Bill C-2 (Historical)

Tackling Violent Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by
(a) creating two new firearm offences and providing escalating mandatory sentences of imprisonment for serious firearm offences;
(b) strengthening the bail provisions for those accused of serious offences involving firearms and other regulated weapons;
(c) providing for more effective sentencing and monitoring of dangerous and high-risk offenders;
(d) introducing a new regime for the detection and investigation of drug impaired driving and strengthening the penalties for impaired driving; and
(e) raising the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I wanted to ask the hon. member.

Some years ago there was a very tragic circumstance in downtown Hamilton. An offender who had been charged and convicted, charged and convicted, and charged and convicted walked across the road from what was purportedly a safe federal release site into Jackson Square Mall and repeatedly stabbed a young woman, who amazingly survived. The assistant crown attorney in Hamilton spent 18 months of his career trying to make sure that the dangerous offender label was put on this man, so that he could not do this again.

I would like to ask the member whether she is for our crown attorneys spending a year and a half to two years trying to get dangerous offenders off the street before they harm women, children or men again? Or whether she is for the Conservative provision that would allow crown attorneys to put the onus on defence attorneys when someone is repeatedly charged and convicted with violent, terrible crimes, so that they can prove to the public that the accused people are worthy of release?

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of dangerous offenders has been a very difficult one for all of us. I think even my profession probably has not done what it should have to have proper assessments in terms of true psychopathy and the people who really do not know the difference between right and wrong. The people who think that what is right is what they get away with and what is wrong is what they get caught doing are a danger to our communities. We need ways in which we can determine the people who will not benefit from years and years of treatment and therapy and who really need to be off our streets.

We need to provide the courts the capacity to identify these people and to deal with them in a very serious way so kids who make a mistake once can really turn their lives around like the amazingly inspirational Matt Geigen-Miller, who appeared before the justice committee a number of years ago. He showed that getting into trouble can be turned around. Kids can come out to an absolutely amazing life of contributing to other kids, as he did.

This is a very important differentiation and I hope the government will put the resources necessary to this so we can deal with and diagnose dangerous offenders in an effective way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating is the amendment put forward by the NDP. It would delete the clause with respect to declaring a person a dangerous offender and putting a reverse onus on it.

While the member spoke, she was all over the map. She did not really direct much of her comment to that specific amendment. However, it is true the whole issue of justice is a large issue, and she covered a lot more than just the motion before the House.

If she looks at the amendment to delete the clause on reverse onus, she must agree that this is not a lightly thought motion or concept. First, the list of items under which one is charged is very serious. We are talking about rape and murder, not once, not twice but three times. By then surely people will say that all these things the Liberals put in place to help prevent them from becoming a criminal did not work. All the things they have put in place to help them while in prison to learn not to be criminals have not worked. For the safety of others, we need to keep these people restrained on a more permanent basis for the protection of society. Surely this is not something she would be against.

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

Mr. Speaker, in all conscience we cannot support the NDP motion. We believe it is our obligation as a society to make this diagnosis as early as possible and to then put the accused in the proper place that will keep society safe.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, protecting citizens against violent crime is very important in my community as it is to all of us. However, crime rates have actually gone down over the past 10 years, as we all know, but there much more to be done. I think we could all agree with that as well.

We must tackle the problem of violent crime, but we must also do it responsibly. We cannot simply lock people up and throw away the keys, as the government obviously wants to do.

We have worked hard to improve on these bills from the last session, despite the Conservative government's attempt to obstruct its own legislation by not calling the bills forward for debate in the House of Commons.

We proposed to fast track the legislation we supported in order to protect Canadians, but the Conservatives refused to pass their own legislation. I think they are still focused on being in opposition where all they did was obstruct government bills. They continue to do the same with their own government.

I want to talk about how violent crime affects women in the country and also try to get the government to see that we can do more to prevent crime, rather than increase penalties and lock people away forever.

We see that even in U.S., where mandatory minimum sentences are in place, the government is moving away from this method because it simply does not work. It fills up prisons and does not help in rehabilitating the offender.

