Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment)

This enactment amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of that Act, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more is not eligible for a conditional sentence.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

To respond to what Mr. Lee said, as much as I would have liked this motion had we not heard from these witnesses on Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, I certainly understand what you're saying. It shouldn't be a precedent for everyone who has a pet motion to put forward that we would adopt this motion not having heard evidence.

The reason I support Ms. Jennings' motion is because throughout the last year, through the course of the study of different bills, we have heard these types of witnesses. We've heard from ethnocultural communities, we've heard from Correctional Service Canada, and we've heard from police departments. On the mounting evidence that we have, I'm able to support this.

I certainly wouldn't support a motion that we hadn't heard any evidence on. That may help to alleviate any fears, or it will maybe quell someone's idea to bring a motion next week on something we haven't discussed. But we have discussed a lot of this quite extensively, and I'm happy to support it.

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

I don't have any problems with the motion and the intent. I only want to flag that the practice of committees generating business for the House is not something I would normally subscribe to.

We have not done any substantive work on this issue. It is a sentiment expressed by the members here. We could adopt it and send it out to everybody who cared about the issue, including the government departments. We wouldn't have to report it to the House. The end consequence of reporting it to the House as a committee report is it becomes grist for the mill in the House. I'm only being honest about that.

We're going to have a five-minute discussion here. In reporting to the House as a report of the committee, the House would not have the benefit of any transcript or any substantive discussion of the issues. It really wouldn't be much different if a member simply proposed a motion to the House under private members' business and brought it up there. But of course on a concurrence motion, a committee report manages to preempt some routine proceedings and other parts of the day's work. I only wanted to be honest about that.

The motion is well crafted and well worded. As a one-off, having heard some of the evidence we heard during Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, I'd be happy to support it and send it off to the House.

Although some other committees may engage in it, I wouldn't want it to become a common practice for us to do wishful motions at committee and then send it off to the House as if we did some work on it.

Thank you.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I would like to ask the Speaker of the House and our procedural experts to clarify certain points.

I think that Mr. Lee inadvertently misled the committee members. The committee is totally independent with respect to the way that it organizes its work. Of course, a government bill is given priority, but it is the prerogative of the committee to organize its work. Neither Marleau and Montpetit nor jurisprudence states that it is impossible for a committee to spend time on something other than the bill that has been referred to it for study. And yet, I heard comments to the contrary on several occasions. I am surprised that this is coming from opposition colleagues.

I'm going to ask for legal advice from the Speaker of the House. We are the masters of our work. When procedural issues are raised with the Speaker of the House, he reminds us often about this principle.

To conclude, I would like to point out that we are not responsible for the government's legislative activism. We are not responsible for the fact that the government has chosen, for ideological reasons, to create a bottleneck here, in the committee. Some committees have yet to receive one piece of legislation since the government was elected, whereas we have had to review nine. Consequently, the Standing Committee on Justice will never have any time to do something other than review government bills.

The government cannot be hegemonic. We have to strike a balance, and we have found it. We took upon ourselves to examine Bill C-9 and C-10, we looked at section 25 of the Criminal Code and now we are about to examine Bill C-18. Nevertheless, in addition to studying the government bills, it is understandable that parliamentarians, be they members from the opposition, make recommendations. That is part of our job.

I am not going to accept this analysis and I am going to raise a question of privilege in the House in order to have the Speaker validate this position. We are the masters of our business, and nothing compels us to organize our business according to the sequence of bills submitted by the government.

You should know, Mr. Chairman, that when people talk about me in Montreal or on Parliament Hill, I am defined first and foremost as a reasonable man. I will always live up to this reputation.

Opposition Motion--Government Policies

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the somewhat rambling motion put forward by the deputy leader of the opposition. This motion illustrates that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore is just as challenged at establishing priorities as his current leader as well as the previous prime minister from LaSalle--Émard, well known for his almost 200 most important government priorities.

Among a myriad of issues, the motion before us today attacks the government on the process of appointing judges. The party opposite would like to divert the attention of the House from the real issues to an academic discussion of a process which has existed for years.

This is a desperate attempt to distract Canadians from the fact that the Liberals are in the process of rendering this country vulnerable to future attacks by terrorist organizations by gutting key provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act. This, one day after we learned of an al-Qaeda directive to focus terrorist attacks on Canada's resource base, presumably the oil fields of the west and the Atlantic offshore oil platforms.

I cannot understand why the Liberals would want to hide from this irresponsible and short-sighted position, but the House should not just take my word for it. Let us hear from some prominent Liberals quoted in recent media reports on this very issue.

Former Liberal deputy prime minister, justice minister and public security minister, Anne McLellan, speaking of the provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act that are set to expire, said:

They were not created in haste, if what that means is that we did not think about them carefully, craft them carefully...The Supreme Court has ruled that investigative hearings are constitutional. I am in a sense perplexed as to why at this point you would take these important tools away from law enforcement...and there is absolutely no evidence they've been used at all, and certainly nobody's used them in an abusive way.

Another well-known Liberal, deputy prime minister and chair of the cabinet security committee, John Manley, said, “The most important responsibility of government is the preservation of order and the protection of its citizens.” I agree that one of our highest responsibilities as a government and as a Parliament is the protection of Canadian citizens. He went on to say:

And the most important civil liberty is freedom from fear of harm on the part of the civilian population, without which our other liberties mean very little.

