.

Police officers, provincial and some municipal governments, who are more directly involved in fighting crime, have been expressing serious concerns for some time about the release from pre-trial custody of persons involved in gun and gang related crimes. This tougher bail scheme for firearms offences responds to their concerns.

Persons involved in criminal gangs are able to easily regain possession of illegal guns, to continue with their criminal activities, which usually revolve around the drug trade and turf wars.

These proposals appropriately focus on serious firearm offences, and particularly when committed by those already prohibited from possessing firearms and other weapons.

These measures are beneficial for the victims and their families as well as for witnesses who may be reluctant to come forward with information or to testify for fear of retaliation. It is important that they be encouraged to cooperate with authorities and knowing that the accused is behind bars will help in that regard.

These measures are also beneficial for Canadians in general. This bill will help restore Canadians' confidence in the administration of justice. Bill C-35 confirms the government's resolve to ensure that Canada's criminal justice system appropriately safeguards the safety of the public.

It is important to note that this bail reform initiative is part of a larger plan for tackling gun and gang violence. The government's plan includes interventions at different levels. We have taken action to put more law enforcement officers on our streets and at our border points including armed border guards to help crack down on firearm smuggling and trafficking.

We have dedicated resources to help prevent crime and to focus specifically on preventing youth at risk from getting involved in street gangs and drugs. As mentioned earlier, we have proposed tougher sentences for those convicted of serious crimes involving firearms with particularly stiff penalties for repeat firearms offenders.

Canada's new government promised to tackle crime to make our streets safer.

Bill C-35 appropriately targets serious offences involving the use of firearms and it also addresses the emerging concern with respect to firearm trafficking and smuggling. Equally important, Bill C-35 targets violent repeat offenders by proposing a reverse onus for any indictable offence involving firearms or other regulated weapons if committed while the accused is under a weapons prohibition.

This is a minority Parliament. We have to have the support of all political parties and I say to them, it is not enough to talk about fighting crime at election time. We have to do it when we are sitting here in this Parliament. I believe that this is a worthwhile positive contribution to making the streets and Canadian communities safer.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for that question.

We have been introducing legislation that will help reduce crime, increase people's confidence in the criminal justice system and make our communities safer.

That is why I am glad that next week we will be debating Bill C-35, which will provide a reverse onus for those individuals who are charged with serious gun crimes and who are seeking bail. This is the kind of legislation we need. It is supported by the premier of Ontario and the mayor of the city of Toronto. It should be supported by everyone in this House.

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.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that the holiday season will be beginning in due course. In the meantime, we will continue with Bill C-37, the tax convention; Bill C-12, financial institutions; and Bill C-36, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act.

Tomorrow we will begin the third reading of Bill C-28, budget tax measures.

We will continue next week with the business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-40, sales tax; Bill C-32, impaired driving; Bill C-33, technical income tax; Bill C-35, bail reform; and, of course, as is the tradition, as the member would know, it is great to get into a prebudget debate and that usually lasts about two days.

We have a busy agenda and I look forward to the cooperation of the hon. member. I am sure we will have further discussions on this.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

First of all, there is now a reverse onus, a change in release today. Some of you spoke about the changes in or challenges with bill breaches. On the 68% figure you mentioned, Bill C-35 hopefully will alleviate that for the work you and your force do.

On the education of the offender, there has been some contention that this won't actually register if you have minimum penalties for those who commit crimes. What is your assessment of the criminal population? Does this deterrence effect work? Is there a level of sophistication among criminals about the potential consequences?

Criminal Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)