I believe it is better to prevent the crime in the first place. That way we do not have a criminal and we do not have a victim. It is so much better not to have victim. When prevention fails to stop an individual from committing a crime, we must ensure that the rehabilitation process is in place and is effective.

I want to give an example of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and how it is applied because that is a major area of discussion these days as well. Quebec, for instance, has a much lower recidivism problem with respect to young offenders than other parts of the country. Why? It is because its prevention program is much better, but also the supportive program, the rehabilitation program, is much stronger and much more effective.

In fact a few years back Chile signed an agreement with Quebec to use their model—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on a point of order.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we are now debating an NDP amendment, not this point. My colleague is all over the place with this, but she is not actually debating the issue in question.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you call her to order, so that the debate can remain relevant to the topic.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for his point of order. I am sure he will agree that justice is a broad topic.

I am sure the hon. member for Beaches—East York will come to the point of the debate soon.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an indication of exactly what I was trying to say. We cannot deal with the amendment without dealing with all the other aspects I was discussing. With all due respect, what I was saying was very much appropriate. If we prevent crime in the first place, we do not have to get to the point of having to have reverse onus at all.

This is very important with respect to youth. Chile has an agreement with Quebec to take the Quebec model and to use it in Chile. Maybe the government might want to learn something from some of our own provinces and how they are applying prevention and rehabilitation so we do not get to the point of discussing the issue of reverse onus.

We must address the growing problem of domestic violence in the country as well. I know the hon. member does not want to hear about it, but the reality is that 53% of all women who are victims of a violent crime were victims of a common assault, 13% were victims of sexual assault and 11% were victims of assault with a weapon. Not all of these are preventable, necessarily, but most of them are if we were to spend some money in education with respect to problems with domestic violence. However, the government instead has chosen to cut and to change the mandate of the Status of Women Canada and eliminate not only the issue of equality, but the research and advocacy needed in this area and the kind of work that is required. The United Nations has pointed that out already.

Again, in order to change a social condition that exists in our country, we have to ensure that these kinds of crimes can be prevented. However, the government does not seem to be interested in these things.

We all know that women are considerably more likely than men to be victims of violent crimes, such as sexual assault and criminal harassment.

Women are also more often victimized in their homes, in communities and in prisons, as we have seen more recently. There were 224,000 women who said they feared for their lives as a result of a violent spouse. These are things that can be assisted. Rehabilitation will work in those areas in many cases. We should look at the conditions of poverty, mental health and other situations.

Furthermore, aboriginal women are more than three times likely to report being victims of spousal violence than their non-aboriginal counterparts, 24% of aboriginal women, or almost a quarter.

Due to the often cyclical nature of domestic violence, women involved in abusive relationships are often caught in a revolving door of abuse and refuge. The government is doing little to nothing in the way of prevention. In fact, it has gone the other way around. Portions of this omnibus bill attempt to do that, but I do not think it addresses it to the extent we need.

The government has proposed an American style “three strikes and you're out” law to jail certain offenders indefinitely. In fact, those particularly affected would include aboriginal women with addictions or histories of abuse who have acted out in violence and have inadequate access to healing. Again, these are areas of prevention; women who are incarcerated, larger numbers in the aboriginal communities. A great deal of issues are not being addressed by prevention.

In part, the government is criminalizing the poor and mentally ill as a result of this rather than ensuring access to affordable housing, incomes, training, support, mental health services and assistance. Mental health is one of the areas that receives the least attention and the least funds whenever it comes to health dollars. Yet more than 50% of all those incarcerated, as we know, have mental health issues. Again, this goes to prevention and it goes to the civility of the society.

According to Statistics Canada, the number of Canadians spending time behind bars increased in 2005-06 for the first time in more than a decade. This increase is due to the larger number of individuals in remand, serving time waiting their trials or sentencing. In fact, the number of adults in remand rose 12% in 2005-06. This means that for the first time, the number of Canadians awaiting their trial or sentencing outnumber those serving actual jail time.

The result is that offenders are spending less time in custody because courts are giving credit for time spent in remand when determining the length of a sentence and no rehabilitation is taking place while they are there.