The anti-terrorism law did not violate the Charter of Rights as some have claimed. If ever needed, it may be key to protecting our citizens from serious harm, enabling them to enjoy the rights that the Charter guarantees them.

I have just one more quote from one time Ontario NDP premier, federal Liberal leadership candidate, and the chair of the former government's review of the Air-India tragedy. Bob Rae had the following to say about the provisions that are due to sunset. For those who are watching today, they are due to sunset unless the House votes to continue these provisions contained in our Anti-terrorism Act. Bob Rae said:

I certainly think the impact on Air India has to be considered as we go forward and I would hope that people would take that into consideration.

With these criticisms coming from within their own ranks, it is easy to see why the Liberals are asking the Canadian people to look away from their irresponsible choices and attempting to fabricate news on the government's judicial appointments with the mock self-righteous indignation that only Liberals can muster.

There was a very interesting article in the news today discussing the Liberal Party record of using judicial appointments to reward political staff and party bagmen. I invite all my colleagues to read the article and I would welcome a fulsome discussion of its content.

I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for providing me the opportunity to highlight our government's impressive track record in addressing the criminal justice concerns of Canadians.

I should add that I will be splitting my time with the member from Mississauga.

On the issue of the judiciary, the Minister of Justice is committed to appointing the best and brightest legal minds in the country to serve on the bench.

The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore uses terms “neo-conservative” and “right wing”. What I find remarkable is that just over a year ago the Conservative, Liberal and NDP campaign platforms all called for tougher sentences for violent crimes, mandatory minimums for gun crimes, and a crackdown on organized crime and gangs.

It is important to remember that each and every member of the three federalist parties, the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, was elected to the House with a mandate to get tough on crime and specifically to introduce tougher mandatory minimum sentences for those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime against another Canadian.

What do we have a year after the election? We have Bill C-10 which is before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights right now. While the Conservatives are holding up their end of the bargain by introducing and supporting the bill, we see the NDP and the Liberals seeking to gut provisions of that bill that would bring in tough sentences for people who use firearms. Cities, towns, villages, police, victims groups and everyday Canadians across this country are calling for these measures and we see the Liberals and the other opposition parties failing to support them.

Canadians have a right to feel safe and secure in their communities. In fact, safe streets and secure communities have been touchstones of Canadian society since Confederation. Of course we all know, unfortunately, that in recent years this hard won reputation has been put to the test by rising rates of crime, particularly involving guns, gangs and drug activity. Our government promised to tackle this problem head on and that is exactly what we are doing. Since taking office last year, we have brought forward no fewer than 11 new legislative proposals that will help reduce crime and create safer communities.

With the support of all parties in the House, we brought into force Bill C-19 which creates new offences that specifically target street racing. We also passed legislation to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. These changes will help to ensure Canada continues to be a global leader in combating organized crime and terrorist financing.

Our government has committed further to provide $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 avoid the culture of guns, gangs and drugs.

We have made some progress, but there are still nine bills in Parliament that the Minister of Justice is committed to bringing into force. Among other things these bills would restrict the use of conditional sentences and impose mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes.

The first bill dealing with conditional sentences was Bill C-9. Again we witnessed at committee opposition members who were elected with a mandate to get tough on crime acting to gut this bill. This means that people who are convicted of luring a child, arson, auto theft, among other things, are going to be able to serve their time in the comfort of their own homes rather than serve time in prison.

We also have legislation to ensure tougher sentences and more effective management of dangerous offenders, including imposing stricter conditions on repeat offenders to keep such criminals from reoffending.

We have introduced legislation to strengthen the law against alcohol and drug impaired driving and to protect youth against adult sexual predators by raising the age of consent, the age of protection in fact, from 14 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.

Moving forward we will also focus on other initiatives that will improve our justice system. For example, we will continue to work toward establishing a victims ombudsman's office. I should add that as we hear testimony before the justice committee on any number of these bills, it is often the victim who is the forgotten voice in all of this. It seems that when an incident takes place too often the focus is on all areas but the perspective of the victim. It is time that we restored a role for victims in our justice system.

Our last budget committed $13 million per year until 2010 toward these types of initiatives. The government also committed to develop a new strategy to deal with illicit drugs. The strategy that we will introduce will put greater emphasis on programs that will reduce drug use and help Canadians, particularly our youth, lead healthier and safer lives.

I could go on and on but I see that my time for debate is almost up. My point is that government is representing the concerns of Canadians and communities large and small. I am proud of our commitments in the field of justice and even more proud of our record for carrying them out. This is what Canadians expect of us and this is what we deliver.

Criminal Code

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of this bill. After listening to the comments from the hon. member for Joliette, it seems the Bloc is more concerned about the dangerous offender than the victim, or the young child who has been abused, injured or sexually mistreated, or the mother or father of that child, or those potential children who might be abused. If we pass this legislation, this could otherwise be prevented.

