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.

Criminal Code

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

moved that Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to represent the good people of Perth—Wellington in this place.

It is an honour to rise in the House this afternoon to begin second reading debate of my private member's bill, known in this Parliament as Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation).

As I stated when I introduced the bill at first reading, it is a direct result of the advocacy, comments and concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington.

In early 2018, an incident occurred in which a person employed to work with persons with disabilities, who was also a children's entertainer, was convicted of a serious sexual crime against a person living with disabilities. My constituents were outraged by the lenient sentence of a monetary fine and probation, and called for a resolution to the flaw in the Criminal Code.

In a perfect world, I would have liked to have done so much more through the bill to better support Canadians living with disabilities. Far too often I hear from constituents who live with disabilities that they have fallen through the cracks: those who experience challenges in accessing government programs; those who face challenges with housing; and those who encounter barriers in employment. However, as hon. members know, with the limitations of Private Members' Business, it would not be possible to achieve all these goals through legislation without a royal recommendation.

In his 1913 autobiography, Theodore Roosevelt includes this quotation, “Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are ”. I am here today in the House doing what I can with the legislative resources available to me to try in this way to better protect Canadians living with disabilities.

I originally introduced the legislation in the previous Parliament, in January 2019, as Bill C-424. However, as members know, the Standing Orders on Private Members' Business were a barrier to moving the bill forward at the time and it died on the Order Paper when the 42nd Parliament was dissolved.

During the 2019 election, the proposals contained in my bill were included as part of the Conservative Party's election platform, and I personally made the commitment to my constituents that if I were to be re-elected, I would bring back this legislation to the House. Today, I am fulfilling that commitment to the constituents of Perth—Wellington.

Shortly after I tabled the bill for the second time in February 2020, another case involving sexual exploitation reached the news. This case involved a young person. The former chief of police of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia was sentenced to a 15-month imprisonment following an October 2019 conviction for sexually exploiting a 17-year-old girl. In this instance, the offender was also convicted of sexual assault, however, this caused a legal issue as it was questioned as to whether the court could convict a guilty person of two criminal offences for the same incident. In this case, the conviction of sexual exploitation was entered and the conviction of sexual assault was stayed.

As a sexual exploitation charge is often accompanied by a sexual assault charge, Bill C-219 would provide the additional benefit of ensuring only fair sentences are available when such controversies occur. Furthermore, Bill C-219 proposes to provide courts with the ability to impose harsher sentences in instances when only a charge of sexual exploitation is made. One example of the convictions of sexual exploitation but not sexual assault occurred last year, also in Nova Scotia, in which a religious leader was convicted of sexually exploiting a 17-year-old young person.

The second proposal contained within Bill C-219 was also inspired by the incident that occurred in my riding. If passed, the bill will require courts to consider the fact that a victim is a person living physical or mental disability as an aggravating circumstance when sentencing a person convicted under section 286.1(1) or 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code. This would fill an unfortunate void currently existing in the Criminal Code.

Persons living with disabilities are more vulnerable to this kind of exploitation due to a number of factors, including the capacity to give consent. What is more, in many cases, the offender is known to the victim and is often someone the victim must rely upon for care or other personal or financial support. This addition to the Criminal Code would ensure courts always take into account this vulnerability.

It is a sad truth, but as legislators we must be willing to admit that sexual exploitation is a problem in our country and we must strengthen our laws to better protect the most vulnerable in our communities.

Research and statistics have time and time again shown us that young people and persons living with disabilities are more often than not the victims of sexual and other types of crime.

According to Statistics Canada's report “Victims of Police-reported violent crime in Canada, 2016”, “When controlling for population, the rate of victimization was highest among youth aged 16 to 17 and young adults aged 18 to 24.” The report further explains, “Overall, 8% of police-reported victims were victims of sexual offences. However, these offences were much more prevalent among child and youth victims that came to the attention of police.” The report goes on to state that 34%, more than one-third of female victims of sexual offences, were aged only 12 to 17 years old.

According to Statistics Canada’s Report Violent Victimization of Women with Disabilities, “according to both self-reported and police-reported data, the large majority of victims are women...This trend is also evident when looking at the population with a disability” who are victims of self-reported sexual assault “as nearly nine in ten (88%) victims...were women.” The report also states that Canadians with a disability, 30% of incidents, were more likely to be victimized in their own home compared to victims who did not have disability. This serves to highlight the sad reality that even in their home, people with a disability are at an increased vulnerability.

According to the Department of Justice Research and Statistics Division, “Sexual assault is a gendered crime; women are victimized at a higher rate…than men... As with other violent victimization…young people aged 15-24 years have the highest rate of sexual assault (71 incidents per 1,000 population).”

Sexual exploitation is a disturbing crime because it involves an imbalance and an abuse of power. Often it involves some sort of authority figure in a position of trust. That is why for years the Criminal Code includes the following description in its section on sexual exploitation “Every person...who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person” or “who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency. ” Furthermore, in the sexual exploitation of someone with a person with a disability, it reads similarly, “Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a person with a mental or physical disability or who is a person with whom a person with a mental or physical disability is in a relationship of dependency.”

This makes the specific crime of sexual exploitation all the more concerning. It requires a person in a position of power to take advantage of that power for their own appalling purposes. There is no excuse and there is no justification for these kinds of acts. These crimes occur when a person actively choses to use their position to harm an innocent victim.

Last month I had the honour to meet virtually with representatives of Boost Child & Youth Advocacy Centre, an organization that provides services to victims of these types of crimes from Toronto to Barrie to Peterborough. They talk about how difficult it is for victims of vulnerable populations in the justice system.

We need to ensure they are respected and supported. We need to ensure when victims come forward, they feel they are taken seriously. We need to ensure victims of these types of crimes have faith in the system and believe the devastating acts committed against them will not go unpunished.

I recognize that introducing legislation that proposes to increase sentences may not be consistent with the direction of the current government, which has often taken the position that some mandatory minimums are not appropriate. I would like to address that issue.

Charter challenges on mandatory minimum sentences are determinations if the sentence is “grossly disproportionate”. This is not the case with this bill. Given the abuse of power and the long-term impacts on victims, it should be clear to all of us that a one-year minimum sentence for sexual exploitation of a person under 18 years of age or a person with a disability is proportionate to the serious crime.

Sex crimes are different from other crimes. This has been recognized by successive governments for decades, including by the current Liberal government. The current mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days for sexual exploitation of a young person has been in place since the current Liberal government came to office and they have chosen to keep that in place. In fact, when the government introduced Bill C-22, their own backgrounder explicitly stated they were not proposing to remove mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences and listed them among other serious violent offences in which strict sentences remain in place.

Furthermore, when the justice minister spoke in the House, he clearly stated that sexual offences committed against children were committed by serious criminals and should be treated seriously. The same should be true of sexual offences committed against persons living with disabilities.

It would be beneficial for Parliament, the elected branch of government, to explicitly include in the Criminal Code a higher sentence for these crimes for the purpose of protecting vulnerable Canadians. Criminal laws serve to protect vulnerable people and serve a valid purpose. They are a legitimate part of fostering a safe society and they serve the public good.

The last number of months, under the challenges of COVID-19, many Canadians have been distressed to hear increasing reports of sexual crimes.

On July 13, 2020, a CBC news headline stated, “Child sex exploitation is on the rise in Canada during the pandemic.” The article states, “Cybertip.ca said...saw an 81 per cent spike over April, May and June in reports from youth who had been sexually exploited, and reports of people trying to sexually abuse children.”

A Global News report last month stated that a man from outside of Edmonton was arrested and charged with multiple counts of exploitation, among other charges.

A March 20, CBC news headlined stated, “Reports of sexual violations against children double in P.E.I.”

I encourage all members of all parties to come together to support this bill. In fact, there is precedence for all-party co-operation regarding changes to these sections of the Criminal Code.

Prior to 2005, the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation of a young person as an indictable offence was only five years, and no minimum sentence was provided. This changed in the 38th Parliament, when the then Liberal minority government passed Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act, which was sponsored by then justice minister Irwin Cotler. That bill increased the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation of a young person to 10 years, and introduced a minimum sentence of 14 days.

The bill also added to the Criminal Code a list of factors regarding the nature and circumstances of the relations to be established to determine how the relationship is exploitative. As Minister Cotler told the justice committee at the time, the purposes of the bill were ”to provide greater protection to youth against sexual exploitation from persons who would prey on their vulnerability.”

This bill was not only supported by all parties, but its passage was accelerated by all-party agreement and the use of a unanimous consent motion.

Then, on May 1, 2008, the Criminal Code was amended again, through another bill also named Bill C-2, this time to change the definition of a young person and to provide additional protections. This bill, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, was sponsored by the then justice minister Rob Nicholson and passed quickly through the House of Commons with all-party support and co-operation.

I would note the support of that bill included the current Minister of Transport, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the government House leader, the chief government whip, and the Liberals members for Ottawa South, Halifax West, Humber River—Black Creek, Lac-Saint-Louis and Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

Young people and persons living with disabilities need to be protected. It is incumbent on us to pass this bill, because it is a targeted bill to correct two specific flaws in the Criminal Code. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure the Criminal Code provides appropriate sentences for disturbing crimes so vulnerable Canadians are not at risk. There is no excuse for these crimes.

I urge all my fellow members to support this important bill.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I ask that you rule amendment LIB-55 out of order for offending the so-called “parent act rule”. Page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, Bosc and Gagnon, states:

In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

The latter point traces back to citation 698(8)(b) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, the editor of which, Mr. John Holtby, is perhaps well known to many of us around this place.

Bosc and Gagnon offer, among several precedents, the November 20, 2007, meeting of the legislative committee on Bill C-2, a meeting at which I understand you, Mr. Chair, were in attendance, where the committee chair ruled several amendments out of order for offending this very rule.

In the present case, amendment LIB-55 proposes to add a new clause 344.1 for the purpose of making an amendment to section 498 of the Canada Elections Act.

Bill C-76 as introduced would amend both sections 497.5 and 499 of the Canada Elections Act, the two sections that bookend 498, but not section 498 itself. Therefore, Chair, I think the government's amendment is quite clearly out of order.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Chief Bates, in 2008, when the government of the day passed Bill C-2 in the second session of the 39th Parliament, it introduced a legislative amendment that allowed for the testimony of drug recognition experts and gave the authority for the standardized field sobriety testing. At that time, or actually about two months after that was passed and enacted, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that they needed to train 27,000 officers in standardized field sobriety testing and some 2,600 officers as drug recognition experts.

The CACP, in their resolution, said they wanted to ensure there was adequate funding for that training to take place. The government of the day authorized $2 million for that training to take place, and my understanding from your testimony and from earlier testimony from the CACP is that we still do not have, at this point in time, adequate numbers of drug recognition or standardized field sobriety officers trained.

With the introduction of the government's allocation of $161 million for that training to take place now, do you believe we are in a better position to produce the desirable outcome of having adequate people trained to keep our roadways safe?

[Benoît Gariépy]

Perhaps I can answer that question.

I do not think the Quebec Bar is here today to examine the constitutionality of the bill. Trial judges and later on the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada will certainly have the opportunity to do that.

The eminent Professor Hogg gave his opinion yesterday. Once again, who am I to contradict what a constitutional expert told this committee? I am not saying that the entire bill is completely unconstitutional, but I think some of its clauses might be considered excessive in their scope.

You will remember Bill C-2 which, once it was passed, became the subject of constitutional challenges for four and a half years. Bill C-46 is Bill C-2 to the power of 22 and will also be the subject of challenges. They will not necessarily come from the Quebec Bar, but I know criminal lawyers who are aware of Bill C-46 and who are already sharpening their tools. If the bill is passed in its current form, there will be constitutional challenges.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague just at the beginning of his speech on the justification for the motion that he has just presented to the House, but we have a point of order that we need to raise because I think it establishes a couple of important things for you, as Speaker, to determine before we get into the context and the particulars of this motion.

Specifically, I will be citing Standing Order 13, which says:

Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.

This is the standing order that we cite, because we have looked at the motion the government has presented here today with some notice given last week.

This motion goes against the Standing Orders and certainly the spirit of Parliament. The government is not allowed to break the rules of Parliament that protect the rights of the minority, the opposition and all members of the House of Commons who have to do their jobs for the people they represent. This motion is very clearly contrary to the existing Standing Orders.

I have some good examples to illustrate this. In my opinion, there is no urgency that would justify the government's heavy-handed tactics to prevent members from holding a reasonable debate on its agenda. I say “agenda”, but for a long time now it has been difficult to pin down what this government's agenda is exactly. This is nothing new.

The motion comes to us today at a difficult time, but just because the government held a brief caucus meeting and is facing numerous problems and a few scandals, it is not justified in violating the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. No one would accept those excuses. There is no historical basis for the government to use the Standing Orders in this way. That does not work.

There are a few important things we need to point out. One is that it behooves us to have some explanation of what this motion actually does. For those of us who do not intimately follow the rules and history of Parliament, it can be quite confusing not in terms of the intention of what the government has read but certainly in the implications. It needs some translation, not French to English or English to French, but translation as to what it actually means for the House of Commons. That is why we believe a point of order exists for this motion.

The motion essentially would immediately begin something that would ordinarily begin in a couple of weeks, which is for the House to sit until midnight to review legislation. This is somewhat ironic from a government that has a bad history with respect to moving legislation correctly through the process and allowing us to do our work, which is what we are here to do on behalf of Canadians.

I am not alone in seeing that the government has shown the intention of having some urgency with respect to 23 bills, 14 of which have not even been introduced since the last election. Suddenly there is great urgency, when in fact it is the government that has set the agenda. The urgency is so great that it has to fundamentally change the rules of how we conduct ourselves in this place in response to an urgency that did not exist until this moment.

One has to question the need. Why the panic? Why now, and why over these pieces of legislation? Are they crucial to Canada's economic well-being? Is it to restore the social safety net that the government has brutalized over the last number of years? What is the panic and what is the urgency?

Context sets everything in politics, and the context that the government exists under right now is quite telling. Every time I have had to stand in this place raising points of order and countering the closure and time allocation motions that the government uses, I am often stating and citing that this is a new low standard for Parliament. I have thought at times that there was not much more it could do to this place to further erode the confidence of Canadians or further erode the opportunity for members of Parliament to speak, yet it has again invented something new, and here we are today debating that motion.

That is why we believe that Standing Order 13 needs to be called. It is because it is very clear that when a motion is moved that is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament—which is what I would underline, as it is the important part—the Speaker must involve himself or herself in the debate and ask that the debate no longer proceed.

The privileges of members of Parliament are not the privileges that are being talked about by our friends down the hall to falsely claim money that did not exist or privileges of limo rides and trips around the world. The privileges of Parliament that speak constitutionally to the need for Parliament are that members of Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinized and debate government bills.

Just before the riding week, we saw the government introduce another time allocation on a bill that had received exactly 60 minutes of debate. Somehow the Conservatives felt that had exhausted the conversation on a bill they had sat on for years, and suddenly the panic was on. We are seeing this pattern again and again with a government that is facing more scandal.

I was looking through the news today. Every morning I start my day with the news and we consider what we should ask the government in question period. There are some days when the focus can be difficult and one may not be sure what the most important issue of the day is. However, the challenge for us today as the official opposition is that, as there are so many scandals on so many fronts, how do we address them all within the short time we have during question period or in debate on bills.

I listened to my friend for Langley, who has been somewhat in the news of late on his attempt to speak on issues he felt were important to his constituents. We saw him move a new private member's bill today. He withdrew the former bill, and now he is moving one again. The New Democrats will support the bill going to committee for study because we think there are some options and availability for us to look at the legislation and do our job.

Whether it is muzzling of their own MPs and the Conservatives' attempt to muzzle all MPs in the House of Commons, or using private members' bills to avoid the scrutiny that is applied to government legislation, and one important piece of that scrutiny is the charter defence of the legislation and so, in a sense, the Conservatives are using the back door to get government legislation through and move their agenda in another way, or the omnibus legislation, which has received so much controversy in Canada as the government has increasingly abused the use of omnibus legislation, or the F-35 fiasco, or the recent Auditor General's report, or the former parliamentary budget officer who was under much abuse and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer who has asked for the same things he did, or infamously, prorogation, time and time again the pattern is the same. The government has complete disdain for the House.

Whether it be the scandals in the Senate, or the China FIPA accord, or the recent problems with the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, or the employment insurance scandals, or the $3 billion missing, or the 300,000 jobs that have not been replaced, the government keeps trying to avoid proper scrutiny out of embarrassment. However, the House of Commons exists for one thing and one thing alone, which is to hold the government to account.

The government will make some claims that the urgency right now is because there has not been enough progress on legislation. Therefore, the Conservatives have to hit the panic button and would have the House sit until midnight, which has consequences beyond just being a late night, and I will get into those consequences in a moment because they support our notion that it infringes upon the entitlements of members of Parliament to debate legislation properly.