If the Conservative government is so tough on crime, why is it that jail sentences for those found guilty of a crime is decreasing, while time spent in jail for those waiting to have a fair trial is increasing? Again, while they are waiting for justice, no rehabilitation is being offered at this time, which goes to the problem of recidivism.

It seems that the Conservatives' attempts to play partisan games with the Criminal Code is holding up more than legislation in this House. It is also holding up Canadians' rights to fair and speedy trials.

The number of women serving jail time is also on the rise. In fact, the fastest growing prison population worldwide is women. In particular, it is racialized. These are young, poor women and women with mental and cognitive disabilities. These escalating numbers are quite obviously linked to barriers in health care, education and social services. Again, these are areas that the government is ignoring, quite deliberately. Again it goes to the issue of rehabilitation, which means that we would not need to use the reverse onus or the draconian kinds of laws that we are so bound to use.

The number of Canadians incarcerated in 2005-06 was 110 per 100,000, which is a far cry from the United States where it is 738 per 100,000. The Americans have been going down the road of incarceration for many years and, in fact, they are beginning to look the other way because it has not worked. Increasing the jail population does not work. It does not prevent crime. It does not help to rehabilitate criminals. It does not reduce crime on our streets.

I would really like to challenge the government on this. Not only does the reverse onus not work and, as other members have mentioned, may not be constitutional, but, more important, it does not address the problem of the security of our communities, which is the main point.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way and a lot of what she said was incorrect. However, I would agree with her principle of being proactive, which is why I personally, in my riding, was involved with a number of announcements focusing on high risk youth.

She was correct in sharing the importance of dealing with the problem proactively, even at the early stages of an individual's life. That is why we have provided, as a government, programs that, unfortunately, the Liberal government ignored for 13 long years. From the comments that the member made, the Liberals knew that it was very necessary to be proactive but they ignored that. In 21 short months, we have accomplished much more than they did over 13 years.

It is very disappointing to hear that she knows what should have been done but it was not done.

I want to focus though--

[An hon. member]

I think she was the minister.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

She was the minister, so there was a huge responsibility on her shoulders. Why did she not do it when she had that opportunity?

However, I would like her to talk about these very dangerous, high risk people who reverse onus would apply to. Why would she not want to see them dealt with appropriately? Why would she want to see them released back into the community with zero consequence, the traditional Liberal hugathon philosophy? Why would she want to see that go on? Why would she not want to get serious about high risk offenders who will reoffend and who will put our communities at risk?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not right when he says that we did nothing with respect to crime prevention.

The national crime prevention program was one of the best in this country. In fact, if I am not mistaken, I believe the hon. member's government reduced funding to that program with its first budget. Other programs came forward from the mayor of the city of Toronto with respect to gun violence in that city and other areas.

Some of the programs that were put forward by the Liberals were not renewed by the government, not to mention the fact that the government eliminated the national child care program that would have helped children with mental health issues receive assistance and be identified early on when they are in an early childhood development environment where they could receive help.

For me, it is more about the overall societal responsibility to prevention. It is not just one little program, a one off in one part of the country that may deal with it. It is an overall effort with respect to the prevention of crime for domestic violence, which, by the way, the government has done nothing about with respect to women. As I said before, it has eliminated advocacy and any other work with respect to women.

When it comes to high risk offenders, there is no question that we need to address that issue, but we must also be extremely careful as to who we identify because rehabilitation for people is still one of the best ways to prevent crime if we want to address crime seriously.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments very carefully and appreciated a number of them to the effect that the government's supposed tough on crime approach is actually an American style approach on crime that just fills up prisons and does not tackle the violent crime issue.

What about rehabilitation? What about housing? What about mental health? In comparison to the amount that the government is investing in the criminalization part of the bill, the amount for rehabilitation and the preventive programs for youth has been very puny.

What confuses me about the member's comments is that we are speaking to the amendment that places a reverse onus on convicted persons to prove that they should not be considered dangerous offenders. Of course, we had supported the other--