As we know, safe streets and communities are important to all constituents in Canada. We are rightly proud of the history of having safe streets and homes, but times are changing and Canadians are experiencing not only an increase in crime, but an increase in a crime of the most heinous kind, one that is violent and abuses the sanctity of people, particularly children. They have called upon the government to take action. They have called upon the government to pass legislation not only in this area, but in other areas as well. We cannot ignore this problem. We must roll up our sleeves, do the job that needs to be done and work in committee to get the bill passed.

During the last election, we promised Canadians that we would crack down on crime, and that is exactly what we propose to do. We promised, we made a commitment and we are moving on it. We have tabled Bill C-27 in that regard.

In a nutshell, Bill C-27 deals with dangerous offenders and provides for ways of dealing with them. In particular, it also deals with section 810, peace bonds, which can put certain restrictions upon them should they ever get released.

To make it clear, many are calling upon the government to take action. Recent events in the area of Whitewood, Saskatchewan have brought many constituents together. They have presented a petition to the government asking for action. They have said that dangerous offenders should not be out on the loose or if they are released, they should be subject to some of the severest of conditions, so the public is not endangered by their actions. They have not only united the community in that area, but all of the constituency that I represent, including Saskatchewan, as well as provinces beyond.

We have received petitions signed by up to 24,000 to 25,000 Canadians who urge this government to take action. Today, I had the opportunity to file those petitions. It is fitting that we would do it on the day we are introducing Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. Let us see what they call for in that petition.

They have asked the government to proceed with changes to the justice system in legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles. They have asked for mandatory or compulsory electronic or other forms of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody. They have asked for compulsory public notification and movements of convicted pedophiles. They have asked that we ensure repeat offenders are designated as dangerous offenders.

Why has this situation incited such an interest in the many constituencies, people and communities of Canada? Because the public is fed up. People have had enough of this easy justice, especially where people have been convicted of the same serious offences on at least three occasions, offences that require two or more years of jail time. They are saying there comes a point in time where something needs to be done. These people need to be contained or released under very strict conditions.

I am quite pleased to say that the Government of Canada has responded to the petition that my constituents have filed, and its response is interesting to note. It says that the Government of Canada is fully committed to protecting children from sexual offenders. In the last Parliament, Bill C-2 introduced mandatory minimum penalties for many sexual offences committed against children. These offences are, therefore, not eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Also, a number of criminal law reform initiatives have recently been introduced in this regard, including: Bill C-9 to restrict the availability of conditional sentences, which I just mentioned; Bill C-22 to increase the age of protection; Bill C-27, regarding dangerous and high risk offenders, about whom I speak today; and Bill S-3, regarding improvements to the national sex offender registry.

As introduced, Bill C-9 would toughens penalties for a number of sex offences, including offences against children, by making it clear that the conditional sentence is no longer available. Who could argue against that? Bill C-22 would better protect against youth adult sexual predators by raising the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years.

Who opposes this legislation? The opposition parties, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Party and the New Democratic Party have been obstructionist in committee. They have taken clauses out. They have watered them down. They have made them almost of no effect, when just the opposite is what the people of Canada expect. They expect us to get at least that tough, and tougher. They try to use the argument that it might not be constitutional.

However, these individuals, these victims, need protection, and that is exactly what we are about to do. Most Canadians are calling for us to take that action. It would be a good point for the opposition to take that into account, get behind us and have this legislation passed, as opposed to delaying it in committee.

[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?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, please don't take this as a personal criticism, but you are setting a dangerous precedent, much like you did in the case of BillC-9. Regrettably, under the circumstances, we will have no other choice but to openly challenge your ruling, for two reasons.

First, of course, is the fact that it refers back to the preamble. Second, on reading the bill, we note that some offences are listed by order of importance. For example, in the case of a first, second or third offence, the penalty escalates. That's not always the case, but the fact remains that there's an old legal principle at play here, namely that less is more.

The idea of choosing to escalate penalties in the case of the first and second offences, but not in the case of a third one, is entirely acceptable. We could opt to do away with the third one, but keep the first and second ones. I think your interpretation of what is admissible is much too broad. Committee members cannot back your ruling.

Regrettably, we must challenge you on this. Undoubtedly, the Speaker will have the final say.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very typical in the Conservative justice agenda to make grand pronouncements on law and not back them up with the resources needed to effect the law as proclaimed.

Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 deal with mandatory minimums and conditional sentences. Some $225 million was budgeted for prisons. Most attorneys general met in Newfoundland last year and collectively said it should probably be something like $2 billion. With respect to this law, there is no indication that there will be adequate resources to develop the tests for drug impairment detection. We will have a law with no teeth in it.

I can look at the testimony of Chief Blair of Toronto who, using existing law passed by previous Parliaments and extensive resources, had a major and effective crackdown in crime in the GTA. There has been no indication from the Canadian Chiefs of Police that adequate resources will be put in place for the new panoply of Conservative laws which are intended to be tough on crime. Without adequate resources to put its wishes into effect, I am afraid the Conservative government is leading the Canadian public into a false sense of security by promoting law on the 6 p.m. news but not backing it up with the necessary resources. It is cutting funding to everything that is dear to Canadians, including effective, smart, judicial discretion and effective and smart law enforcement. That is what is missing from the agenda.