The Conservatives' record shows, and this is not speculation or conspiracy, that when they ram legislation through, they more often than not get it wrong. That is not just expensive for the process of law making, but it is expensive for Canadians. These things often end up in court costing millions and millions of dollars and with victims of their own making. The scandal that exists in the Senate is absolutely one of their own making. The Prime Minister can point the finger where he likes, but he appointed those senators.

Specific to the point of order I am raising, this motion would lower the amount of scrutiny paid to legislation. It would allow the government extended sittings, which are coming in the second week of June anyway, as the Standing Orders currently exist, to allow the government to do that, but the Conservatives want to move the clock up and have more legislation rammed through the House.

Also, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, the order of our day includes concurrence reports from committee, which allow the House to debate something that happened in committee which can sometimes be very critical, and many are moved from all sides. However, they would not get started until midnight under the Conservatives' new rules. Therefore, we would study and give scrutiny on what happened at committee from midnight until two or three o'clock in the morning.

As well, emergency debates would not start until midnight. Just recently we had a debate, Mr. Speaker, that your office agreed to allow happen, which was quite important to those implicated. We were talking about peace and war and Canada's role in the world. It was a critical emergency debate that certainly went into the night. However, the idea is that we would take emergency debates that the Speaker's office and members of Parliament felt were important and start them at midnight and somehow they would be of the same quality as those started at seven o'clock in the evening.

The scrutiny of legislation has become much less important than the government moving its agenda through, which is an infringement on our privilege as members of Parliament. The Conservative's so-called urgency, their panic, is not a justification for overriding the privileges that members of Parliament hold dear.

As for progress, just recently we moved the nuclear terrorism bill through, Bill S-9.

We also had much debate but an improvement on Bill C-15, the military justice bill, to better serve our men and women in the Forces. The original drafting was bad. The Conservatives wanted to force it forward and we resisted. My friend from St. John's worked hard and got an amendment through that would help those in the military who found themselves in front of a tribunal.

We have the divorce in civil marriages act, which has been sitting and sitting. It would allow people in same-sex marriages to file for and seek divorce. All we have offered to the government is one vote and one speaker each. The government refuses to bring the bill forward and I suspect it is because it would require a vote. It is a shame when a government resists the idea that a vote would be a good thing for members of Parliament to declare their intentions on, certainly something as important as civil liberties and rights for gay men and women.

I mentioned earlier why, in the infringement of this privilege, it causes great harm and distress not just to Parliament but to the country.

I asked my team to pull up the list of bills that were so badly written that they had to be either withdrawn or completely rewritten at committee and even in the Senate which, God knows, is a terrible strategy for any legislation.

There was the infamous or famous Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, which the Minister of Public Safety said something to the effect that either people were with the government or they were with child pornographers, which may be an example of the worst framing in Canadian political history. There has probably been worse, but that was pretty bad. The Conservatives had to kill the bill.

We have also seen Bill C-10, Bill C-31, Bill C-38 and Bill C-42, all of these bills were so badly written that oftentimes the government had to amend them after having voted for them. After saying they were perfect and ramming them through, invoking closure and shutting down debate, the Conservatives got to committee and heard from people who actually understood the issue and realized the law they had written would be illegal and would not work or fix the problem that was identified, and so they had to rewrite it. That is the point of Parliament. That is the point of the work we do.

We have also seen bills that have been challenged at great expense before the courts. Former Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, with huge sections of the government's main anti-crime agenda, was challenged and defeated in court.

Bill C-38, arbitrarily eliminating backlog for skilled workers, was challenged and defeated.

Bill C-7, Senate term limits, was after years just now deferred to the Supreme Court. It is called “kicking it down the road”.

Also, there are Bill C-6, Bill C-33 and others, and there are those that are being crafted and debated right now that are going to have serious problems.

The essential thrust of our intention is in identifying the rules that govern us, and specifically Standing Order 13. The government has time and again talked about accountability before the Canadian people and talked about doing things better than its predecessors in the Liberal Party, the government that became so arrogant and so unaccountable to Canadians that the Conservatives threw it out of office. History repeats itself if one does not learn true lessons from history.

As I mentioned, Standing Order 27(1) already exists, and it allows the government to do exactly what we are talking about, but not starting until the last 10 sitting days. The Conservatives have said that there is so much on their so-called agenda that they have to do this early, allowing for less scrutiny, allowing for emergency debates to start at midnight, allowing for concurrence debates that come from committees to start at midnight and go until two, three or four o'clock in the morning.

This is contrary to the work of parliamentarians. If the Conservatives are in such a rush, why do they not negotiate? Why do they not actually come to the table and do what parliamentarians have done throughout time, which is offer the to and fro of any proper negotiation between reasonable people?

We have moved legislation forward. My friend across the way was moving an important motion commemorating war heroes. We worked with that member and other members to ensure the bill, which came from the Senate, made it through speedy passage.

Parliament can work if the Conservatives let it work, but it cannot work if they keep abusing it. Canadians continue to lose faith and trust in the vigour of our work and the ability to hold government to account. We see it time and again, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have as well, in talking to constituents who say that they are not sure what goes on here anymore, that it just seems like government will not answer questions, that everyday they ask sincere and thoughtful questions and the Conservatives do not answer. Bills get shut down with motions of closure.

Let us look at the current government's record.

Thirty-three times, the Conservatives have moved allocation on legislation, an all-time high for any government in Canadian history. Through war and peace, through good and bad, no government has shut down debate in Parliaments more than the current one.

Ninety-nine point three per cent of all amendments moved by the opposition have been rejected by the government. Let us take a look at that stat for a moment. That suggests that virtually 100% of the time, the government has been perfectly right on the legislation it moves. All the testimony from witnesses and experts, comments from average Canadians, when moving amendments to the legislation before us, 99.3% of the time the government rejects it out of hand. It ends up in court. It ends up not doing what it was meant to do.

Ten Conservative MPs have never spoken to legislation at all. I will note one in particular. The Minister of Finance, who has not bothered to speak to his own bills, including the omnibus legislation, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which caused so much controversy. He did not bother to stand and justify his actions. I find it deplorable and it is not just me, Canadians as well, increasingly so.

This is my final argument. We cannot allow this abuse to continue. This pattern has consequences, not just for what happens here today or tomorrow, but in the days, weeks, months and years to come and the Parliaments to come. If we keep allowing for and not standing up in opposition to bad ideas and draconian measures, we in a sense condone them.

We say that Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think that is wrong. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong. It is not right and left; it is right and wrong. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We built this place out of bricks and mortar to do one thing: to allow the voice of Canadians to be represented, to speak on behalf of those who did not have a voice and to hold the government of the day to account. Lord knows the government needs that more than anything. It needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history and shutting down debate more than any government in history and using what it is today, it speaks to weakness not strength. The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

[Joseph Jordan, Senior Consultant, The Capital Hill Group]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the committee for the invitation to participate as a witness in your five-year statutory review of the Lobbying Act, as is mandated by section 14.1 of the legislation.

By way of introduction, I am a former member of Parliament. I served as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. I served as parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. I was the director of parliamentary affairs in a minister's office. I am currently a member of the Queen's Privy Council and am currently a senior consultant with The Capital Hill Group, a government relations firm here in Ottawa. I also teach government relations in the MBA program at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto. In other words, to use the vernacular of the bill, in recent history I have been a designated public office holder and I am now a registered lobbyist. Apart from the fact that I apparently have trouble holding down steady employment, I hope I can draw on some of my experiences while we discuss this legislation.

At the outset, I want to put on the record that I did appear before the Senate committee when Bill C-2 went through the legislative process. At the time I expressed some concerns about the bureaucracy's ability to enforce this bill logistically, because what it involved was a shift from a system that was essentially lobby registration to lobby regulation, and I had in my mind all the complexities that would involve. I must say that I think they have performed admirably. On a logistical side, the office is functioning at a very high level. Any contact I've had with it has been extremely positive; I think the registration system itself, the computer system, is working well, so I have to eat a bit of crow, because I predicted doom on that front and it certainly hasn't materialized.

On a personal note, I also want to state very clearly that I fully support the objectives of this bill. Anything that we can do or anything that you can do as parliamentarians and legislators to increase transparency on the political decision-making will help reduce some of the cynicism that I think is driving down voter participation rates and infecting people's views of government and government's role in their lives.

To that end, I'd like to review a couple of areas of the legislation that I think the committee should consider examining during your review.

The first item is essentially structural. The application of the regulatory framework in this act, which is extensive and far-reaching, is entirely based on a person realizing that they are engaged in activities that require a registration. Although subsections 5(1) and 7(1) list a number of activities that would be considered registerable activities, I think it may make sense to actually put a definition of lobbying into section 2 of the legislation. For a suggestion, I think a solid definition would be "communication with decision-makers to affect outcomes". I think that a clear and concise definition of the activity that is being regulated provides a stronger foundation to then define the related activities.

The committee testimony to date has reflected a concern about individuals who are "flying under the radar", as I think was the term used, meaning people who are engaged in lobbying activities but who, for one reason or another, are not registering and reporting those actions. Setting aside people who are knowingly and deliberately choosing to ignore the law, I think there are a couple of factors that contribute to this situation. The inclusion of an arbitrary time trigger, the so-called “20% rule”, involves an individual or organization performing some calculation of aggregate resources expended in lobbying activities. At best, it's confusing; I think that at worst, it's unconstitutional.

I'll give you an example. The August 11, 2009, interpretation bulletin on how to calculate the 20% rule states:

One way is to estimate the time spent preparing for communicating (researching, drafting, planning, compiling, travelling, etc.) and actually communicating with public office holders. For instance, a one-hour meeting may require seven hours of preparation and two hours of travel time. In this case, the time related to lobbying with a public office holder would be a total of 10 hours.

That would be the time used to calculate whether you trigger the 20%.

Therefore, what you have is a case in which identical organizations engaged in identical activities could have separate reporting requirements if one is based in Ottawa and one is based in Vancouver. I'm not a lawyer, and that's not an apology, but I'd take this one to the Supreme Court. I don't think we can have legislation that is going to discriminate against Canadians based on where they live. Quite clearly, in my reading this interpretation bulletin does exactly that.

I think that may be one thing you want to look at and, at the very least, take travel out of the calculation, because I think there's an inherent bias in that to people who live closer to Ottawa. Again, that's something we are probably trying to have less of in our legislation.

It might also be useful to revisit the original rationale for the 20% rule. It was not the intention of legislation—this is what the rationale was at the time—to catch individuals or organizations that are engaged in occasional lobbying. I think you need to take a look at that and reconcile it with the objectives of the legislation.

It might be simply that you are catching people who are bad at lobbying, because the good lobbyists can get it done under 20%. This isn't necessarily a criticism aimed at any person, but as this bill evolves, as it reacts to situations, both policy and political, and as its reach is extended, I think you have to make sure that at the end of the day when you put the pieces back together, Humpty Dumpty makes an egg. I think in some cases we have gone a little sideways on what we're trying to do.

The second element is the requirement that a lobbyist be paid in order to be covered by these regulations. The Americans have a regime of lobby regulation and don't make that distinction.

In looking at the participating sectors of the argument industry, at the inputs that go into public policy making and the public policy making algorithm, I think the goal should be the highest level of transparency possible. So certainly the actions of paid consultant lobbyists should be transparent, but so should the actions of non-governmental organizations, think tanks, religious advocacy groups, professional organizations, and even academics.

The notion that only those who are directly paid to lobby have questionable motives and all the other participants in the debate are pursuing the public interest in its purest form strikes me as a little naive. I think that either eliminating the word “paid” or at least expanding the definition to include “indirect benefit” might be worth considering.

Again, to give you an example, I teach at the University of Toronto. The fact that I'm appearing before you here today is something that I will bring up the next time my salary is negotiated, so to somehow suggest that this particular undertaking may not have indirect benefit to me is again I think not realistic.

I think the legislation is also coming into conflict with legitimate objectives of certain organizations. In terms of governance in organizations, we live in a post-Sarbanes-Oxley world, and organizational and corporate boards are struggling with these new realities.

For example, if an association is trying to attract top talent for its board of directors and decides to compensate them any amount over expenses, they are then considered paid, and the 20% rule doesn't apply, triggering the potential requirement for the entire board to individually register as consultant lobbyists if they have contact with public office holders. If you check the registry, I think you'll see that the Canadian Medical Association is one organization that has had each of its board members register as consultant lobbyists.

I think we should be supporting these groups in their goal of better governance. I'm not sure that this additional hurdle is helpful in their recruiting.

Another element of the legislation that was predicted as problematic was the inclusion of designated public office holders identified as “senior”. Therefore, any registerable communication that was oral and pre-arranged with these individuals required separate filing of a monthly communication report. That was then posted to the public registry and available online. There was a hue and cry--all kinds of it--about how this was going to provide sensitive information to competitors. I don't think that has materialized, but there are some issues around it.

The original proposal in Bill C-2 before it was amended called for a higher level of detail regarding the actual communication information, and a dual filing process, whereby both sides at the meeting, the designated public office holder and the registered lobbyist, both reported their meetings individually and separately, and the lobbying registry office simply reconciled. If there was one half of a meeting reported, that was something they could then investigate. The problem we have now is that the lobbying commissioner's office has to respond to anonymous tips or whatever to figure out where to look for problems because they aren't going to surface naturally on their own.

We ended up with a system in which the responsibility rests solely with the lobbyist and the meeting details simply need to reflect the identified subject matter listed in the original registration. Again, the committee may want to examine the impact this element has had over the last five years and see if it's getting us where we want to be.

In addition, I think, on the inclusion of DPOH status, you could put this on the government electronic registry. One of the challenges we face is who is designated and who is not. It's a moving target in terms of the designations not being consistent across ministries as people move in and out of positions and are temporarily acting and these sorts of things.

The government has a very good electronic directory of employees. There may be some way of identifying on that directory if the person is or is not in fact a designated public office holder. I think it might simplify the process and reduce the number of false filings, wherein people file and don't need to because the person isn't designated, or where they don't file because they don't think the person is and that then triggers a separate course of action.

Staying with the DPOH theme, the original legislation gave the government the Governor in Council authorities to designate any class of DPOH, and they exercised this authority to extend designation to members of Parliament. I realize the political risks of anybody saying they want to do anything that would be seen to be reducing transparency and accountability, but I think designating individual MPs who aren't parliamentary secretaries or ministers as DPOHs is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. It could have profound long-term effects on the rights and privileges of MPs and, in a sense, the relationship between the executive and legislative branch.

I'm not Chicken Little and I'm not saying the sky is falling, but I think we should all be concerned if as an MP there are certain regulations and restrictions around who you see and then actions you take subsequent to those meetings. Your responsibilities as to providing oversight as members of Parliament may take precedence over whatever objectives might be met under that exercise, although I do say again that it would be very difficult for somebody to walk outside this room and scrum on that issue, because it certainly would look like you're trying to make the system less transparent. I can say it; maybe you can't.

[Pierre Mallette, National President, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)]

Good afternoon. My name is Pierre Mallette. I am the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which has over 7,000 members across the country.

Our union's role is well-known, but let's keep in mind that it has the safety, training and working conditions of its members at its heart. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to share with you our point of view on the impact that the freeze on budget envelopes has on correctional officers and on the prison system in general.

Frankly, we need to tell you that we have fears and doubts. Can we get away with a freeze under the circumstances? Does the government have enough money to face the challenges that it is imposing on us? The freeze on budget envelopes means that the Correctional Service of Canada will have to make do with the money available to cover salary increases, in particular. The planned salary increase for 2010-2011 is 1.5%. The money available must also be used to provide training and protect the safety of employees, and to handle the renewal of the collective agreement, which expired on May 31, 2010.

Furthermore, Bill C-2 and Bill C-25 impose new challenges because they will mean an additional 4,478 inmates by 2014 and an additional 4,419 positions, most of which will be CX positions, over the next three years. In short, it's a challenge for recruitment, training and the management of inmate programs and, therefore, there are more risks.

What are these risks? First, you have to put yourself in the correctional environment. Every day, we have to face incidents in that environment that are difficult to foresee. We are not safe from inmates who, one day, decide they've had enough and want to break everything.

The new bills that the government wants to adopt, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-25, will end up increasing the prison population. Those inmates will need to be housed in institutions that will have to make space for them, and we will have a double bunking rate of up to 30%.

Double bunking means increased risks, better control of the prison population and a better assessment of the risks related to the population. On the inside, we have to manage the population. We must find a way to make several types of inmates live together. We have inmates from organized crime, street gangs, motorcycle gangs, Asian gangs and gangs from Russia. When it comes to managing a prison population, the larger the population becomes, the more you need to be equipped for the simple management of the population. Above all, it is important to avoid managing it to the detriment of the inmates, if programs can no longer be provided to help them rehabilitate.

We must never forget that the Correctional Service of Canada has two roles to play. Its primary role is to protect the safety of the public by limiting access and preventing high-risk offenders from escaping from the prisons. The main risk is in managing these populations, but its second mandate is that we must ensure that inmates are returned to the community and see to it that they are no longer a danger to society.

New announcements have been made in the context of Bill C-25. In fact, we hear that there will be new buildings and an increase in the number of correctional officers and employees. We hear that the number of inmates will increase and that we will have more space and more officers. But that doesn't mean that we will have more money for programs to control these populations and to handle uncontrollable day-to-day situations.