We are willing to work with the Conservative government as the bills go through the House. I do not know what we do with a minority government that governs like a majority and will not fund the necessary tools to put good laws into effect once they come out of committee.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32, which the Bloc Québécois would like to review in committee. In committee, members can realize their full potential and focus on all the details. The Bloc Québécois would like this bill to be referred.

Before getting into Bill C-32, I want to take a few minutes to say that the government, where justice is concerned, has a rather controversial record. We know that this government has been very active, having introduced nearly a dozen bills. I would add that none of the bills really appeal to us.

There was Bill C-9 to amend section 742 on conditional sentencing. The government wanted to remove judicial discretion from the judiciary. One of the characteristics of the government is not to believe that our judiciary is serious and competent. It always wants to control and restrict the capacity of judges and increase their limitations when they pronounce sentences or make rulings.

The purpose of Bill C-9, which amended section 742, was to remove conditional sentences as an option for the trial judge for all offences punishable by 10 years in prison, even if it was brought down to one or two years in prison.

Unfortunately, we had to fundamentally change this bill in committee. I think we did our work as parliamentarians. Bill C-32 before us is a little more interesting because its purpose is to harmonize section 253 with everything to do with impaired driving. This a significant social problem and there is jurisprudence. I will have a chance to say more on this. They want to harmonize the legislation and use standardized sobriety tests. Our challenge, in committee, will be to look into the sensitivity, performance and operational nature of these tests.

There was also the bill on judges' salaries. This is an important debate because we have all studied Montesquieu and I know we are all motivated by the philosophy of strict separation of the legislative, the judiciary and the executive.

It is important for the three branches to live together with a healthy regard for each other's jurisdictions. That is why, when the question of judges’ salaries arises, Parliament wants to have an independent commission. It is hard for Parliament to decide how much judges’ salaries should be because judges are a major branch of the government involved not only in the administration of justice but ultimately in the interpretation of our laws. As parliamentarians, we make the laws. The government is empowered to implement them, and we hope that judges can interpret them.

For a long time, there was a balance. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was supposed to earn the same salary as the Prime Minister, and everything flowed from that. Then the government decided to upset the balance and proposed remuneration levels that were different from what the independent commission suggested. That was another bill we were unfortunately unable to support.

As I was saying, we want Bill C-32 referred to a committee because impaired driving is an extremely serious matter. People who take the wheel and drive on public roads must not pose a danger to their fellow citizens; that is obvious.

Thus, the government has passed legislation on suspended sentences and on the remuneration of judges.

The government has also introduced a bill on dangerous offenders. The government even hopes to establish a legislative committee. Everyone in the House understands the difference between a legislative committee and a standing committee. A legislative committee exists for the life of a certain bill, for example, the air quality bill leading to Canada’s Clean Air Act, which has been introduced by the government. My hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is one of the Bloc Québécois’ leading lights when it comes to the environment and the Conservative government should also recognize him as a leading light in view of his great expertise and the soundness of his views.

It is the Speaker of the House who appoints the committee chairs for as long as the work of each legislative committee continues. It is not the chair’s peers, the hon. members assigned to the committee, who elect the chair.

The bill on dangerous offenders is a very bad bill. It is animated by a reflexive reaction that would lead to the “three strikes” kind of approach we see in the United States. This is not a bill that the Bloc Québécois intends to support.

The government has introduced a bill on the age of consent, which is called the age of protection, with a clause that creates an exception when the age difference is less than five years. I believe that the leader of the Bloc Québécois said he was in favour of this bill when he was asked. Clearly, we will have to make amendments to reflect the new reality. It is true that sexuality is probably not what it was in your early childhood or early adolescence, Mr. Speaker. Today, adolescents start having sex earlier, when they are younger. In my day, we waited longer. All that has changed, and we have to take stock of those changes.

The government has also introduced a bill containing amendments relating to summary prosecutions. This is a rather technical bill, and I have to say that we are more or less in favour of it.

The government has also introduced Bill C-10 concerning minimum penalties for offences involving firearms.

Hon. members will remember Allan Rock. I am not sure whether his name evokes good or bad memories for the members of this House. When Allan Rock was minister of justice, he introduced a bill. I think that for my colleague, the former leader of the official opposition, this is an excellent memory. I know he was close to Allan Rock, whom the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former Prime Minister, appointed as Canada's ambassador to the United Nations. I have a great deal of respect for Allan Rock. I think he is a brilliant man who served this House well, except when it came to young offenders. The former government went completely off track on that issue.

All of this is to say that the current government has introduced Bill C-10, which seeks to increase the mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving firearms. Unfortunately, we do not have any conclusive studies on the deterrent effect of mandatory minimum penalties.

This morning in committee, we were doing a clause by clause study of Bill C-10. There is a great deal of wisdom gathered when all of the opposition parties are united in asking the government to do certain things. All of the opposition parties—the Liberals, the Bloc and the neo-Bolsheviks—asked the government to undertake a longitudinal study of the impact of mandatory minimum sentencing to find out whether it works as a deterrent or not.

Simply increasing mandatory minimum sentences is not enough. We have to know whether that will really bring peace to our communities. The Bloc Québécois, with its characteristic complete openness and scientific rigour, will see if the government does agree to the request for a longitudinal study of the impact of mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes because we have had mandatory minimum sentences for 10 years now.