We know that Mr. Head came to make a presentation and that he proposed three ways to manage the freeze on envelopes.

The first solution that Mr. Head proposed is this: he believes that better control over work schedules and new deployment standards will help manage the budget allocated for overtime. It's true. We also believe that these two aspects will help to better control the financial aspect of overtime.

But people are being tight-lipped—both in the government announcements about the construction and within the Correctional Service of Canada—about population management and the programs we are going to offer.

It's true that part of the overtime envelope can be managed with schedules and deployment. We can have a better handle on that, but the level of risk is still difficult to calculate.

The warden of a penitentiary receives an overtime envelope that he must distribute over 12 months to ensure that overtime is monitored and that the mandates are fulfilled.

If some inmates decide to stab another inmate and one of them is hospitalized, there aren't necessarily resources set aside for the staffing. This creates a surplus in the budget envelope. If an inmate decides to attack some correctional officers, three correctional officers may be on leave because of an accident on the job. Then there are riots and major incidents. One fine summer evening, the inmates may decide to stay outside for three more hours. This type of incident is difficult to control and difficult to foresee. This is why we believe that the overtime budget envelope must be planned and better invested. It's difficult to say that we will be able to monitor the overtime envelope 100%. We can't claim that.

As you know, there has been a lot of talk about being "tough on crime". We feel that it is important to understand that there are two ways to be "tough on crime".

Of course, you have to be able to manage and strengthen legislation. But all of that does not simply mean catching a criminal, throwing him in prison, closing the door and forgetting about him for four or five years without giving him a chance to take any programs. This is what we're concerned about right now.

Bill C-10, which was passed in 2009, looked at the freeze on salary increases. A salary increase of 1.5% was approved. In addition, during bargaining talks, the government decided not to give money to the Treasury Board for bargaining. Instead, it was the department that would cover the increases.

The union and the correctional officers need to be able to sit down with the employer and say that it is now time to negotiate the salary increases. In its budget, it must find money to cover the salary increases. Is there a risk that the overtime envelope for being "tough on crime" and bargaining might mix? Yes. I would not want to be in the position of having to dump a working condition for a salary increase. It's unacceptable.

The purpose of our presentation today was to share our concerns with you. Also, we recently learned that there is a discrepancy of $4 billion. We are going to ask questions of the right people and get them to explain to us where this problem came from. Yes, we have concerns about how to monitor and manage our work environment.

Thank you.

Criminal Code

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-464 introduced by the member for Avalon.

The bill raises the important issue of the safety and protection of children from dangerous accused who are awaiting trial. More specifically, Bill C-464 proposes to amend paragraph 515.10(b) of the Criminal Code to remind courts to consider the safety and protection of minor children of the accused when determining whether pretrial detention is necessary.

After an offence is committed, the burden usually falls on the prosecutor to establish certain grounds for the judge or the justice to order the detention of the accused prior to trial. Under the primary ground for detention, bail can be denied to ensure the accused does not flee the jurisdiction. Under the secondary ground, bail can be denied when it is necessary for the protection or safety of the public. Last, bail can be denied under the tertiary ground when considered necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bill C-464 proposes to amend the secondary ground. I would like to indicate the government's support for the bill's laudable goal of protecting children from dangerous accused during the bail process. The purpose of the bill is consistent with this government's commitment to ensuring that the justice system operates in an effective manner to protect children, victims, witnesses and all Canadians.

In the last session of Parliament, Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, received royal assent. That legislation includes a number of Criminal Code amendments aimed at making Canadian communities safer. Among other things, it tackles serious gun crime by imposing higher minimum sentences of imprisonment. It places stricter conditions on dangerous and high risk offenders, and it creates a more effective sentencing regime. That same bill protects children from sexual predators by increasing the age of consent for sexual activity.

In the area of bail reform, Bill C-2 strengthens the bail regime by better protecting the public from offenders accused of committing serious firearm offences. Now there is an onus on those who allegedly commit such offences to demonstrate to the courts why they should be granted bail while awaiting their trial.

Bail reform is an ongoing priority for our government. Currently we are working together with the provinces and territories to develop comprehensive reforms to the bail regime at both the legislative and operational levels. The government is committed to finding ways to prevent the tragic loss of young, innocent lives, such as that of Zachary Turner, and ensuring that the bail regime adequately protects public safety.

If the bill is referred to committee, members would have a very important role to play in examining whether Bill C-464 is effective in ensuring the protection of children from accused persons and whether the bill can be improved. Among other things, committee members may want to examine the fact that the proposed amendment is specifically limited to children of the accused and whether the bill could be strengthened by removing this restriction. This would serve to remind courts to consider the safety and protection of all children and not just the children of the accused.

I look forward to hearing the committee's views on this and other issues involved in strengthening the protection of children at the bail stage.

It should be noted that Bill C-464 would build on the current bail regime which already affords protection to children. Under paragraph 515.10(b) the court considers “the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, having regard to all the circumstances” and is bound to consider the likelihood of the accused committing any offence pending trial. In addition, other sections of the Criminal Code outline specific orders that a judge or a justice must consider before releasing an accused charged with an offence involving violence against a person.

Thus, the proposed bill does not substantially change the grounds for detention. It does, however, expressly remind the courts to consider the safety of children when considering if an accused should be detained prior to trial.

The courts' task of accurately assessing the dangerousness or flight risk of an accused and ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice is not without challenges. The presumption of innocence and the right to not be denied bail without just cause are rights enshrined in our Constitution. Clearly, the courts must balance these rights, but must also be vigilant in their assessment of the risks associated with the release of accused persons. This bill appropriately signals the need for courts to assess the safety of children affected by the release of an accused prior to his or her trial.

The protection of children, be it from a dangerous accused or an abusive parent, requires all levels of government to work together. This government is committed to ensuring that appropriate consideration is given to the safety and protection of children during the bail process. More generally, we will continue to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to improve the operation of the criminal justice system.

This bill complements other government initiatives that strive toward preventing harm by accused persons who threaten the safety of Canadian citizens. The government supports the purpose of this bill and suggests that it be referred to committee to allow for its full consideration as well as for potential amendments to make it even better.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm going to speak French.

Do you have the translation channel?

I would like to make a comment and ask two questions.

First, under the Criminal Code, since 1997, there are sections on mandatory minimum sentences with respect to firearms, which were revisited in 2008 through Bill C-2. Currently, there are minimum sentences. I personally do not believe that we are going to win the war against organized crime because the Criminal Code provides for minimum sentences. The proof lies in the fact that some minimum sentences have been in the Code for the last 10 years, and in my opinion, they are not the right solution. That is my first comment.

This morning, we had an exchange with Mr. Macintyre from the RCMP. I was very pleased when I tabled my motion with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights calling for the committee to travel to Vancouver with a view to understanding what exactly is going on. I am a member from Montreal. In 1995, a 13-year-old boy in my riding was killed by a biker gang. Following that, anti-gang legislation was introduced.

I had the impression, seeing things from the outside, that Vancouver was experiencing what Montreal went through a decade ago. Things are different there, I understand the nuances, because the RCMP explained them to us, but there are similarities nonetheless. I want to understand what is going on. I believe that we need more police officers, prosecutors with expert knowledge of street gang issues and more resources to carry out investigations.

I would like to see the committee incorporate the following points into its report. To my mind, you need at least five years to win this battle. In Quebec, 156 people were arrested and 111 of them were members of the Hells Angels. The investigation lasted three and a half years. This has little to do with disclosure, and more to do with the specific nature of this type of inquiry. I would be inclined to think that this committee should recommend a federal government fund dedicated exclusively to Vancouver, and not all provinces. When I refer to Vancouver, I mean British Columbia, of course.

If the government were to ask you how much money is required in that fund, what would it be? I know that a mayor may tend to automatically overstate the amount, because the needs are great. Earlier, Madam Mayor told us that having only 68 police officers for all of British Columbia was insufficient.

If we were to recommend the creation of a fund that would allow you to hire more prosecutors, police officers, and refine your investigative tools and means over a period of five years, would you be in a position to table a supporting document, with the assistance of your police services, containing a recommended amount of money? Are we talking about $15 million or $20 million?

I believe that there should be a fund for a period of five years, and that it must be targeted. This is the first time we are talking about this. I don't know, when we reach the final report stage, if my colleagues will be in agreement with me, but this is what I intend to advocate. I'm not talking about a fund for all provinces. You are experiencing a very particular situation that is not as acute in other provinces.

Earlier, Mr. Macintyre told us that in 2009, there will probably be a higher number of deaths related to street gangs in Vancouver than in Toronto. This is an indicator of the magnitude of your unique challenge. You need to be supported financially, and not with minimum sentences. If you had been able to win the battle with minimum sentences, it would have already been won. Does anyone want to commit to endorsing this idea of a fund, and provide an order of magnitude? Perhaps the Vancouver mayor has some ideas on this.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, Canada remains a world leader in this fight to end gender discrimination and we take this leadership role very seriously, both within our borders and internationally.

Our commitment to women's equality at home and abroad was recently demonstrated when our Minister of State led Canada's delegation to the UN. There she met with her counterparts from around the world to share best practices and to continue Canada's leadership role.

Last week, the Minister of State also met with Valerie Jarrett, head of the newly formed inter-agency White House Council on Women and Girls. During the meeting, they discussed best practices on advancing women's equality within their own countries. This meeting is yet another example of Canada demonstrating leadership on the global stage.

The Government of Canada is taking leadership to bring about equality for women because we want nothing less than women's full and equal participation in the economic, social and democratic life of the country.

Our commitment to women's equality is demonstrated by the Prime Minister's recent appointment of the highest percentage of women to cabinet in Canada's history.

As well, we increased status of women funding by 42%, bringing it to its highest level ever. This funding increase means that more women are receiving the skills and services they need to participate fully in Canadian life.

We are witnessing significant progress in a number of areas, including women's employment and labour force participation rates, which are approaching record highs. Women are increasingly represented in a wide range of professional fields as well as in careers and fields of study traditionally dominated by men.

Violence against women also remains an issue of grave concern. Having worked in the male-dominated field of policing for almost 19 years, I understand intimately the needs in terms of this violence issue, and that is why I am a Conservative. It is because we recognize that more work needs to be done to address this problem, which affects all communities in Canada.

We believe that those who commit such crimes against girls and women must be held accountable. That is why we passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act and made significant investments in policing, youth crime prevention, the renewal of federal corrections, combatting gun crime, and supporting victims of crime. We also put an end to conditional sentences, including house arrest for serious offences such as violent or sexual crimes.

This government is currently implementing many of the recommendations put forward by CEDAW, including working to end violence against women, providing women with the skills they need to take on leadership roles and participate equally in the economy, and protecting the human rights of aboriginal women.

We are responding to the issue of missing aboriginal women by funding the Sisters in Spirit initiative. Addressing violence against aboriginal women is a serious concern for this government, which is why we endorsed the federal-provincial-territorial Iqaluit declaration, which recognizes that sustained and coordinated action is required to reduce sexualized violence against aboriginal women. We have also co-sponsored the National Aboriginal Women's Summits, which focused on violence and other quality of life issues.

Our government has also demonstrated leadership on the issue of human trafficking. Under our leadership, we changed the rules regarding visas to victims of trafficking, and immigration officers are now able to grant temporary resident permits for up to 180 days to trafficking victims.

This government has, time and time again, demonstrated its commitment to addressing women's equality. We have made important strides, and I can assure the House that we will continue to work to create the conditions for success for all Canadian women.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, I can certainly do that. We don't need to have a prolonged debate on it, unless someone else has a comment. I'll just make my comment.

For the members who were on the previous committee, on some of the government legislation that we had been discussing we sometimes saw a flurry of last-minute amendments. They could be amendments from government and they could be opposition amendments. I think it doesn't do justice to anyone to try to digest a very complicated Criminal Code amendment--for example, when we're dealing with Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act-- if we have to try to piece this together on the spot and put our expert witnesses on the spot.

I will differentiate this committee a bit from some other committees. Some of the legislation we're dealing with is extremely technical in nature and everyone should have the opportunity to digest any amendments or motions that are coming forward.

That's why I put this forward. Maybe we can see what the will of the members is. I don't want to belabour it.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean—Carleton has it all wrong.

First and foremost, with regard to the usefulness of the Bloc, we are here to defend the interests of Quebec. We demonstrated this again a few minutes ago when this House adopted by a majority the motion of my Bloc colleague for Laurentides—Labelle, which recognizes Mont Tremblant airport as an airport of entry into Canada. This is a major victory for the Bloc Québécois

The Bloc Québécois won another battle for youth from the regions when my colleague had us vote on a bill that would reduce taxes for youth who return to the regions. The Bloc truly helps Quebeckers and they acknowledge this fact by voting for us time and again.

This member really has it all wrong. Last week, he had to apologize for comments that he admitted were not right. He still has it all wrong when he speaks of this government's transparency. Perhaps his government, in Bill C-2 on the accountability—

Canada Elections Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29, which seeks to close loopholes in campaign financing, is a good bill in and of itself, with the exception of the matter that was rejected by the government at report stage, with the support of the NDP, allowing a candidate to incur expenses without necessarily obtaining the party's authorization. The party would then be responsible for those expenses. That seems to be an aberration. However, we still believe that there are enough positive changes in the bill as a whole to support it.

We believe that the legislation should cover loans in order to close loopholes pertaining to financing limits. We would like to remind members that these limits were established as a result of a fight led by the Bloc Québécois in the past requiring that corporate contributions be prohibited and that individual contributions be limited, as has been the case in Quebec for 30 years.

I have been a member of this House for 15 years and I remember an epic debate that took place under the former Liberal government. As Mr. Chrétien's term of office was winding down, the situation was significantly improved by allowing only individuals to make contributions. With this bill, we have gone even further, and that is a very positive aspect of democracy.

Often, when people in other countries have governance difficulties, one of the sources of their problems is actually linked to electoral practices that do not measure up to the requirements of democracy. They deserve better support. So the actions taken today are part of a development we are familiar with, which deserves to be supported.

The Bloc Québécois and Quebec as a whole have really made an interesting contribution in this regard. In Quebec, the Election Act, which was amended during the time of René Lévesque in the 1970s, now serves somewhat as a rule at the federal level, and that is good. It makes for a healthier democracy. It also requires us to seek money from a multitude of people, and thus reduces the excessive impact some contributors have on political parties. In this regard, we are headed in the right direction.

This bill corrects another problem in the Federal Tort Claims Act. During consideration of Bill C-2, the Conservative government was more interested in getting its bill passed in a hurry than in dealing with problems of ethics. In the present context, we realized that some things needed to be added. At that time, the opposition parties, the media and Democracy Watch had raised the problem, and the government refused to act. In the current context, we are correcting some of these situations.

For example, the bill corrects the problem of loans that made it possible to get around the limits on political contributions. In this connection, there are some important points concerning the poor protection of whistleblowers and the lack of reform of the Access to Information Act. However, as far as the problem of loans is concerned, we realized in the past that these loans served as crutches to compensate for the fact that a candidate or a party had not raised enough money. This situation was particularly prevalent in leadership races. We realized that something the new Canada Elections Act did not permit was happening through the back door, that is, raising very large amounts of money from one or two individuals who were providing loans. The aim is to correct this situation.

When this bill was introduced, it was pointed out that during the last leadership race several Liberal candidates took out large loans in order to get around the financing limits in the way I have just described. While it is true that quite a few have acted in this way, it should not be forgotten that the Prime Minister himself did not reveal all his contributions during the leadership race in 2002. So the Conservative Party was not really in a position to lecture anyone. We have also seen it in the past seven years, given the scandals we now know about.

It is necessary to prevent the law from being circumvented by introducing new limits for political contributions. For example, an individual can contribute $1,100 annually to a registered party or to a candidate. The amount a union can contribute annually to a registered party has been reduced to $0. That shows a significant shift in terms of the respect owed to the people who give us our mandates—the voters. It is still possible to circumvent the limits by using personal loans. That will no longer be the case. The example was given of the candidates for the Liberal leadership.

We have corrected many other issues in Bill C-2 that were not adequately addressed in the Federal Accountability Act.

Other ethical problems persist. Even though Bill C-29 corrects the problem of loans that allow candidates to circumvent political contribution limits, there are still many ethical problems that were not fixed by Bill C-2.

For example, many Conservative campaign promises in terms of whistleblower protection did not make it into the Federal Accountability Act. Notably, the Conservatives said that they wanted to “ensure that whistleblowers have access to...legal counsel”. Yet the Conservative bill allows for only $1,500 in legal fees. They also wanted to “give the Public Service Integrity Commissioner the power to enforce compliance with the [whistleblower act]”. Finally, the Conservatives promised to “ensure that all Canadians who report government wrongdoing are protected, not just public servants”.

We understand that Bill C-29, as a whole, will improve the situation. We would have liked it to clarify the situation of candidates who incur expenses for their party, unbeknownst to the party, which would then be liable for them. However, because of the overall improvements it proposes, the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill should be supported.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is characterized by its culture of secrecy and entitlement.

Just as with Bills C-2 and C-54, it is clear that the government hopes to be able to get around the established rules and give itself an out with Bill C-29. We have a legislative process in place, and we must study Bill C-29. It was a golden opportunity to make these amendments. However, it is clear from the government's stubbornness that there is a lack of transparency on the other side of the House, and we think that is too bad. These amendments and changes should have been made in Bills C-2 and C-54. Bill C-29 gives us that opportunity, but unfortunately this government has missed the boat.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to move the standard motion that can be made only today. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Monday, June 9, 2008, and concluding on Thursday, June 19, 2008, the House shall continue to sit until 11:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week in answer to the Thursday statement, this is we have work to do week. To kick off the week, we are introducing the customary motion to extend the daily sitting hours of the House for the final two weeks of the spring session. This is a motion which is so significant there is actually a specific Standing Order contemplating it, because it is the normal practice of this House, come this point in the parliamentary cycle, that we work additional hours and sit late to conduct business.

In fact, since 1982, when the House adopted a fixed calendar, such a motion has never been defeated. I underline that since a fixed calendar was adopted, such a motion has never been defeated. As a consequence, we know that today when we deal with this motion, we will discover whether the opposition parties are interested in doing the work that they have been sent here to do, or whether they are simply here to collect paycheques, take it easy and head off on a three month vacation.

On 11 of those occasions, sitting hours were extended using this motion. On six other occasions, the House used a different motion to extend the sitting hours in June. This includes the last three years of minority government.

This is not surprising. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard to advance their priorities. They would not look kindly on any party that was too lazy to work a few extra hours to get as much done as possible before the three month summer break. There is a lot to get done.

In the October 2007 Speech from the Throne, we laid out our legislative agenda. It set out an agenda of clear goals focusing on five priorities to: rigorously defend Canada's sovereignty and place in the world; strengthen the federation and modernize our democratic institutions; provide effective, competitive economic leadership to maintain a competitive economy; tackle crime and strengthen the security of Canadians; and improve the environment and the health of Canadians. In the subsequent months, we made substantial progress on these priorities.

We passed the Speech from the Throne which laid out our legislative agenda including our environmental policy. Parliament passed Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, to make our streets and communities safer by tackling violent crime. Parliament passed Bill C-28, which implemented the 2007 economic statement. That bill reduced taxes for all Canadians, including reductions in personal income and business taxes, and the reduction of the GST to 5%.

I would like to point out that since coming into office, this government has reduced the overall tax burden for Canadians and businesses by about $190 billion, bringing taxes to their lowest level in 50 years.

We have moved forward on our food and consumer safety action plan by introducing a new Canada consumer product safety act and amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

We have taken important steps to improve the living conditions of first nations. For example, first nations will hopefully soon have long overdue protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Bill C-30 has been passed by the House to accelerate the resolution of specific land claims.

Parliament also passed the 2008 budget. This was a balanced, focused and prudent budget to strengthen Canada amid global economic uncertainty. Budget 2008 continues to reduce debt, focuses government spending and provides additional support for sectors of the economy that are struggling in this period of uncertainty.

As well, the House adopted a motion to endorse the extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, with a renewed focus on reconstruction and development to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country.

These are significant achievements and they illustrate a record of real results. All parliamentarians should be proud of the work we have accomplished so far in this session. However, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done.

As I have stated in previous weekly statements, our top priority is to secure passage of Bill C-50, the 2008 budget implementation bill.

This bill proposes a balanced budget, controlled spending, investments in priority areas and lower taxes, all without forcing Canadian families to pay a tax on carbon, gas and heating. Furthermore, the budget implementation bill proposes much-needed changes to the immigration system.

These measures will help keep our economy competitive.

Through the budget implementation bill, we are investing in the priorities of Canadians.

These priorities include: $500 million to help improve public transit, $400 million to help recruit front line police officers, nearly $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and $100 million for the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

These investments, however, could be threatened if the bill does not pass before the summer. That is why I am hopeful that the bill will be passed by the House later today.

The budget bill is not our only priority. Today the House completed debate at report stage on Bill C-29, which would create a modern, transparent, accountable process for the reporting of political loans. We will vote on this bill tomorrow and debate at third reading will begin shortly thereafter.

We also wish to pass Bill C-55, which implements our free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

This free trade agreement, the first in six years, reflects our desire to find new markets for Canadian products and services.

Given that the international trade committee endorsed the agreement earlier this year, I am optimistic that the House will be able to pass this bill before we adjourn.

On Friday we introduced Bill C-60, which responds to recent decisions relating to courts martial. That is an important bill that must be passed on a time line. Quick passage is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of our military justice system.

Last week the aboriginal affairs committee reported Bill C-34, which implements the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. This bill has all-party support in the House. Passage of the bill this week would complement our other achievements for first nations, including the apology on Wednesday to the survivors of residential schools.

These are important bills that we think should be given an opportunity to pass. That is why we need to continue to work hard, as our rules contemplate.

The government would also like to take advantage of extended hours to advance important crime and security measures. Important justice measures are still before the House, such as: Bill S-3, the anti-terrorism act; Bill C-53, the auto theft bill; Bill C-45 to modernize the military justice system; and Bill C-60, which responds to recent court martial decisions.

There are a number of other bills that we would like to see advanced in order to improve the management of the economy. There are other economic bills we would like to advance.

These include Bill C-7, to modernize our aeronautics sector, Bill C-5, dealing with nuclear liability, Bill C-43, to modernize our customs rules, Bill C-39, to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers, Bill C-46, to give farmers more choice in marketing grain, Bill C-57, to modernize the election process for the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-14, to allow enterprises choice for communicating with customers, and Bill C-32, to modernize our fisheries sector.

If time permits, there are numerous other bills that we would like to advance.

These include Bill C-51, to ensure that food and products available in Canada are safe for consumers, Bill C-54, to ensure safety and security with respect to pathogens and toxins, Bill C-56, to ensure public protection with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, Bill C-19, to limit the terms of senators to 8 years from a current maximum of 45, and Bill C-22, to provide fairness in representation in the House of Commons.

It is clear a lot of work remains before the House. Unfortunately, a number of bills have been delayed by the opposition through hoist amendments. Given these delays, it is only fair that the House extend its sitting hours to complete the bills on the order paper. As I have indicated, we still have to deal with a lot of bills.

We have seen a pattern in this Parliament where the opposition parties have decided to tie up committees to prevent the work of the people being done. They have done delay and obstruction as they did most dramatically on our crime agenda. They do not bother to come and vote one-third of time in the House of Commons. Their voting records has shown that. All of this is part of a pattern of people who are reluctant to work hard.

The government is prepared to work hard and the rules contemplate that it work hard. In fact, on every occasion, when permission has been sought at this point in the parliamentary calendar to sit extended hours, the House has granted permission, including in minority Parliaments.

If that does not happen, it will be clear to Canadians that the opposition parties do not want to work hard and are not interested in debating the important policy issues facing our country. Is it any wonder that we have had a question period dominated not by public policy questions, but dominated entirely by trivia and issues that do not matter to ordinary Canadians.

The government has been working hard to advance its agenda, to advance the agenda that we talked about with Canadians in the last election, to work on the priorities that matter to ordinary Canadians, and we are seeking the consent of the House to do this.

Before concluding, I point out, once again, that extending the daily sitting hours for the last two weeks of June is a common practice. Marleau and Montpetit, at page 346, state this is:

—a long-standing practice whereby, prior to the prorogation of the Parliament or the start of the summer recess, the House would arrange for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance its business.

As I stated earlier, it was first formalized in the Standing Orders in 1982 when the House adopted a fixed calendar. Before then, the House often met on the weekend or continued its sittings into July to complete its work. Since 1982, the House has agreed on 11 occasions to extend the hours of sitting in the last two weeks of June.

Therefore, the motion is a routine motion designed to facilitate the business of the House and I expect it will be supported by all members. We are sent here to engage in very important business for the people of Canada. Frankly, the members in the House are paid very generously to do that work. Canadians expect them to do that work and expect them to put in the time that the rules contemplate.

All member of the House, if they seek that privilege from Canadian voters, should be prepared to do the work the rules contemplate. They should be prepared to come here to vote, to come here to debate the issues, to come here for the hours that the rules contemplate. If they are not prepared to do that work, they should step aside and turnover their obligations to people who are willing to do that work.

There is important work to be done on the commitments we made in the Speech from the Throne. I am therefore seeking the support of all members to extend our sitting hours, so we can complete work on our priorities before we adjourn for the summer. This will allow members to demonstrate results to Canadians when we return to our constituencies in two weeks.

Not very many Canadians have the privilege of the time that we have at home in our ridings, away from our work. People do not begrudge us those privileges. They think it is important for us to connect with them. However, what they expect in return is for us to work hard. They expect us to put in the hours. They expect us to carry on business in a professional fashion. The motion is all about that. It is about doing what the rules have contemplated, what has always been authorized by the House any time it has been asked, since the rule was instituted in 1982. That is why I would ask the House to support the motion to extend the hours.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much.

In response to your answer, Minister, I would like to remind you that on a number of occasions, this committee called on you, as minister, to come forward with a new, modernized Access to Information Act. Specialists in this field tell us that the few cosmetic changes you made to it in Bill C-2 are not enough, and that the legislation needs to be modernized and to be given some teeth, like the Privacy Act, which we are studying at the moment.

When will you be coming forward to the committee with a new Access to Information Act?

Justice

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada's Supreme Court rendered its decision in two cases dealing with the “two beer defence”. This defence has been used for years as a way for drunk drivers to escape responsibility for their actions.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice tell the House how this decision interacts with Bill C-2, our Tackling Violent Crime Act, to safeguard Canadians against those who commit serious and violent crimes?

Minister of Justice

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what would people say about a Minister of Justice who tells lie after lie, misleads the House, distorts the facts and falsifies the truth? That is what the Minister of Justice and member for Niagara Falls did during question period when he said that the Bloc Québécois did not support him in cracking down on criminals and battling organized crime. I would like to remind him that the Bloc supported Bill C-2, which brought together the five justice bills from the previous Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois has voted in favour of every bill that did not include mandatory minimum sentences and that gave the police more investigative tools. The Bloc Québécois supports or is preparing to support bills on identity theft and auto theft.

I would ask the Minister of Justice to halt his disinformation campaign about the Bloc Québécois' stance on justice issues. Lies and deceit are the weapons of the weak, as our fellow citizens well know.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, less than two months ago the Liberal critic for democratic reform said, “So far, on the justice end of it, they look like pretty good appointments and I am glad they”—meaning the Conservative government—“are filling the vacancies”.

We saw the odd spectacle of the member for Yukon speaking to Bill C-31 on judges saying that he wanted unanimous consent from all parties to pass the bill, then his own Liberal colleagues denied him that consent.

I put the question to the member for Yukon, what is going on over there?

We have seen the delay that has taken place in the justice committee. Thankfully we have already passed Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, but there are other bills that need to pass to address crime and victims of crime.

Now a bill that we all support is being delayed in this House. What is going on over there?

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Leeds—Grenville on having taken the initiative to introduce this bill. I am among those who, in all of the caucuses that I have been a part of since being elected, believe that we have to restore the true role of members of Parliament. I would like to see two hours a day allocated to private members' business. That would be a good way to air the demands of our constituents.

I really sympathize with the family our colleague talked about, the Moffitt family. He talked about what happened 10 years ago over Christmas. Unfortunately, we have to make the House aware of fundamental problems with the wording of the bill. I do not think that the Bloc Québécois will be able to support it in its current form.

First, when a bill is introduced, it has to relate to a shared point of view. Our motivation can certainly arise from an example that our fellow citizens have brought to our attention, but we cannot generalize based on one example. It seems to me that members of the Bloc Québécois have often pointed out to the government and all members of the House that adding minimum sentences to bills is not a good solution.

Section 90 of the Criminal Code sets out a maximum 10-year sentence for individuals who commit crimes involving concealed weapons, whether knives or guns. A maximum sentence has been established. Of course, the judge is free to consider the circumstances and the individual's record. In some cases, a minimum sentence might be enough, but in others, there has to be more than a minimum sentence.

We do not think it is a good idea to tie judges' hands. Here is an example from a study that Julian Roberts conducted in 1997 for the Department of Justice. Julian Roberts is a criminal lawyer with the University of Ottawa, but I believe he is now pursuing his career in Great Britain. Regardless, Julian Roberts appeared before the committee when we were studying Bill C-2. He pointed out that mandatory minimum sentences are not deterrents. Quite the contrary. Here is what he said to the parliamentary committee and what he wrote in 1997 when he was working for the Government of Canada's Department of Justice.

In this study done for Justice Canada, he found that, “mandatory prison sentences—which our colleague from Leeds—Grenville is proposing—had been introduced by many western countries.” He gave examples such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States. He continued by saying, “the studies that reviewed the impact of those laws showed variable results in terms of the prison population and no discernable effect on the crime rate.”

There is a reason for that. First, people do not read the Criminal Code before they commit a crime. Second, when there are mandatory minimum sentences, crown attorneys and defence attorneys start a whole round of negotiation. That negotiation often results in plea bargains in order to avoid mandatory minimum sentences.

The realities I am speaking of are well documented. It is not true that we are giving our constituents accurate information by leading them to believe that by applying a mandatory minimum sentence for an offence we will be living in safer communities.

We would prefer that the bill did not refer to mandatory minimum sentences, but rather establish a maximum sentence, as set out in the Criminal Code.

Subsection 90(1) of the Criminal Code stipulates that every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it concealed. That person could be found guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if that person is criminally prosecuted, or found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Provisions already exist in the Criminal Code and there is no reason to think that judges faced with the reality described by our colleague will not apply the Criminal Code. If the sentence provided or issued by a judge is not satisfactory, there is an appeal process. That is what the crown or defence attorneys must do.

Therefore, the Bloc Québécois does not support bills that set out mandatory minimum sentences for offences. I think that our NDP colleague's question deserves due consideration. He asked our colleague to provide other examples. Of course, we all know of incidents involving knives or guns. But there are provisions in the Criminal Code, and we should use them.

As an aside, rising in the House to condemn gun crimes, while allowing guns to circulate freely and criticizing the public gun registry, is very inconsistent. When law enforcement officials, peace agents or police officers have to intervene, it is useful for them to know whether there are firearms in the house in question. This government wants to dismantle the public gun registry and has indeed dismantled much of it. I think we should all view that as an inconsistency.

Having said that, we support two other aspects of our colleague's bill. The Bloc Québécois made proposals in June 2007 and I will come back to that if I have the time.

Since I only have two minutes left, I will continue by saying that in considering the issue of eligibility for parole, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the idea that we must consider the interests of victims and provide a forum for them. This principle must be weighed against many others, but we believe that it is worthwhile.

The Bloc Québécois is also in favour of the idea that, when a judge determines a sentence, the amount of time spent in custody will be taken into consideration. We are certainly in favour of that.

In fact last June the Bloc Québécois presented ten or so proposals to reform our justice system. We were concerned with, amongst others, section 719 of the Criminal Code, under which a judge, before sentencing, may subtract two days from the final sentence for each day in custody before the trial began.

We believe that in some cases this could lead to an abuse of the system. That could be difficult for our citizens to understand. I myself have had a bill written that would allow the proposals presented by the Bloc Québécois last June to be submitted to the House. I still have to decide if I will introduce this bill or not, but the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle.

And that is my input on the bill. I wish my colleague the best of luck, while warning him against his magical thinking on minimum mandatory sentences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I express my congratulations to the member opposite for introducing this bill.

Strangely, he has exhorted his colleagues in the House to be non-partisan in their approach and I distinctly heard two of his colleagues asking what I regard as very partisan loaded questions. I have to say that I am sorry I am quickly losing enthusiasm for the substance of the issue here as his colleagues continue to snipe and turn this into a partisan matter. The member laughs, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the member is going to urge non-partisanship, I hope his colleagues will see it the same way, because this is a private member's bill and it is not going to go too far if the member is going to import partisanship.

I will not waste more time on this, but I will note that the bill is clearly not government policy. If it had been government policy, it could have been made a part of Bill C-2 or one of the other Criminal Code amendment bills that passed through the House earlier in this Parliament.

The bill, as the member has explained, purports to provide more focus in the code on the problem of the use of knives in crimes, but it also travels into the field of corrections and parole, beyond the knife issue. That is taking on a rather large piece of public policy. I know the member sees the need for it, but I am actually in the House here urging some caution as the member attempts to adapt public policy and law to respond to one particular set of circumstances, as sad as they were.

There is hardly a member of the House who has not had to respond to the impacts of a criminal act somewhere across the country and I do not for a moment diminish the kinds of difficulties that there are out there. However, in reality our country has always had crime, and I am probably not wrong in predicting that there will be always be crimes and people who are misguided and that there will be victims. I am not discounting those circumstances, but it is a reality that we have to live with every day in the House.