Before I get back to Bill C-32, I cannot help but emphasize the government's remarkable inconsistency. On the one hand, the government is demanding that we increase mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, but on the other, it wants to abolish the gun registry. Police officers in Canada and Quebec consult this registry hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day. Before entering a dwelling, officers need to know if there are firearms inside. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government wants to abolish this registry and deprive police officers of a tool they need.

I felt it was my duty to review the government's record. The government also introduced a bill about the national DNA database maintained by the RCMP. The committee will have an opportunity to study this bill.

Historically, the Bloc Québécois has always been concerned about street gangs and organized crime. It is always a pleasure to work with my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic. She and I have agreed on a number of measures and proposals that I will be presenting to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to ensure that we have the most effective means of combating street gangs and organized crime.

The Bloc Québécois is more committed to an approach that would enable our police to carry out successful investigations than to increasing mandatory minimum penalties.

Having completed this overview, I feel it my duty to begin discussion of Bill C-32. This bill would enable police officers to require that a person suspected of impaired driving due to alcohol or drugs submit to a sobriety test.

At present, the Criminal Code already contains provisions concerning impaired driving involving alcohol. Now, there would be more specific provisions concerning drugs. A person suspected of impaired driving could be compelled to submit to a test. However, jurisprudence is not clear on that subject. The interpretation that the Minister of Justice makes in this bill is to say that the Criminal Code at present does not give police officers the power to require that a person submit to a sobriety test nor to take a sample of bodily fluids as part of an investigation into infractions related to impaired driving.

If Bill C-32 is adopted, police officers will be able to require that a person suspected of impaired driving involving drugs must undergo tests and consent to the taking of bodily fluids for testing.

There is a need for some fine tuning. The work of the committee will be to ensure that the available detection technology—and I believe this is based on experience in the United States—is not unduly intrusive. We have a Charter and judicial guarantees. We want the police to have the proper tools, but it is a matter of balance.

It is important to talk about the difference between drugs and alcohol. As a member, I drink very little alcohol. I can claim no credit for that; I have never liked alcohol, and I do not use drugs. In short, I could be considered rather straight and my lifestyle reflects that. My greatest pleasures are not derived from alcohol or drugs. However, some of our fellow citizens do use drugs and alcohol.

We do not want people with a licence driving out on public roads to pose a threat to their fellow citizens. We believe that the police are empowered under the common law and the Criminal Code to stop people they see in situations of potential risk.

In 1985, if I am not mistaken—I do not want to mislead the House—in the matter of Dedman v. The Queen, the Supreme Court examined the legality of the R.I.D.E. program in Ontario. Under the program, road blocks are set up. This is done in Quebec too. Checks are done in busy areas. The police, peace officers on duty, stop people to find out whether they have been drinking. Obviously, when this practice began at the end of the 1980s, there were questions about the legality of the operation.

Usually, under the common law and the Criminal Code, a person stopping someone in a car must have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual is impaired or contravening the law. Operation R.I.D.E., as run in Ontario and as it is now run in Quebec, was simply a preventive measure. The aim was to see that all who were stopped were sober, even if there were not reasonable grounds. But, I repeat, under the common law and the Criminal Code, the exercise of the power to stop and arrest people must be based on reasonable grounds.

The Supreme Court said that people could be stopped to see if they were sober, but that would be as far as it went. When a person is stopped at a roadblock to check if they have been drinking, their car cannot be searched for heroin. The Supreme Court authorized the practices saying that a public goal of sufficient importance was involved to warrant police intervention.

The bill today wishes to go a bit further. The aim is to be able to determine impairment not only from alcohol but also from drugs. A major distinction, however, must be made. The presence of alcohol in the blood is much more easily detected than the presence of drugs. From what we have been told, if a person has consumed marijuana, traces of such consumption can be detected in the blood of this individual for up to seven, eight, nine or ten days afterwards, but that does not mean that the person was intoxicated at the time of their arrest.

That is why the committee must be very careful to recognize that what is actually important to the public is to make sure that the people who are driving vehicles on public roads are completely sober, that they are not intoxicated by either alcohol or drugs.

Breathalyzers work according to a different premise. Breathalyzers can determine whether the alcohol level in the blood is over 0.08% or 0.8 grams per litre. These facts are verified and charges can be laid. Where drug detection technologies are concerned, however, we have to make sure that they are sophisticated enough so that peace officers do not end up laying charges against people who are not really intoxicated.

Since I still have a minute, I will close by adding that one of the merits of this bill is that it will harmonize things. Since section 253 provides for different penalties, depending on whether charges are laid under paragraph (a), in which an individual is impaired by alcohol or a drug, or under paragraph (b), in which it is proved that an individual has consumed a specific quantity of alcohol or drugs.

The penalties are not the same, which does not make a lot of sense. It is the consequence of the deeds committed, and not just the evidence provided under paragraph (a) or (b), that should determine the sentences.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois hopes that Bill C-32 will be the subject of serious study in committee. I am sure that we can count on all parliamentarians to be thorough and rigorous in their work.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I put forth the amendments because I believe they reflect the evidence we heard. Unlike Mr. Bagnell, I came in with my mind made up, and the evidence I heard simply confirmed that.