As for the bill itself, I want to spend a couple of minutes focusing on what the bill tries to do, because the question as to whether I will support it as a private member will hinge on that.

It seems to me that it is not terribly misguided to focus on concealed weapons, but in this particular case, the section we are dealing with is not just about knives. It is about any concealed weapon, any concealed prohibited device or prohibited ammunition. Therefore, let us be fair here in recognizing that the penalties the member urges in amending the code will apply not just to knives but also to prohibited ammunition or a prohibited device that on its own might not be as lethal as a knife could be.

The member has gone to the extent of imposing a regime involving a mandatory minimum sentence. In the first case, it would be a 90 day sentence. However, this is not the first time that members opposite have urged the House to impose mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, we have adopted a statute here in this Parliament that extends mandatory minimum sentencing for a number of firearm offences.

I would have thought that if the government and the Department of Justice felt further tweaking of the sentencing involving mandatory minimum sentences was needed, it would have included these types of provisions in the government bill, but it did not. I am not discounting the sincerity and enthusiasm of the member in proposing this, but I just want to reiterate that it could have been dealt with as a government bill. It was not. There must have been a good reason for that. I will just leave those reasons unanswered.

In providing for sentencing, this House and previous governments going back many years, way beyond 13, have attempted to construct Criminal Code and sentencing provisions which fit the times, in this case our times, the time of the millennium.

The last time the House did this was in about 1995. We thought we had it right. We thought the sentencing provisions suited the times. It was quite a massive revision. Placing these principles in the code was something that had not happened in Canada. These principles had been generated actually by the courts prior to that.

With respect to the principles of sentencing, the objectives include, and there are just six: the denunciation of unlawful conduct; deterrence; separating offenders from society; assisting and rehabilitating offenders; providing reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community. There was a special reference to the abuse of children under 18 years of age. There is a fundamental principle which is called proportionality. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. That principle also is articulated in our Constitution.

There are other sentencing principles with respect to things which aggravate an offence. I will not go through the whole list. There are a half dozen of them. Most of them are self-evident, things that aggravate the offence. There are several other principles.

A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. An offender should not be deprived of liberty when less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders. There are other provisions.

The point in my reading these is that these are very reasonable, rational provisions and principles that are used every day in our courts by judges who do the sentencing.

One of the members opposite during his remarks referred to this as judicial reform. This is not judicial reform. The judiciary does a very good job by all standards of measurement, domestically or internationally. We are not reforming the judiciary. Anything we do in here could reform the Criminal Code, could reform the way we handle corrections and conditional release, but we are not handling the judicial part. We give under law to our judges the discretion to sentence using the Criminal Code framework and the principles that I have just read.

By most measurements, things are operating fairly well. In the case at hand to which the member responded, and I have to acknowledge and congratulate him for responding to a constituent or constituents in this case, it is just the one case. I know there are hundreds and hundreds of other cases across the country. Bills actually have come through this House which in common parlance have borne the name of a particular victim, without mentioning any. I am not too sure that it is the right way to construct our sentencing and conditional release.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

moved that Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (punishment and hearing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I begin second reading debate on Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The bill was written because of an incredibly brave and determined family, the Moffitt family, who are in Ottawa today. They suffered the loss of their son through a violent criminal act and were then thrust into a justice system that they learned was in desperate need of improvement.

Their experience, although unique in facts, is not a unique story. Many of us have constituents victimized by crime who, while they try to cope with that victimization, also try to make sense or get answers from a justice system that many times provides neither sense nor answers.

When I began assembling this bill, there were other measures that I thought of incorporating as well. These included deterrent measures by increasing the spectrum of mandatory prison sentences for a variety of firearms crimes as well as improving the effectiveness of high risk offender supervision orders under sections 810.(1) and 810.(2) of the Criminal Code.

I am very proud that our government moved decisively and introduced those measures as well as others which this Parliament recently passed in Bill C-2.

In Bill C-2 we enacted a series of reforms to make our justice system work better. I say to all members of this House that this approach is repeated in Bill C-393: specific targeted measures to make our justice system work better. I hope members will give it the same consideration and approval they did with Bill C-2.

Understanding individual circumstances and learning how the system and laws could be improved is a fundamental part of how democracy and Parliament works.

We can improve our justice system. Insight, wisdom and the courage to say that no one else need suffer as they have is sometimes the message we get from victims of crime.

Bill C-393 aims to improve how the criminal justice system works in three specific areas. Members will see the sensible and positive results. They are clear, specific and important.

In this place, members can set aside partisan differences and debate changes in law and policies that make improvements. This bill presents such an opportunity.

Brockville is in my rural riding of Leeds—Grenville. Just before Christmas 1998, residents of that city learned that Andy Moffitt, a 23-year-old engineering student at the University of Ottawa with a bright future before him, was stabbed to death while trying to break up a fight in an Ottawa restaurant.

Andy was from Brockville. Mother Paulette, father Rod and younger brother Michael lived in Brockville, while older brother Rod Jr., raised in Brockville, lived in Ottawa.

Andy was expected home for Christmas and when there was noise at the front door in the early morning of December 24, the family thought it was Andy. It was not. It was the police telling them that their son, their brother, had been murdered.

As the evidence would subsequently show, when the justice system managed to proceed with the case after the killer had been released on bail, only to be re-arrested for committing new crimes, Andy died trying to stop a violent attack on another person. He did not know his killer. He died trying to do the right thing. Andy was posthumously awarded the Governor General's Medal of Bravery for his action.

I have come to know his family since his death and I know where he got his courage and his sense of right and wrong. Through all the grief and anguish of the crime, the trial such as it was, the parole system such as it was, the Moffitt family have remained steadfast in their determination that the flaws in the justice system that their son's death exposed can and must be corrected.

The motivation for the Moffitts is to ensure that no one else goes through the nightmare that they had to endure. They are not motivated by revenge or harsh punishment.

The proposals they have inspired in Bill C-393 are designed to prevent further violent knife crimes, to reinforce the stated intent of the existing law, and to continue the ongoing progress Parliament has made in treating crime victims.

I reference the facts of the case because they are important. They demonstrate deficiencies in the current justice system and how they can be remedied.

Andy's killer was a drug dealer who was meeting with another criminal with whom he had a dispute. In contemplation of this, he purchased a knife and concealed it in case he felt the need to use it later. His act in doing this and then pulling it out later was clear, calculated and deliberate.

Bill C-393 does not create a new crime. It creates mandatory consequences for the crimes of deliberately and criminally carrying a concealed knife and for killing an unarmed person with that knife.

I mention this because I know some members opposite believe mandatory prison sentences are unwarranted because the crimes involved are spontaneous. While that may be true for some crimes, it is clearly not for these crimes which are calculated and capable of being deterred.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament using mandatory minimum sentencing in defined circumstances. In that case, R. v Ferguson, the Supreme Court recognized that mandatory prison sentences are part of the overall sentencing functions which include both specific and general deterrence.

Criminologists and practitioners note that certainty of consequence is a greater deterrent than potential severity of consequence.

Penalties proposed in Bill C-393 replicate existing mandatory prison sentences and correspond directly to homicides committed with firearms.

As part of that deterrent intent, Bill C-393 also creates increased sentences for repeat criminal concealment offences and consecutive sentences where that crime is committed with other crimes.

The bill also modifies an existing authority of a sentencing court under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require a delay in parole eligibility from one-third of the imposed sentence to one-half of that sentence.

This bill sends a message that there will be clear and certain negative consequences for persons criminally concealing and using knives. It is not a reaction to one incident.

Knife crimes have exploded in Canada and while we have responded appropriately to firearms crimes, it is time to do the same with knife crimes. From 1999 to 2006 the number of homicides committed with knives was greater than with firearms.

The 2006 crime statistics show that homicides committed by young people are at their highest rate since 1961 and that 44% of these are committed using knives compared to 17% using firearms.

It is important to understand that it is the criminal arming through concealment of the knife that must also be targeted.

Kingston, Ontario police chief Bill Closs is one voice of many who has warned us about this explosion of criminal knife carrying and the inevitable lethal consequences.

Statistics Canada indicates in 2005 only 31% of victims were attacked with guns, while 68% were attacked with knives or other sharp objects. In the same year, in 19 Ontario jurisdictions, only 25% of victims were attacked with guns while 75% were attacked with knives or other sharp objects.

No jurisdiction is immune in experiencing this epidemic of violent knife crime. Edmonton, for example, reported a 15% jump in violent knife crimes since last year.

It is time I return to the facts of Andy's case because they are also the foundation of Bill C-393's reforms.

Andy's killer was released on bail less than three months after his arrest. He was rearrested for breaching his bail and for committing new crimes. Following his rearrest, he was allowed to plead guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter seven months later. At sentencing he was given pretrial custody credit for the time he had been detained initially and for the time he had been detained after breaching bail and committing new crimes. It gets worse. The killer was given extra credit for being on bail, bail which he breached.

Recognizing time spent in pretrial custody is longstanding and codified as part of a judge's sentencing discretion pursuant to section 719.(3) of the Criminal Code, but it is not obligatory. There is no required mathematical formula.

Section 515 of the Criminal Code also lawfully authorizes the denial of bail to people with criminal records or those who have breached their bail, or both.

Sentencing courts are not required to give repeat offenders, or people who breach their bail, credit for pretrial custody, but that is exactly the practice that has developed in Canada.

For Andy's killer, the time spent in custody as a result of being charged with a crime was just less than three months. He was given 30 months credit for his pretrial custody and restrictive bail conditions, even though he caused their occurrence. Reward for bad behaviour is unacceptable.

Is it any wonder that remand custody numbers are through the roof as the bad guys figure out that two or three for one as a reward for past crime is a good deal?

This is what lies behind the phenomenon that has become known as the revolving door justice system.

It undermines the integrity of the justice system and the confidence that Canadians have in it. Courts pronounce sentences but with pretrial custody credit the real sentence is a fraction of what has been pronounced.

Canadians deserve better than this. Bill C-393 is a step in that direction. Specifically, the bill would amend subsection 719(3) giving direction to sentencing courts, consistent with some court rulings that persons who are denied bail according to the existing law, due to their past criminal record or for breaching bail, are not entitled to discounts off their sentence.

Further, it stipulates that where credit is given it be given on a day for day basis, reflecting the reality that in our current system more than 95% of offenders do not serve more than two-thirds of their court imposed sentence, as was the case for Andy's killer.

If likelihood of early release is to be taken into account in calculating pretrial custody, then logically it should be applied in calculating the actual sentence. The net effect for those entitled to pretrial custody credit is a straight one day for one day calculation, which will go a long way to restoring public confidence.

Andy's killer was sentenced to what was supposedly an eight year to nine year sentence. After giving him the hyperinflated credit, the judge said: “I am going to require that you serve--giving credit for what I have indicated--five years in prison. So you will serve a further five years in a penitentiary for the manslaughter of Andrew Moffitt”.

However, sadly, that also was not true. Andy's killer was released three and a half years later when Canada's statutory release provisions kicked in. Fixing that problem is beyond the scope of Bill C-393.

Notwithstanding the judge's solemn pronouncement, Andy's killer was eligible for parole after about 18 months. The Moffitt family prepared agonizingly for these hearings to give a voice to their son and to express their personal safety concerns in light of the killer's criminal behaviour while supposedly under the previous supervision of bail, and because by terrible coincidence he was returning to his hometown of Brockville.

How could anyone expect that they would not attend and would not want to know the truth about the risk this killer posed? The family's dealings with the corrections system were defined by uncertainty. In the name of offender privacy, they were denied details about the killer's conduct while in custody, including whether he posed a risk to them.

Hearings were also adjourned at the last second, causing enormous emotional upset, and were without consequence to the killer in regard to being able to reschedule his request for early release. This is an unintentional and needlessly cruel consequence of our current parole system. It is these deficiencies that Bill C-393 will also address.

I want to pause here and note that the reason the Moffitt family could attend and participate in the parole hearings was thanks to the House recognizing and confirming enhanced victim rights over the past 10 years. This has been a significant accomplishment.

Having created those rights, we now need to make sure that the parole board has clear authority to treat unjustifiably cancelled hearings accordingly and to include consideration of legitimate victim interests in assessing what information is to be provided to them. This is the final part of Bill C-393. These are relatively small but important improvements to a part of the justice system.

In summary, Bill C-393 is a tightly focused bill that addresses three specific areas where our justice system needs to and can work better. Its sentencing provisions are not aimed at simply imposing harsh treatment on offenders. It is designed to prevent such crimes and to prevent the loss of life.

Its bail provisions are not meant to undermine the proper discretion of the judiciary but to reinforce the existing rule of law and not reward past criminal misconduct. Its corrections provisions are simply an expression that, having properly created a process of victim participation, we must ensure that it is properly informed, where the parole board has the power to prevent it being used to further traumatize victims.

I am asking for the support of members of the House so this bill and the improvements it will bring can go forward. While members opposite may turn this into a partisan issue, that type of debate does not belong here.

When Andy Moffitt stood up from his seat and took action to prevent an attack that night nine years ago, he did not do so thinking of his actions as heroic. He did so because something inside him said it was the right thing to do.

Today, in our unique responsibilities as the elected representatives of the people of Canada, we have the opportunity to stand and do the right thing, which is to support Bill C-393 for the people of Canada.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I know law enforcement authorities in this country take this issue very seriously.

The hon. member wants more things done. Why did she not do more to get Bill C-2 passed, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, that was going to protect 14 and 15-year-olds for the first time in 130 years in this country? Why did we not get more help from the Bloc Québécois?

Criminal Code

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize I may not have the full allotment of time, but I will give it my best and you can pull the plug if I go over.

I am happy to speak to Bill C-519, introduced by the member for Palliser. We have already told him what a great member he is, so perhaps we should stop that.

The bill addresses an important aspect of the bill system. More specific, the bill provides that where an accused is charged with a serious personal injury offence, as defined under section 752 of the Criminal Code, the prosecution shall present all the relevant evidence in its possession before a justice makes an order for the release of the accused.

Bail has been described earlier. The type of evidence that would be required is all the evidence that is relevant to the release of the accused, including all relevant evidence respecting the alleged offence and its commission.

As the bill summary notes, the purpose of the proposed reform is to ensure that an accused in such a case is not granted bail as a result of an agreement between the prosecutor and the defence counsel without the judge being fully informed by all of the relevant evidence in the possession of the prosecutor. As the member mentioned in his original comments, he personally knew the people involved in the crime of which he spoke and it is important that these relevant pieces are taken into account.

Bill C-519 is a private member's bill, not a government bill. Regardless, I am of the view that the bill is consistent with the government's overall crime platform. The government's criminal law reforms have sought to ensure the justice system operates in an effective manner in order to protect victims.

For example, in the last session of Parliament, Bill C-9 was passed in order to prevent the use of conditional sentences, which also refer to house arrest for offences proceeded on indictment that carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Bill C-18, the DNA databank legislation, also received royal assent, thereby strengthening the Criminal Code regime with this powerful crime solving tool. Also street racing laws were passed with the proclamation of Bill C-19.

In this session of Parliament, Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, received royal assent. This important omnibus bill addresses a broad range of concerns. It tackles serious gun crimes by imposing higher minimum sentences for imprisonment and tougher bail rules. It allows stricter conditions and more effective sentencing and the management of dangerous and high risk offenders. It raises the age of consent for sexual activity to protect our youth from sexual predators. It strengthens the laws against impaired drivers to protect Canadians from those who drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

One of the big costs that seems to be spoken about, from your statements today, is the cost involved with legislation that needs to be judged. The Charter, for example, has been a big cost to your department since its start.

We have had considerable concerns with some bills that come to us as parliamentarians. For example, Bill C-2 was done, I think, quite hurriedly—a very complex bill. When your legal group presents that to Parliament, are you satisfied that it's good legislation, the best legislation, legislation that will be held up in a court of law; or are you creating some legislation that would present great problems and great costs to our departments in the future?

Bill C-10 is another one we are concerned about. There is fisheries legislation; we referred here a few minutes ago to the fisheries department and the fact that a new bill is being presented to Parliament. In fact, it's there and is probably going to committee at second reading.

As lawyers, in presenting legislation—and I go back to Bill C-2 in particular.... You must have made great efforts, to present Bill C-2 to Parliament as quickly as it came. It's very complex legislation. Eventually it got through, though it was held up for a time in the Senate, as was Bill C-10.

Are we guaranteed as parliamentarians that you as a department have not only done your work but also probably have consulted some outside legal opinions, so that the legislation you come with is as perfect as possible in terms of what our country needs within its justice system?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I think we did see that in the case of what happened with Minister Lunn.

We're coming to the end of our time, but I want to say that the important thing I take out of this, I think, is not to say “Thank you, take care”, and off into the sunset we all go. Instead, it is to say that the main recommendations that you put forward have not been implemented.

While we did get Bill C-2, which was essentially a retooling of Bill C-11 from the previous government, the reality is that the main recommendations you have put forward have not been adopted. I think one thing we have to do as a committee is ensure that this happens.

To talk about other guidelines.... And this comes back to your point about committee. I think committee does play an essential role in being able to hold government to account, asking questions that maybe governments don't want to have asked. What we saw in the in-and-out scandal, what we saw in the Cadman affair, was the use of guidelines put out by the Prime Minister's Office on how to disrupt committee meetings, on how to use procedural rules to frustrate committees from asking questions that they want to have asked.

So the dilemma we're faced with in committee is that if the government decides they don't want to deal with something the opposition wants to ask about, they simply leave the room, or the chair disappears into the night, or they close the doors, or they don't show up.

I wonder if you have any recommendations there. Certainly the committee should be master of its own will. Opposition parties, I'm sure you would agree, must be able to ask these questions.

Do you have any ideas on how we could get around these procedural games that have been put forward in this playbook that has been advanced?

Age of Consent

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

Mr. Speaker, I know we have passed Bill C-2 but I have some petitions that just arrived in my office concerning raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age and I would respectfully submit those as well.

Government Policies

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud of our Conservative government under the leadership of our Prime Minister.

Since 2006 we have delivered on many of the promises we made. The list of achievements is long.

The GST has been lowered to 5%. We have cut taxes by close to $200 billion. We have paid down $37 billion on the national debt.

Our national child care program provides $100 a month for every child under six.

We got Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, passed into law to help keep Canadians safe from dangerous criminals.

We have put an end to 13 years of neglect and foot-dragging by standing up for Canadian farmers.

We are pushing forward on Senate reform, and the Prime Minister appointed the Hon. Bert Brown to the Senate because Albertans elected him as their senator in waiting.

We have passed three balanced budgets.

Our government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, is getting the job done for Canadians.

I would also like to thank the Liberals for showing their confidence in our government last night and for their support of our environmental initiatives.

Status of Women

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is firmly committed to protecting women from all types of violence and ensuring that perpetrators are accountable for their acts. That is why we introduced Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act. We know that among 14 to 15 year olds, the individuals who are most likely to be victims are young girls.

We are taking action on that. We have an agenda that includes concrete protection for all Canadians.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our guests, who provided a very succinct overview of the issue and the dilemma.

Speaking of dilemmas, listening to you reminded me of a bit of Canadian history, and you probably are somewhat versed in Canadian history. It was Lord Elgin's dilemma—you remember what that was about—at the point of responsible government. Lord Elgin's dilemma was whether or not he would sign off a bill that was provided to him from the legislative branch.

I'm giving that example for my friends in the Conservative Party because they have Lord Elgin's dilemma in front of them. Lord Elgin's dilemma for them is the Accountability Act, and in legislation we have the public appointments commission. At everything you said today, I kept on nodding and then looking to the legislation. That isn't something we have to contemplate; it's something we have at the front end.

I really appreciate your comments about how that might be used, maybe at the other end when things happen. But where I come from, it's always important to prevent the dilemmas we have in front of us, like what we've seen most recently in the case of the nuclear agency.

I'm just assuming everyone has read this legislation at this committee, on the public appointments commission. I have to say I'm a little saddened that every time this is brought up the government says, “Well, we had our guy and you guys said no.” Let's get over that and get on to good public policy and what's in the legislation and enact it.

In this legislation, Bill C-2, the cornerstone of this government, the Accountability Act, it asks for the government to set up a public appointments commission. In it, it says appointments should be based on merit. We haven't seen that in this town for a long time. This government has a hissy fit because it didn't get what it wanted with the person who was named by the Prime Minister before the act was passed.

So give me a break when you say, “Oh we were going to do it, but they didn't allow us.” It's in legislation. It says, “to audit appointment policies”—this is what it says in the legislation as to what the public appointments commission should do—“and practices in order to determine whether the code of practice that is aforementioned is being observed”; to ensure that “public education and training of public servants involved in appointment and reappointment processes regarding the code of practice” is put in place.

It talks about the commission itself—and we're getting the spin lines now from the staffers here—that it makes sure it's under good behaviour. I'm glad you underlined good behaviour. I don't want the pleasure, because we've seen what happens at pleasure.

Before my Liberal friends jump on this, the reason why we had the Accountability Act and the public appointments commission was because of the smell and whiff of scandal that came from their government. So we have a crisis. My concern is that this government is going to do the same as the previous government and they're going to take Lord Elgin's dilemma and not do the responsible thing. Lord Elgin signed the bill, by the way, the Rebellion Losses Bill; we know that.

This government seems not to be going to honour Lord Elgin; it seems to be looking the other way.

I want to ask you what you think of the public appointments commission proposal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically, it's nothing outlandish. I would suggest that this motion is perfectly in order with the overall mandate of this committee, Mr. Chair. We had discussed on a number of occasions--and I believe the record will show that we had all-party agreement on a number of occasions--that legislation coming before this committee should take precedence in terms of the discussions this committee would engage in.

Bill C-6, the visual identification of voters bill, is one that's been, frankly, sitting in the background for a number of weeks now, if not months. I know that members of this committee, in particular my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, have stated that they would like to see this bill enacted and become law before the next election. Once again--and I think we've all said this from time to time--in a minority government there is certainly always the possibility of an election being called at any time.

We have certainly seen media speculation running rampant for the last number of months, suggesting, or predicting perhaps, that an election was imminent. At the current time, I suppose the threat of an election has been somewhat defused, because the three main items that were in the news as being potential election events or events that would force an election have now, generally speaking, been defused. Those three, of course, were the Afghanistan motion, Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, and of course the budget, which is an automatic confidence measure.

Although the budget has not passed in its entirety--we have a vote tonight, I think, as everyone knows--there are indications that it will pass. As well, the Afghanistan motion has not been voted upon yet, although as of today it looks as though we're going to be doing that on March 13. Again, there's been no guarantee that the motion as presented by this government will pass. There are indications, certainly, that that will be a motion that will pass, and of course the third potential election-causing matter of business, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, has passed the Senate. So that of course would not be an event that would cause this government to fall.

Since we apparently have a little bit of time, some breathing room, I think it would certainly be appropriate to try to deal with this piece of legislation in an expedient manner so that the decks are cleared, at least with respect to this particular bill, so that come the next election, whenever that might be, the law is in effect, the visual identification requirements as contained in Bill C-6 are actually law, and we can all comply with the law. I know this is something that has been near and dear to my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Chair, I don't think that really there needs to be too much discussion on this, except to say that it appears the reason that we haven't been able to get to legislation such as this is that there have been some attempts, I would suggest, by members opposite to bring forward motions that are of a highly partisan nature and simply intended only to try to embarrass the government.

There seems to be no other rationale that I can determine for motions such as the proposed motion brought forward by Madam Redman to investigate the Conservative in-and-out advertising scheme. I see no other reason for that motion to be even discussed, other than the fact that this is something the opposition feels it can get some political hay out of. But I think what we need to remember is that, politics and partisanship aside, the role of this committee is to discuss legislation when it comes forward.

I would be hard pressed to think that any member of this committee would find fault with that purpose, and in fact I think it would be almost impossible to find a member of this committee who would disagree with the original position they have put forward, that all legislation pertaining to this committee should take precedence. Yet Bill C-6 has been sort of waiting in the wings for a number of weeks, if not months, and I think that's frankly something that's unfortunate, to say the very least, and something we should rectify at our earliest opportunity.

Therefore, Chair, I think the appropriate manner in which we can advance this is just to call the question, and I ask you to call the question now.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, how many times have we seen a violent criminal get off with a light sentence only to reoffend? How many times have we watched repeat offenders prey upon our communities?

This past Thursday, Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, received royal assent. This legislation makes changes to Canada's Criminal Code that will protect Canadians against those who commit serious and violent crimes. It was finally passed after being delayed by the Liberal dominated Senate for three months.

The Liberals attempted to water it down. They could not resist coddling the criminals. Their supporters, the defence lawyers, thought that ambiguity in law would mean more billable hours. Liberals do not want a streamlined judicial system.

Canadian families need real protection against serial criminals. The new law strengthens the Criminal Code by bringing in tougher mandatory jail times as well as better defence from adult sexual predators by increasing the age of protection from 14 years to 16 years.

Canada's government has made streets safer for the public and life harder for criminals.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege to rise in this House today to speak about our latest Conservative budget.

In addition to being a responsible, prudent and well balanced budget, which reduces debt and helps Canadians, several good initiatives in this budget were very well received by the constituents in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. They include real measures for business, agriculture, infrastructure and, naturally, families and seniors, the very foundation of our society and closest to our government's heart.

Before going into the details, allow me to mention once more some of the initiatives taken by this Conservative government since coming to power just two years ago.

We kept our promise made to Canadians to reduce the GST from 7% to 6% and then to 5%, and we did so ahead of schedule. We reduced taxes by cutting personal income tax rate from 15.5% to 15%. Furthermore, the basic personal exemption was increased to $9,600 and will rise to $10,100 in January 2009. A new $2,000 child tax credit will result in savings of hundreds of dollars for millions of Canadian families.

Corporate income tax rates have been cut drastically and will move from 22% to 15% by 2012, giving Canada the lowest federal corporate tax rate of all G-7 countries.

We reduced taxes for small business to 11% one year earlier than promised. Once again, these initiatives will give Canada one of the most competitive corporate tax rates in the world. In total, more than $200 billion has been invested in tax cuts since our government came to power.

Our Conservative government realizes that the months and years to come are full of uncertainty. For that reason, the theme of the budget is responsible leadership. It is vital that we proceed with a sense of caution and responsibility. This budget encourages Canadians to do the same. I am referring to the new tax-free savings account. For the first time in Canada's history, Canadians from all walks of life will have the opportunity to save their hard-earned money, which has already been taxed, without being penalized.

That does not mean that we will no longer do things to help Canadians. As I was saying, the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell are big beneficiaries of the priority spending announced in this government's budget. One of these priorities is infrastructure. I was very pleased to see in the previous budget the introduction of the building Canada fund, which is a $33 billion fund for infrastructure. During the past year, this program has helped finance a number of infrastructure projects that are resulting in a better qualify of life for the people of my riding, from Hawkesbury to Clarence-Rockland and everywhere in between.

In addition to this historic building Canada project, which was part of the previous budget, this new budget does even more to meet the infrastructure needs of my constituents by making the gas tax fund permanent. This will bring in millions of dollars annually for the municipalities, which will help them to better plan and finance their infrastructure work in the long term.

A large part of my riding is also dedicated to agriculture, and there is something in this budget for that as well. Since 2006, this Conservative government has taken direct action to help farmers. In fact, we have provided $4.5 billion in additional funding to farmers. This is funding above and beyond the annual funding provided to farmers.

We all remember the hardship felt by our cattle producers during the past few years and now more recently by our pork producers, which is why the government is accelerating programs designed to help them in their time of need. One new measure being introduced in this budget is a $50 million fund to be delivered to hog farmers to reduce the overstock that is currently putting pressure on the hog industry. This investment should translate into a 10% reduction, which is welcome news for the struggling producers of my riding. In addition, our Conservative government is delivering real support by making up to $3.3 billion available in loans to help producers weather current storms and adjust to new market realities.

Our government has listened to producers. We have worked with producers and now we are delivering for producers.

On the issue of seniors, there is no doubt that they are the big winners in this budget. In fact, even the Globe and Mail on Wednesday named seniors as being among the biggest winners. This is because our government has shown tremendous leadership and initiative by allowing pension income splitting for seniors and pensioners, something which has never been done before. We are also raising the tax exemption for income earned under the guaranteed income supplement from $500 to $3,500, a sevenfold increase. Seniors asked for this and we are delivering.

We also realize that with the increased life expectancy of Canadians, many seniors are willing to stay in the workforce longer and continue living as productive members of our society. Previously these seniors were penalized. By permitting phased retirement, we are giving older workers the choice to stay in the labour market.

As for RRSPs, we are also increasing the age limit for converting them from age 69 to age 71.

My constituents in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell welcome the additional fiscal measures taken by this government regarding the effort of tackling crime and bolstering our security.

In addition to making a giant leap in the right direction with the passage of Bill C-2 just last week, budget 2008 calls for a significant investment toward the creation of a new police officers recruitment fund. By allocating $400 million toward the recruitment and training of new police officers, our government is planning on assisting municipalities with the hiring of an additional 2,500 police officers throughout the country.

I can already hear the NDP, a party which opposes our efforts to better protect Canadians by getting tough on crime, complain that there is too much of a focus on correction and not enough of a focus on prevention. Allow me to respond that this is simply not the case.

The fact is that we are dramatically increasing the funding toward the national crime prevention program. This budget is investing an additional $60 million over the next two years, essentially doubling the annual funding, which currently stands at $33 million. These funds are used by the national crime prevention strategy in partnership with community groups designed to help vulnerable families and children determined to be at risk of later engaging in criminal activity, including gang or drug crimes.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, I am very pleased to see in budget 2008, that our Conservative government intends to go beyond its previous investments by developing a new action plan for official languages, since the current five-year action plan is coming to a close this year. The priority of the government's new action plan will be to protect and promote linguistic duality across the country.

As a member of Parliament who represents a riding with a very large official language minority community, I very much appreciate the work that has been done by Bernard Lord and, now, by the hon. Minister of Official Languages to ensure that the necessary measures for ensuring the vitality and development of these communities will be included in a new action plan.

In closing, this budget is fabulous news for the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and Canadians across the country. It is a responsible, well-balanced budget that respects its commitments to Canadians and will help our country to move forward in the year to come.

I want to thank the hon. Minister of Finance for his work and the consultations he held to produce budget 2008.

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the third good question from this side of the House today. As my hon. colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells knows, Bill C-2 includes tough new penalties to crack down on gun criminals, repeat, violent or sexual offenders, impaired drivers and sexual predators targeting our youth.

Budget 2008 builds on previous efforts to deliver funding by providing funding for provinces and territories to recruit 2,500 new frontline police officers. As British Columbia finance minister Carole Taylor says, “I think an aggressive recruitment program for young police officers is a good thing”. We agree.

[Greg Yost]

The only thing done in Bill C-2 is to have a 0.8 causing death or causing bodily harm. This remains the same penalty whether you're convicted of refusal or over 0.8 in a simplicitor case.

[Frank Hoskins]

As I understand, in Bill C-2 they have amended the refusal section now to increase it.... It's a new offence, I believe. Perhaps you could help me with that.

[Greg Yost]

In any event, Mr. Pruden and I are not experts on toxicology or on social science research. We rely on the advice of experts in those fields. The paper is therefore restricted to the possible amendments to the Criminal Code. It makes no recommendations and is intended to assist the standing committee in its deliberations by discussing the issues as they're seen from a legal perspective.

As for dropping the blood alcohol content (BAC), experts agree that a driver with a BAC of 50 milligrams is less able to drive than a sober person who takes the wheel. In addition, a BAC of 50 increases the risk of accident, death, and injury. However, experts do not agree on the most effective way of mitigating this higher risk, whether it be by way of provincial legislation, or making it an offence under the Criminal Code to drive with a BAC of 50 to 80 milligrams.

Making it an offence to drive with a BAC in excess of 50 would not prevent provinces from taking action. Now, if a person's blood alcohol concentration is higher than 80, a province can immediately suspend a driver's licence, regardless of the outcome of the criminal charges. Most provinces are now proceeding to suspend licences of those found driving with a BAC between 50 and 80.

If legislators make it an offence to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration higher than 50, provinces can still maintain the right to suspend drivers' licences. There are two ways of creating an offence to drive with a BAC of 50 milligrams or higher, but bringing the illegal limit down from 80 to 50 milligrams would allow police officers and prosecutors to leave their current methods unchanged.

And yet, a minimum fine of $1,000 and a prohibition from driving for one year could be perceived as unduly strict for drivers whose BAC is between 50 and 80. A separate offence could set out less stringent fines and prohibitions. It would allow police officers to take action as they see fit, lay charges, or write up a ticket. If a ticket is issued under the Contraventions Act, the offender will not have a criminal record that would be detrimental to his career, or prevent him from travelling.

With respect to random breath testing, there is research indicating that many impaired drivers are able to avoid a demand for a breath test when stopped by the police, because the officer does not detect the smell of alcohol or symptoms of impairment. These drivers would be more likely to be detected under RBT, which is expected to have a deterrent effect. Nevertheless, it is probable that RBT would ultimately have to be justified under section 1 of the charter, as RBT requires detention of the driver.

The Oakes test requires that there be proportionality between the objective and the limitation. The salutary effects must outweigh the deleterious effects. In that regard, the results of the introduction of RBT in Australia, New Zealand, and the Republic of Ireland, combined with the fact that RBT or an approved screening device is immediately available--it only takes a minute or two--are encouraging.

We caution the standing committee that RBT is not a silver bullet. It is most effective when it is part of a high-profile campaign, with visible enforcement, that increases the perception among drinking drivers that they will be stopped and required to blow.

With respect to innovative approaches in use in other countries, we are most familiar with American practice. The Americans have been having some success with DWI courts, modelled on drug courts, and with using electronic monitoring to ensure that those who are prohibited from driving will be detected. However, these programs are expensive and require an elaborate infrastructure.