Indiscriminately used mandatory minimums have a minimal effect. I think we heard that repeatedly. To a significant degree, it was the position my party took during the election, and it's one we hold today.

There is an approach that does work in terms of dealing with crime, but it's a variety of approaches. Obviously, the greatest emphasis has to be on prevention. I'm critical of the government for not doing anywhere near enough, but then I'm critical of prior governments for not doing enough in that area and in some cases cutting back on programs that would have in fact helped on prevention.

Obviously, the role of enforcement and policing is also crucial. In terms of evidence, how many times did we hear the statement that the greatest way to stop crime is to have society as a whole and the individuals in society who are inclined to commit a crime know they're going to get caught? The policing and enforcement part is a crucial part. Again, I'm critical of both the current administration and the prior one for not doing enough to enhance the ability of our police and the sheer number of police on the street.

I think the evidence we heard from Chief Blair from Toronto was crucial in that regard. It showed what can be done if you take a creative approach to policing and apply extra resources, as he did in those two situations where he was after specific street gangs in his community and effectively shut them down .

There is also a third prong to the approach, and it's the role we have to play as legislators, as people who make the law for this country. It's what I call the condemnatory aspect. For example, as we did on impaired driving, we have to express that currently there is a serious problem in this country with this particular crime. We did it with impaired driving, and we did it fairly effectively. We applied the other two prongs as well. We put in extra effort from our police to stop impaired driving. We did a lot with groups like MADD and the police associations. They went out of their way to educate the public and did a great deal to prevent that particular crime by way of education and prevention.

We all recognize, and we heard it repeatedly from the evidence, that we have a specific problem with gun crimes in this country, particularly with handguns in our major cities. To some degree, and I would say to much of a degree, this bill expresses that condemnation as to that particular crime, and that we are serious about dealing with it.

I must say, Mr. Chair, if I had my druthers, I would like to see a timeline on a number of these provisions of the mandatory minimum increases. I'd expect that over the next five or ten years, as we approach these particular crimes with greater fervour, we wouldn't in fact need these sections in five or ten years, because we would have shut down the problem to a significant degree.

I'm optimistic that with the police, like Chief Blair and a number of the other police officers we've heard from, we will eventually shut this down, but we have to do our part. I think our part is to express that condemnation for gun crimes and that we're simply not going to put up with it.

In that regard, I brought forth these amendments. I believe and my party believes that we cannot completely do away with judicial discretion. Much as we did in Bill C-9, I'm proposing that, both in the first and the last amendments I put forward today.

I want to apologize to the committee. I really expected that I would have these for you by Monday morning, but one of my staff had the flu last week. I don't want to give him the entire credit, because I'm going to take some credit myself for these amendments, but he actually was the one who was shepherding them through, and unfortunately he was out of commission for a full three days. So I want to apologize that I didn't get them to you by yesterday, as I indicated I thought I would be able to.

What I've put forward in the first amendment and the last one is to reserve, in exceptional circumstances, judicial discretion. I think it's important that we express the condemnation, but we reserve for those exceptional cases where the mandatory minimums simply don't make sense and would result in an injustice. I've done that in those two.

The first one I just want to note as an example of why we need to reserve judicial discretion. In the amendments we're making to proposed new section 98.1, in clause 9, there is a particular problem, and it reflects, I suppose, the nature of the demographics of our country. We heard evidence that B-and-Es for the intent of stealing a weapon are becoming quite common in our major cities. But we also heard, in particular from Saskatchewan, that within the first nations, in particular in the north of the province, they have a number of these crimes—and it's mostly first nations—where they break in to steal the weapon to go hunting. That's all they're using the weapon for.

It's a common enough crime, perhaps arguably more common than the break and enters that we have in our major cities to steal weapons, but we've imposed on that a three-year and five-year mandatory minimum. Unless we reserve the judicial discretion, which is what my first amendment is intended to do, we will have an unintended consequence and one that would not be desirable—at least in my position. So we need to retain that discretion for our judges in exceptional circumstances.

I want to comment on Ms. Jennings' position. It's very well taken. It would have been much better if we had been able to approach this after first reading, rather than after second. Having said that, I recognize we are bound by the rules, but it is ultimately, Mr. Chair, in your hands to make a determination as to whether my first and last amendments are out of order as being beyond the scope of this legislation. Taking a broad view of that, you could rule these in.

I have to say, in addition, perhaps to the parliamentary secretary, that obviously not only at this committee but in the House, if we had all-party support for these amendments, they would go through. The Speaker would not rule them out—and I'm saying that just from practical experience with the current Speaker. We could put them in as amendments to this legislation to provide some cover from what I see, in some cases, as an extreme usage of the mandatory minimums, and allow our judges to make sure that justice is done in all cases in those circumstances where it's inappropriate to use a mandatory minimum.

So we can do that. We can do it here, and we can do it through our House leaders, and I guess our party leaders, by reaching an all-party agreement on this. That's the only solution I can offer you. I recognize, Mr. Chair, that even if you rule in favour of these being in order, the first one and the last one, we will still have a problem when it gets back to the House. But I would urge you to rule them in order at this time and let us deal with them as parties in the House.