In the United States, persons who fail the screening test are required to provide a breath sample on an approved instrument for use in court. The American courts have held that assistance of counsel is not needed because the police are gathering evidence. Indeed, a BAC under 80 will exonerate a person, while a BAC over 80 does not, in and of itself, result in a conviction, as the prosecution must still show that the person was driving and that the equipment was working properly and had been operated properly.

As you know, the Supreme Court has held that it is constitutional to require a driver to provide a roadside screening test without the person being given the right to counsel. Officials have only begun to consider whether requiring an AI test without the person being given the right to counsel could survive a charter challenge. The major benefit would be to accelerate the determination of whether to lay a charge, and to free the police to go back on the road. However, administrative convenience is not an acceptable justification for an infringement of a charter right. Moreover, one of the main reasons the Supreme Court upheld roadside screening was that the ASD results could not be used in court.

I will not say much about sanctions because Bill C-2 includes increases in penalties. We are aware of the concern that the ignition interlock provisions in the code are unduly restrictive and should be made more affordable and available earlier to encourage greater use. The interlock example illustrates the need to ensure that the Criminal Code sanctions work effectively with provincial programs by encouraging drivers to get their licences back rather than discouraging them so that they drive while prohibited.

The standing committee should be aware that in the United States it is normal to have penalties tied to BAC and to have higher penalties for a person who refuses to provide a breath sample than for a person who is convicted on the basis of the breath sample. It provides an incentive for the driver to comply with the demand.

Finally, I would point out that much of the work we do as officials has consisted of responding to decisions made by the courts and advances in technology. The breath-testing provisions of the Criminal Code are almost 40 years old, with major changes made in 1979, with the introduction of screening devices; in 1985, after a comprehensive review by the Department of Justice; and in 1999, after a review by this committee. With the changes regarding DRE and evidence to the contrary just passed in Bill C-2, we have another set of major changes coming.

As a result of this series of amendments, the current edition of breathalyzer law in Canada is three volumes--about 12 inches thick--and contains 26 chapters and more than 300 topics. We are aware that other countries do not find it necessary to include such detail about how the breath test will be conducted or to prescribe timelines that must be respected. The paper suggests that it may be time for a reconsideration of the legislation as a whole, with a view to making it simpler and, in particular, for Parliament to assist the courts in understanding Parliament's intent in making any changes that may flow from this review.

Parliament has provided principles to guide the courts in the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and in the DNA Identification Act. Such principles could be included in any legislation that may flow from this review.

Thank you.

Mr. Pruden and I will be pleased to answer any questions.

[Frank Hoskins]

Furthermore, it is expected that the alcohol ignition interlock program will come into effect later this year, sometime in June. Against this backdrop, and from a prosecutorial perspective, I wish to briefly comment on the new legislative initiatives in the area of impaired driving as contained in Bill C-2, and then briefly comment on both the legal and practical issues that frequently arise in the prosecution of impaired driving cases.

Before I briefly comment on the initiatives of Bill C-2, I want to recognize and commend this committee and Parliament for the important work that has been done in attempting to protect Canadian citizens from drivers impaired by alcohol, drugs, or both in the manner consistent with the values enshrined in the charter.

Given the time allotted, I will touch upon only two initiatives contained in Bill C-2: the drug-impaired driving provision, and the provision that restricts evidence to the contrary.

It is an understatement to suggest that the drug-impairment driving enforcement provisions are long overdue. The lack of clear, effective responses to drug-impaired driving has been a longstanding concern. The new legislative provision will undoubtedly enhance the prosecution of drug-impaired drivers.

Although Bill C-2 permits video recording of test, in my view such video recording, where practical, should be conducted both at the roadside and later in the evaluation process during the drug-recognition test, as this is one way to import more objectivity into what will be argued as a subjective interpretation of the officer.

Furthermore, the audio and video recording of test for drug and alcohol impairment could be the most compelling evidence in the prosecution of an impaired driver, as it could clearly demonstrate the demeanour, behaviour, and condition of an accused person.

With respect to the provision that restricts evidence to the contrary, this amendment will undoubtedly limit or restrict the often-asserted defence of “I had only a couple of drinks”, or the Carter defence, but it does not eliminate the defence of bolus drinking that could occur before or after operating a motor vehicle. While the defence of bolus drinking is still possible, with the amendments the defence will be very difficult to establish.

There is a multitude of legal and practical issues that frequently arise in the prosecution of impaired driving cases; however, I'm going to focus on the following five: first, the effects of contextual definitions; second, police and crown training; third, blood alcohol concentration limit; fourth, random breath testing; and fifth, the necessity of a preamble.

With respect to the legal issues, there are phrases or words contained in the Criminal Code that are frequently litigated because they have been given contextual definitions by the courts. Examples include “care or control”, “forthwith”, and “as soon as practicable”. While these phrases or terms can cause uncertainty and unpredictability, they do provide a major flexibility that is consistent with the charter values. Thus, practically speaking, because of the contextual nature of these legal terms frequent litigation of the application of these terms to any given case should be expected.

With respect to police and crown training, I would like to make a few comments. The proclamation of the new Criminal Code provisions or amendments to the code related to impaired driving offences should be accompanied by funding sufficient to include adequate resources for enhanced police and crown training. Often an accused will challenge the police investigation, or lack thereof, which will include arguments involving insufficient grounds to make the demand, charter violations, and/or procedural mistakes made during the course of police investigation. Therefore continuous training in this area is necessary to ensure that investigations and prosecutions are conducted efficiently and effectively.

With respect to the issue of lowering the blood alcohol concentration limit from 0.8 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 0.05 milligrams, I'm not qualified to provide any meaningful commentary on this issue. It would appear to be a scientific inquiry examining the effects of impairment at 0.05 milligrams. However, I would add as a practical caveat to this issue that the common practice of the police in Nova Scotia is to lay charges only where blood alcohol exceeds or equals 0.10 milligrams. This is because of the presumed margin of error involved in the breathalyzer equipment.

In effect, then, the BAC level is elevated in practice, although it should be noted that in Nova Scotia, under provincial legislation, a BAC level of 0.05 milligrams empowers the police to temporarily suspend a driver's licence. Furthermore, a zero BAC level is statutorily mandated for newly licensed drivers.

I will now touch upon the issue of random breath testing. I do so not as a constitutional expert but as a practitioner in criminal law.

While random testing may be used in other countries, it would undoubtedly be challenged in Canada as a violation of the charter unless the courts found it to be a reasonable limit on the freedom of our citizens. In Canada, Parliament has set a statutory scheme whereby a screening test can be administered by the police merely upon entertaining a reasonable suspicion that alcohol is in a person's body--for example, the mere smell of alcohol on the driver's breath.

While the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutionality of this statutory scheme as a reasonable limit, it is arguable that the court may not uphold the statutory scheme that authorizes random breath testing where the police have no reason to suspect that the person is impaired. However, limiting the application of random breath testing to specific situations, such as motor vehicle accidents that cause death or bodily harm, may alleviate the charter concerns. Again, that is a matter best left with constitutional experts.

In any event, every aspect of any legislative scheme that authorizes random breath testing will invariably be subjected to detailed constitutional scrutiny.

Lastly, is it necessary to have a legislative preamble? While preambles can serve a useful purpose with new legislative schemes, if it is Parliament's intention that the amendments be judicially interpreted according to certain enumerated principles, it would be preferable to have these principles clearly and succinctly contained in amendments themselves.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chair. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

[Kwei Quaye]

CCMTA is of the view that for impaired driving programs to be effective, they should combine the elements of certainty and swiftness of apprehension, severity of penalties, and appropriate remedial action. In light of the foregoing, CCMTA would like to take this opportunity to specifically address the four areas under review by the committee.

The first one is lowering the Criminal Code blood alcohol concentration threshold from 0.08 to 0.05. CCMTA believes there is sufficient evidence to suggest that drivers pose a safety risk below the current legal threshold of 0.08. At issue is how a lower threshold can best be incorporated into the existing process while minimizing any adverse systemic impacts of such a change. Currently, all jurisdictions except Quebec have existing administrative programs to address the issue of lower BAC drivers. These programs generally entail the issuing of short-term administrative suspensions to quickly remove low-BAC drinking drivers from the road. These programs can be used by police officers for drivers below the legal threshold but above 0.04 or 0.05, depending on jurisdiction. While knowledge of the current legal limit among drivers is high, evidence suggests that the administrative limits and the associated penalties are not.

To strengthen and increase the effectiveness of existing short-term administrative sanctions, CCMTA developed a model as a standard for jurisdictions to consider, so as to update the existing roadside suspension programs for drivers with lower BACs. Indeed, a number of jurisdictions have already strengthened existing programs since the model was approved. This model takes a swift and measured approach to lower-BAC drivers without unduly increasing the workload on police, court services, or transportation agencies.

Number two is random breath testing. A number of surveys have indicated that the public does not have a high expectation that impaired drivers will be caught by police. That is to say, the certainty or perception of certainty of apprehension is low. The goal of random breath testing, or RBT, programs is to increase the probability of an impaired driver coming into contact with the police, increasing the perception of apprehension and increasing the general deterrent effect of police enforcement. Currently, a police officer may stop a vehicle but may not make a demand for a breath sample unless there is suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol. As a result, many drivers who are stopped in spot checks are allowed to proceed without providing a breath sample. The use of RBT in which all drivers stopped in the check stop will be required to provide a breath sample or be charged with failure to provide a breath sample will significantly increase the number of drivers tested who have been drinking. While such a system would be challenged under sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court has indicated a number of criteria for such a violation to be justified, which we believe the use of RBT for managing impaired driving will meet.

Number three is advances in technology to enforce laws. Ignition interlock programs have been shown to be effective when installed on the vehicle of a convicted driver who uses that vehicle. However, a number of challenges exist with interlock programs. Currently, the alcohol test committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science is responsible for approving screening devices and instruments, but not for ignition interlocks, as programs are fully within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. In order to improve national consistency and elevate the technical standard for ignition interlocks, it would be beneficial if the alcohol test committee could be given the responsibility for approving specific ignition interlock devices as meeting an approved technical standard.

A second issue with ignition interlock programs is the low number of eligible drivers who actually use the devices. This is a significant concern, as there is evidence that these drivers may not be honouring their suspensions but choosing to drive without valid licenses. In further developing ignition interlock programs for convicted impaired drivers, one challenge is to increase the number of eligible drivers who install the device and the provision of swift and sure sanctions for those who drive a vehicle without the equipment installed. An RBT program is a necessary element to increase the perception of being caught driving without a licence or an ignition interlock device, and to support existing provincial and territorial programs.

CCMTA also believes that research into other technologies that can be used to immobilize the vehicle or monitor the alcohol use of an offender should be pursued further with the goal of making these technologies available for jurisdictions to consider integrating into their programs.

Number four is federal, provincial, and territorial programs. The partnerships among provincial and territorial programs and the federal Criminal Code of Canada have been effective in reducing the incidence of impaired driving. Provincial and territorial jurisdictions have invested a great deal of time and resources in impaired driving programs that have been developed over the years. As new programs are developed, it will be important to consider the impact on existing programs and the resources before a specific initiative is implemented. For example, the implementation of measures in Bill C-2 is likely to be significant with respect to human and fiscal resources, training for police and prosecutors, purchases of new equipment, and changes to the handling of evidence and cases. These must all be managed along with other priorities. It is necessary to consider the capacity of police, courts, and transportation agencies to implement and support new programs or program changes in an efficient and timely manner. In addition, each proposal must be fully costed, and a funding source identified before implementation can be considered.

Many of these problems can be overcome by streamlining the necessary forms and processes for federal, provincial, and territorial legislation. This streamlining should be a priority, as it speaks directly to the provincial and territorial capacity to deal with new programs or additional changes generated by random breath testing or changing the blood alcohol concentration threshold.

In conclusion, impaired driving remains a significant challenge, which Canadians believe can and should be addressed by governments. To do so effectively requires coordination and cooperation. Federal legislation must dovetail with provincial and territorial programs and have the support of police agencies and the general public as well as the necessary funding to be successful. We must be cognizant of the comprehensive impaired driving programs that are already in place in the various jurisdictions, and be careful to ensure that new broad and far-reaching initiatives do not jeopardize our goal of having swift, certain, and significant initiatives to help reduce the incidence of impaired driving and its consequences in Canada.

CCMTA recommends that the Criminal Code threshold not be lowered from the existing level, with the exception of one of the jurisdictions that is not in full agreement in with this.

CCMTA also recommends that Parliament make mandatory a demand for a breath sample by a police officer at a random breath test stop.

CCMTA recommends that Parliament authorize the alcohol test committee to approve alcohol ignition interlock system standards to ensure that all the technology functions at a minimum acceptable level.

Finally, CCMTA recommends that a comprehensive research and evaluation framework be developed and funded with a goal of recommending evidence-based solutions to the challenge of impaired driving and reducing unnecessary technicalities that place an undue burden on police, the courts, and transportation agencies.

Together, we have made significant improvements in rates of impaired driving over the past 30 years, and together we can move forward and achieve our collective goal of 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries by alcohol-involved drivers by 2010, thereby reducing the $21 billion in societal costs related to impaired driving each year.

Thank you for the opportunity to express our considerations and concerns. We will be happy to take any questions.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation)—Chapter 5.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 6.

Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act—Chapter 7.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin to rebut all of the arguments made by my hon. colleague, I would be remiss if I did not thank my hon. colleague and all of his colleagues in the Liberal Party for their unwavering support of this government over the course of the last few days, particularly in terms of the budget. Of course, before that there was the Afghanistan motion to extend the mission until 2011. Most recently was their support of Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

I can honestly say that without the continued support of the Liberal Party on government initiatives, we really would not be able to make as much progress as we have seen over the course of the last two weeks or so. Again, I thank the hon. member. I urge him to continue that level of support we have seen because this is what makes Parliament work, a strong government abided and abetted by an opposition party that wants to see Canadians of all political levels benefit. I thank my colleague so much for all of the invaluable support we have seen.

I would love to see that same level of support when it comes to the motion we have presented in the procedure and House affairs committee. The motion is that we would voluntarily open up our books to examine all of our advertising practices for the last several years. I must add, we are the only party that has voluntarily offered that type of examination. Of course, there is only one caveat that we place upon that, which is that all parties, not just the Conservative Party, but all parties do the same and open up their books. However, we have found time and time again in the procedure and House affairs committee that the opposition members, particularly the member opposite and his party, have refused to accommodate such a motion.

I have consistently stated, at great lengths I must add, that I do not believe that any other party in this House has ever done anything wrong when it comes to the advertising practices in elections past. I have also taken great pains to point out that the advertising practices employed by the Conservatives are exactly the same as those employed by members of the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc.

I am suggesting if they were able to examine all of our books in the light of day, we would certainly find that in our opinion Elections Canada has erred in its ruling that there was perhaps something wrong with the so-called in and out scheme. As I pointed out at committee, everything the Conservative Party has done is in complete compliance with electoral law.

I believe that my hon. colleague knows that and that is the reason he and his colleagues are refusing an examination of their own books. I can think of no other reason, other than the fact that they may have something to hide and I would hope that not be the case.

Once again, I thank my hon. colleagues for all of their support on the budget and other initiatives this government has brought forward. I look forward to continued support over the upcoming weeks, months and perhaps even years as they sit in opposition. I hope my hon. colleague will have second thoughts about supporting us on our motion we brought forward to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the tackling violent crime act has been in the Senate for 89 days and it has still not passed. The time for filibustering, stall tactics and delay by the Liberal dominated Senate must end and end now. Shame on the Liberals.

The message is clear. It is time to pass the tackling violent crime act and to pass it now. Those who are victims of crime want it passed. Why not the Liberals? Those who want to see the age of sexual consent raised from 14 years to 16 years want it passed. Why not the Liberals? Those who want to protect their children from sexual exploitation by dangerous offenders want it passed. Indeed, Canadians want it passed, yet the Liberals walked out of the House and abandoned not only the House, but parents, young children, those abused by dangerous offenders and all Canadians.

It is not a time for sitting on one's hands or walking out on Canadians. It is time for the leader of the official opposition to show some fortitude. Enough of the stall tactics. It is time to instruct the Senate to pass Bill C-2 and to pass it now.

Canada Elections Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fundraiser last night that the member referred to was totally within the rules.

He knows full well that if someone makes a donation and other individuals receive some value in return, there is a certain value ascribed to the goods or services that the individuals are receiving that has a fair market value and the differential is a political donation. When we get into silent auctions, there is a certain value that we derive and I am sure that is being looked at and will be dealt with.

I would like to come back to a point that I failed to mention which came up in the previous discussion and that is the public appointments commission. The Conservative government promised to have a totally non-partisan appointments process. Bill C-2 talked about that. The government set up a public appointments commission and brought in Mr. Gwyn Morgan to sit as chair. Mr. Morgan is an eminent Canadian who may have said things that were not totally appropriate. Nonetheless, the government operations and estimates committee did not want Mr. Morgan as chair.

The committee did not approve of Mr. Morgan, so the government had to find someone else because it is committed to a non-partisan appointments process. Instead of the government saying it gave its best shot, it threw in the towel.