The final point I will make in terms of the amendments is that the balance of my amendments, the other nine, are simply reducing the usage of the mandatory minimums in the ten-year category. I'm firmly of the opinion, and I know Mr. Thompson will love me to say this—and I'm not saying it just to irritate him, Mr. Chair, I want to be clear—that these will not survive a charter challenge. I think our courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, have made it very clear that somewhere around seven or eight years is the absolute maximum they are prepared to accept that does not breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think it behoves us as a committee, as legislators, that we don't pass laws that we know in advance are not going to survive either a charter or a constitutional challenge, whether it's in the area of criminal law or in a number of other areas. I think that would be irresponsible on our part.

The other nine amendments in effect eliminate the use of the ten-year mandatory minimums, so we'd only have two levels. We'd have the five-year sentence on the first offence, and seven years on any subsequent offences, whether two or more.

In that regard I would point out that in the material we got from Juristat, there were 14 offences in 2004-2005 where a person used a gun more than twice. We're not talking about a great number. In addition, Mr. Chair, knowing the judges I've practised in front of, I would say that in most cases, if you're on your third, fourth, or fifth offence with the use of a weapon, you're looking at ten years in any event. And oftentimes those crimes are coupled with other charges, and the person oftentimes ends up incarcerated in that range of ten years.

Those are my comments. Perhaps to summarize, I think what I've tried to do here is to make this work, to make it palatable to those of us who have a knee-jerk opposition to the use of mandatory minimums, but also to take into account the responsibility we have to express our revulsion at the use of guns in crimes in this country, to reflect the fact that the country is very concerned about this problem and that we're going to condemn the use of guns in this fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

The bill was reported back to the House from committee on December 13. It very seldom happens that a bill is reported back without amendments. That shows what can happen when there is strong cooperation between the parties. Actually this is one of six bills the official opposition has called upon the government to work with all parties to pass as soon as possible.

We believe with just a little more cooperation, especially from the government, that in addition to Bill C-26, the following bills could be reported back to the House: Bill C-9, which would restrict the use of conditional sentences; Bill C-18, which would strengthen the DNA data bank; Bill C-19, which would amend the Criminal Code on street racing; Bill C-23, which would amend the Criminal Code and criminal procedure in languages of the accused and sentencing, in other words, update Canada's Criminal Code; and Bill C-22, which would amend the Criminal Code with respect to age of protection, with the importance of protecting children. We believe with a little more cooperation from the government, we could in fact be getting those six bills approved in the House.

In summary, Bill C-26 amends the Criminal Code of Canada to exempt payday lenders who operate in provinces and territories having measures in place to protect borrowers from the application of section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and require jurisdictions that regulate the industry to place limits on the cost to consumers of payday borrowing.

To a great extent a lot of work was done on this bill by previous ministers of industry and justice. A lot of work has gone on with the provinces and territories to get the kind of collaboration needed to put forward this bill in the House of Commons. I congratulate all the folks, including members of the government, who were involved in those discussions to get us where we are at today.

There is certainly a need to ensure consumers that usury interest rates are not allowed in this country. There is no question that there is a lot of authority in the Criminal Code of Canada under section 347 to lay criminal charges for usurious interest rates. Section 347 makes it a criminal offence to charge more than 60% per annum.

As we all know, some payday loan companies have charged far in excess of that rate. In fact, we have heard of outrageous interest charges, when compounded and fees are added, in excess of 1,200% per annum, yet no charges under section 347 to payday loan companies have been made.

Yes, the concern is there, but the payday loan business is a little more complicated jurisdictionally, and I would say on an individual need basis, more than meets the eye. Jurisdictionally payday loan operations are considered to be commercial businesses. They are not banks, although I think many people believe they are. As commercial businesses, to a great extent they fall under provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague, the MP for Scarborough—Rouge River, explained it. I want to quote from his remarks in the House because he gave best explanation on this point:

We are going to keep a Criminal Code provision, but we are going to allow an exemption for a lawful business that lends money using this payday loan mechanism. The exemption will be based on the premise that a province or a territory is regulating the commercial operation.

He went on to say:

Placing this amendment with section 347, will allow the provinces to assume their proper jurisdiction in the regulation of the commercial affairs of their citizens. However, at the same time, we maintain the criminal prohibition with the 60% per annum cap where there is no provincial regulation. We are assuming that a province will provide a form of regulation that will essentially keep the same level of protection the consumers have had up to now.

It is important to mention that because it explains the jurisdictional problem and the difference between the commercialization as a business.

Therefore, the bill does cover off the jurisdictional question under clause 2 by the person being licensed by the province to enter into the agreement, and second, the province has been designated by the governor in council or cabinet under the proposed new section 347.1.3.

On an individual need basis, it is obvious from the demand for transactions, estimated to be $1.3 billion or more, and in fact the parliamentary secretary said it is as high as $2 billion now, and also the increase of payday loan companies that are estimated to be over 1,300. It is obvious from these shocking figures that individual Canadians have an urgent need for short term cash for whatever reason.

Yes, I recognize the amounts are in the low hundreds of dollars, but the cost, as others have said before me, are very high.

Mr. Jenkin with the Department of Industry, who was a witness before committee, indicated:

It's a form of short-term lending through which the consumer typically borrows several hundred dollars for 10 days to two weeks. The borrowing costs are very high, as you probably know. They are usually in the range of, for example, $40 to $75 for a $300 loan for two weeks or less.

I must emphasize that while I support the bill as a way to improve the situation for people who are in need of immediate cash, I still am worried about the impact of the financial strain on individuals. There is no question in my mind that the individuals who are basically forced to use these services are the ones who can least afford to pay these high fees. Maybe they need the dollars to provide food, buy groceries for the family. Maybe they need the dollars for a medical bill or maybe they even need the dollars to pay the minimum payment on a high interest bearing credit card.

Whatever the reason, there is clearly a problem out there that needs to be addressed beyond this bill. I certainly would advise the government and others that we really need to be doing as a country, both at the provincial and federal level, some research into the social or economic reason why people think they are forced to go to these services for those kinds of money. They are the people who can least afford it and I believe that needs to be looks into and addressed.

The bottom line is that we are in favour of this bill. We do believe it is a step in the right direction However, there are other underlying causes that we need to recognize are out there in a social and economic sense and issues that really affect people in their daily lives that forces them to use these services. That is the worrisome point.

The bill is good but I believe the House and the government need to look at the underlying causes of the need to use these services more so.

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

Thank you.

I just want to make these three points and get them on the record.

One--as I always get this on the record--the government continues to bring forward a number of different bills when a great deal of these could be consolidated into one omnibus bill. This section that we're dealing with...and I applaud Mr. Fast for bringing it forward, because it does address an issue. But the points he made with regard to some of the other sections that are inconsistent to the point of being absurd, and the penalties they have as compared to this type of crime, are very well taken. It seems to me it behooves the government to take a look at an overall review of the Criminal Code and do a major reform and restructuring of it to get rid of those absurdities.

The second point, as I raised in my questions, is that I am concerned about its potential impact on conditional sentences. So I'm just putting on the record that this is not the intent of this committee. We are very cognizant of what we did in Bill C-9, and the introduction of this increased penalty does not take this section of the code out of the ambit of the conditional sentencing regime we have.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to put this on the record in case we start to see it coming. I'm concerned that we're going to see a series of either private members' bills or perhaps other bills from the government along the lines of trying to get around the provisions of Bill C-9 as passed by the House. I'll just put on the record that I hope we won't see that happening, but I have to say cynically that I'm expecting it to come.

Those are the points I want to make. Thank you.

I am going to support the amendment.

[Carole Morency]

I think I'm in a difficult position in terms of trying to comment on that in the case of Bill C-9. It may be an issue, for example, that gets considered in the other place, in its review of Bill C-9.

[Carole Morency]

On the first question about the impact of Bill C-9--conditional sentencing reform as passed by the House on this offence--it was noted in the question to the previous witness that under Bill C-9 now...Bill C-277 would increase the maximum on indictment to ten years if passed. It would then be possible to make the argument that a conditional sentence should not be available in a luring charge if the court were persuaded that the facts of the case before them met the threshold definition of a serious personal injury offence, which is defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code. Under the circumstances, the facts of the case would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it met that threshold. As was indicated, based on the types of cases we've seen that have proceeded under the Internet luring offence to this point in time, and as reported, and given the facts and the considerations that the courts have looked at, our view is that it would be difficult to see that kind of threshold being met in these cases.

That said, I would like to take a moment to explain how the courts have dealt with the luring offence in terms of conditional sentences to this point. Of particular importance is the Ontario Court of Appeal's 2005 decision on the Folino case, which is a case that gets cited in many other cases right now as setting the bar. When is a conditional sentence appropriate in a child luring offence? In that case, the Court of Appeal held very clearly that in most cases involving the offence of child luring, the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence will require a sentence of institutional incarceration. Indeed, it will only be in the rarest of cases that a conditional sentence will be appropriate in a case involving this type of offence. It's been cited by other courts. Of 19 reported cases that I reread to prepare for today, there were only two that resulted in a conditional sentence. One was the case I just described--the Folino case.

More recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in the Jarvis case from August 2006, reiterated its point about the importance of deterrence and denunciation in these cases and, moreover, went on to say that the conduct prohibited by section 172.1 is serious, as is the secondary offence. If the person took the next step and committed one of the enumerated sexual offences, the court said, then for one of those offences now--in this case it was the invitation to sexual touching--you couldn't have a conditional sentence because of the presence of a mandatory minimum penalty as a result of Bill C-2 from the former Parliament.

Based on our review of the case law to this point in time, and as it's been reported, conditional sentences are—as I say, two cases out of nineteen—very exceptional and very much a reflection of the facts and circumstances in those cases.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Lee and Mr. Comartin mentioned the effect of Bill C-9. Now that we've drastically changed it, in your opinion, would this crime be caught by the new Bill C-9?

My last question is on this ability to lock up people who are always going to offend. Having reoffenders with no chance of being cured is obviously a frustration. Can you explain how the system works for people like Clifford Olson? What are the options for keeping someone in jail past their sentence, other than what is in this particular bill?