If the government could not get Mr. Morgan then the whole idea of a non-partisan public appointments process would go out the window. That is like a little kid playing on the street and a bigger kid comes along and takes his toy. The game is then over. That is something the government should revisit and bring forward.

I think the member realizes that the bill deals with loans and that is what this issue is all about. Members on this side of the House will comply with all legislation this House passes, so I do not see any problem there at all.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

Certainly the party on this side supports transparency and accountability with respect to election financing and the Canada Elections Act. At committee, I understand, there were amendments made. That is why the caucus on this side will support the bill, with the amendments, but I gather the government will be challenging some of those amendments. That would be unfortunate. We will have to see where that takes us.

The other thing I need to say in regard to the bill is that although it is being presented by the Conservative Party as some new and revolutionary way of proceeding with this type of arrangement with respect to loans to candidates, et cetera, many aspects of the bill are in fact similar to what is already in force and what was in force under the leadership of our Liberal government.

Having said that, I think the bill makes things clearer in some areas. In that sense perhaps it is an improvement, but I do not think Canadians will be deceived by the fact that many of the provisions outlined in the bill are already in the law.

Perhaps I should step back a bit. As I understand it, what the bill is trying to deal with is the fact of a candidate running in a federal election, for example, where the rules are very strict--and so they should be--with respect to how people can accept donations or from whom they can accept donations. Those rules are fairly clear.

The intent, as I understand it, is that this bill tries to deal with people who might try to sidestep those rules by receiving loans from parties from whom they otherwise would not be able to receive loans, or by receiving loans at interest rates that are less than fair market value, which itself would constitute a benefit, et cetera.

Or the loan might be advanced during a campaign and then be forgiven. For example, the candidate who had access to the loan money might find that suddenly a year later the person from whom the candidate received the loan is washing his or her hands of it. The candidate might be told that he or she does not have to repay the loan. That would become a contribution. If the amount of the loan exceeds the amounts currently allowed under the Canada Elections Act, then surely the law would also apply to a loan that is forgiven, and surely a lower interest rate loan at less than fair market value would also constitute a benefit.

I think it is a good thing that people are not able to get around the rules or do things through the back door that they cannot do through the front door. To the extent that this bill clarifies those particular aspects, that is a positive development. However, under the existing act, the loans could not be forgiven without consequence, nor could loans be granted under the current provisions of the law if they exceed the donation limits.

This really goes back to our government's Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). Our government began that process and that bill was passed into law. It severely restricted the amounts that could be donated to candidates or parties by corporations and unions, and it also restricted the amounts that could be paid by individuals.

The Conservative government, in Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, has made further changes to that, and in fact reduced the personal contributions from $5,000 to $1,100 per year, per party. What has happened, of course, is that it has made it more difficult for political parties to raise money.

The provisions of Bill C-24 and Bill C-2 allow for Elections Canada to reimburse candidates based on how many votes they received in an election, so essentially what has happened is the burden and the cost of election campaigning has been transferred from corporations, unions, and to some extent individuals, to the taxpayers at large.

One can debate that philosophy. I for one think it is unfortunate that corporations and unions are precluded from participating in the political process. I would agree that limits need to be placed on that, but I wonder why it is so horrible for corporate Canada and the unions to not be able to support financially political parties or candidates of their choice within certain limits.

Nonetheless, Bill C-24 has passed and is the law of Canada, and Bill C-2 makes further changes to that particular regime.

However, I find it strangely ironic that this party brings in this bill, Bill C-29, and argues that it is a whole new regime with respect to loans and elections. As I said earlier, it is not really that new, but at the same time the leader of that party, the Prime Minister, has refused to disclose the names of all the individuals and organizations that donated to his leadership campaign in 2002. That strikes me as being very hypocritical.

Our party went through a leadership campaign a couple of years ago. All the participants made full disclosure of the sources of their funding and it is a matter of public record. However, for some reason the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada refuses to disclose the names of those people who donated to his leadership campaign. By refusing to do that, it raises questions about who was behind his leadership bid.

It may raise questions inappropriately because perhaps everything was totally appropriate, but by virtue of the refusal to disclose, it sort of leaves questions in people's minds of who was actually supporting his leadership bid, and whether they had a particular agenda that they were promoting or advancing.

If we have full transparency and disclosure, I think we take away that kind of ambiguity. I for one am in favour of full transparency and accountability.

Under the old rules, if a corporation wanted to donate to my election campaign, that donation would be fully disclosed by Elections Canada. It would be on my website. It would be everywhere.

If the voters of Etobicoke North did not think it was appropriate for me to accept $500 from BASF Canada because they thought I had a hidden agenda and the company was buying my influence about something, then that is a fair debate. I would be happy to have that debate.

Full transparency and accountability are absolute musts. Members of Parliament should be prepared to defend their actions in an election and in the House.

It has sometimes been said that this place is like living in a fish bowl. If people are interested in what we are doing, they can find out exactly what we are doing. If we travel or someone has sponsored our travel, that information is on the public record. The Office of the Ethics Commissioner has a whole variety of reports that are available publicly. I think that is totally appropriate.

People should not be able to take advantage of loopholes in legislation and stay clear of contribution limits by taking loans from people. That is in the current legislation. If Bill C-29 clarifies that, then that would be a positive development.

Our critic has worked hard on this file. A number of positive amendments were made at committee. I hope the government reflects on those amendments and does not try to reverse them because they would improve the bill. With that caveat, I will be supporting the bill when it comes to the House at a later stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read what he is talking about. It was Bill C-2 that restricted the $1,100. This is Bill C-54, which deals with loans. Perhaps he is going to be talking about the member in his own caucus who took $30,000 from his company. I think the member should figure out what he is talking about before asking questions.

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

I hear you on Bill C-2. I certainly wish you had stuck around to support us on that one.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra, and I would say that I appreciate the opinion that you have expressed. I appreciate the legitimacy with which you and many of my own colleagues and others want to do something, and feel that this is something.

I'm just saying that I disagree. I think we are better with nothing. Obviously it's the option of every committee member to do what they feel is best on this issue. I can only offer you my own opinion, and I've tried to lay out, as best I can, why I feel this entrenches a bad situation instead of moving us forward.

My preferred option, if I could just leave you with this, would be to say no and tell the Senate we have already dealt with this, that we've already developed effective legislation, and do the same thing as the government is doing on Bill C-2, which is to say to the Senate, pass it immediately. We've already dealt with this. We have tens and hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want it dealt with now.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Yes, even with the amendments. I would rather table a motion in the House arguing that it is very important that we immediately adopt a bill on cruelty to animals, such as Bill C-373. The decision is in your hands.

It's important not to think, though, that if you pass this today.... I understand the amendments; I understand where you're coming from and I think they're well-intended, but I think we would be far better served by a motion from this committee that says to pass what the House has already passed, a motion that says to the government to make the same demand of the Senate that you did on Bill C-2.

How is this any less important? It's just as important to deal with crime before it happens as it is to deal with crime afterwards. We have shown time and time again that when it comes to cruelty and violence against human beings, cruelty and abuse to animals is a precursor, so I think we should say the same thing that the government is saying to the Senate about Bill C-2.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today.

I'm going to start off with four reasons that I believe this committee should defeat this bill. I think they're clear reasons and I hope the committee will consider them.

The first is that the House has actually already--and I'm talking about the House of Commons--passed the same bill that I've introduced, Bill C-373, on two separate occasions. This was done so unanimously, with all-party support. It was the product of an enormous amount of compromise. Members will recall that at that period of time it was very difficult to bring together both those who are involved in animal welfare and those who are involved in the use of animals towards a point of consensus. We got so close that all parties agreed and it passed the House of Commons, and we sent that legislation, effectively the same legislation I have before you today, twice to the Senate.

So why is that relevant to this bill? Because the Senate is telling us today what is possible in this bill. They are rejecting what the House has sent to them twice and have sent something back that is totally ineffective.

That brings me to my second point; that is, to pass an animal cruelty law that has every major animal welfare group opposed to it makes no sense. How in the world we could pass something that every single major animal welfare group is opposed to makes no sense at all. I don't understand how we could possible explain that to our constituents. I'm not talking about people who are involved in animal rights; I'm talking about people who are involved on the front lines of dealing with animal abuse. I'm talking about humane societies and veterinarians who, day in and day out, see terrible, egregious abuse against animals, and they say it's time to put an end to it. They recognize that if you merely increase sentences, it does nothing for the fact that we can't get convictions.

That's the problem--people aren't being convicted. Only one-quarter of 1% of animal abuse complaints results in a conviction. You heard from an SPCA officer here just a couple of weeks ago who talked about how impossible it is to enforce today's existing laws.

The other great tragedy, of course, is that not only do we see these terrible abuses happening to animals, but we see that same abuse of animals then translating into abuse against human beings, violence against human beings. That was one of the reasons this committee heard that in Florida they had a campaign that said, if you can stop animal abuse by reporting it early, you can possibly stop spousal abuse, or abuse in the home. So we have to remember the linkage there—even if we don't care about animals, and I'm sure we all do around this table—that this has towards violence against human beings. I'm sure we all want the opportunity to be able to stop violence early.

The third is Senator Bryden's own comments, both before this committee and elsewhere, in which he said he would not support Bill C-373. If this was merely a step along the path to finally doing something, even though the House of Commons has already said we already have effective animal cruelty legislation, then we would expect the senator to say, well, maybe with some minor revisions we can accept what the House has already passed twice. I know that the government, as an example, is not accepting this with Bill C-2. They want the Senate to pass it immediately. Crime is extremely important. It needs to be dealt with immediately. The Senate shouldn't be telling the House what it should do; it should be dealing with the matter post-haste. Yet when it comes to animal cruelty, there's the application of a very different standard. Even though we've sent legislation to the Senate twice, we are somehow letting the Senate dictate to us what is possible and what should be done.

The fourth comment I would make is the overwhelming outpouring from Canadians. In front of me here are thousands upon thousands of signatures that were received just in the last month that I'll soon be presenting to the House. I had a Conservative member approach me last week with 2,300 signatures from his own riding of individuals who oppose this Senate bill and support Bill C-373. There are over 130,000 signatures that have been attained in a formal format, such as this, calling for the defeat of this Senate bill and for the passage of effective animal cruelty legislation, such as the legislation that the House of Commons has already passed and that is before us again. On Facebook there are thousands upon thousands of members, and there are people everywhere clamouring and calling for something very simple; that is, to update our animal cruelty laws.

The passage of this bill, which only deals with sentencing, will mean that the international embarrassment that is Canada's animal cruelty laws will continue. Today we are behind the Philippines. We are a third world nation when it comes to our animal cruelty laws. This bill would do nothing to fix that.

I would ask that members have the courage to stand up for what the House has already supported, to stand up for the legislation the duly-elected members of the House of Commons have already stood for, and to say to the Senate, enough is enough, it's time to pass effective animal cruelty legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Child Pornography

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Ontario police agencies and officers for their outstanding work that resulted in the arrest on February 12 of more than 20 people and 73 criminal charges being laid in the largest coordinated child pornography investigation in the history of Ontario. That is the good news. The bad news is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Although our law enforcement agencies are working hard to protect young Canadians, they need more tools. One of those tools is the tackling violent crime act. I just do not understand why the Senate, the members of which are most likely grandparents, is holding up this bill. It contains legislation that would make it so much easier for our law enforcement agencies to fight child exploitation.

Our children rely on us to protect them. The House has done its job. It is now time for the Senate to do its part and pass Bill C-2 immediately for the sake of our kids.

Once again, congratulations to the police. This government and this Prime Minister will do their part to get the job done.

[Joe Wild, Executive Director, Strategic Policy, Corporate Priorities, Planning and Policy Renewal Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before beginning my remarks, I'll quickly introduce my colleagues who are at the table. Marc O'Sullivan is the acting assistant secretary to the cabinet for senior personnel and special projects with the Privy Council Office; and Katharine Rechico is with the Department of Finance, as is Benoit Robidoux. They're here primarily to assist in any technical questions that might come up around the specifics of some of the mandate.

I'm going to quickly go through some brief opening remarks just to help set some context for the members of the committee.

Thank you for your invitation to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance to discuss the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act and especially the implementation of a Parliamentary Budget Officer position.

As lead for the overall implementation of the act, I propose to update the committee on the overall progress that has been made by the government.

As you know, the Federal Accountability Act amended 46 existing statutes and created two new ones. Some of these changes came into force at royal assent on December 12, 2006, while others were subject to coming-into-force dates set out in the act or established by order in council.

The introduction of Bill C-2 was accompanied by the federal accountability action plan, which organized the various elements of the Federal Accountability Act along 14 themes and set out as well related policy initiatives. I will now provide some details on the highlights of the government's progress in implementing the act and action plan along those themes.

With respect to reforming the financing of political parties, this element has been fully implemented. The relevant statutory amendments came into force on January 1, 2007. These measures are currently being administered by the Chief Electoral Officer.

With respect to banning secret donations to political candidates, this element has been fully implemented. The final statutory amendments came into force on July 9, 2007. These measures are currently being administered by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

With regard to strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner, this element has been fully implemented. The new Conflict of Interest Act came into force on July 9, 2007. On that date, Ms. Mary Dawson was appointed to the new position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

With regard to making qualified government appointments, statutory amendments to provide parliamentarians with more say in the appointment of agents of Parliament, to revise the process for appointing returning officers under the Canada Elections Act, to provide for the creation of a public appointments commission, and to remove entitlements to priority appointments within the public service for ministerial staffers, these have all come into force.

With respect to cleaning up government polling and advertising, most of the items under this heading have been implemented, including statutory and policy changes and contract regulations that came into effect on June 7, 2007.

With regard to providing real protection for whistle-blowers, the amended Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was brought into force and operational as of April 15, 2007. Appointments have been made to both the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the public servants disclosure tribunal.

In terms of strengthening the access to information legislation, all of the statutory amendments under this element have been brought into force. The Access to Information Act has been expanded to include 69 additional institutions, which comprise agents of Parliament, several foundations created under federal statute, seven additional parent crown corporations, and all subsidiary crown corporations.

With respect to strengthening the power of the Auditor General, all of the statutory elements under this element have been brought into force. Regulations are also being developed in order to support the Auditor General's authority to inquire into the use of funds under federal funding agreements.

With regard to strengthening auditing and accountability within departments, deputy heads have been designated as accounting officers under the Financial Administration Act. Statutory amendments have been made regarding the governing structure of crown corporations, and a new offence has been created for fraud involving public moneys.

In terms of creating and establishing a director of public prosecutions, the office of the director has been created and it is operational. An acting director has been appointed, pending a permanent appointment to this position. It has been that way since the act received royal assent on December 12, 2006.

We have also ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption. That convention was ratified on October 2, 2007.

In terms of cleaning up procurement of government contracts, several items under this element have been completed, including the incorporation of an overarching statement of principle on procurement in the Financial Administration Act and the adoption of a new code of conduct for procurement on September 19. A procurement ombudsman designate has been appointed. Draft regulations were posted in the Canada Gazette on December 22, 2007.

In terms of toughening the Lobbyists Registration Act, the government has developed proposed regulations for the coming into force of the Lobbying Act. The consultations on those regulations are now closed. The regulations are going through the process of being finalized in order to be brought forward for deliberation by the Governor in Council.

With regard to the establishment of a parliamentary budget authority, as you know, this item remains to be fully implemented. The Federal Accountability Act established within the Library of Parliament the position of parliamentary budget officer. The new officer will provide research and objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons concerning the state of the nation's finances, the estimates of the government, and trends in the national economy. The parliamentary librarian, under whose responsibility the selection process of the parliamentary budget authority falls, has highlighted current progress made on the matter.

There has been a lot of work done in the last year on the Federal Accountability Act, and I want to assure this committee that, across government, we continue our hard work to implement this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening remarks. I'd be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.

I understand that Mr. O'Sullivan has a few brief remarks.

Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation)

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been interested over the last two days in this issue of democratic reform. I have always been trying to get a real clear answer from anybody as to what the Senate actually does.

Yesterday we were told it protects the rights of minorities. Of course if we go back to John A. Macdonald, when he said “minorities”, he meant the rich. He said that there will always be a lot more poor people than rich people, so we have to have a special chamber to protect the interests of the powerful.

Today I hear the Liberals saying that the Senate is there to represent the interests of the provinces. If one were to ask the average Canadian, he or she would say the Senate is there for people who have flipped pancakes at Liberal Party fundraisers for 30 years and they are given basically a life of leisure working two or three days a week.

Where were they last week? They were in New Mexico at a casino. While hard-working Canadians were suffering in -50° weather, the senators were at the casino. If the government was wondering where Bill C-2 was being stalled, it could have put some suntan lotion on the government member's back and he could have gone to try to rouse some of the senators from their pina colada luncheons that are being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.

People need relief from that crew. Why does the government not just do the simple thing about democratic reform, throw them out, open the other place up as a public basketball court, save the Canadian taxpayers a lot of grief and actually save the embarrassment of having an upper chamber based on party patronage and cronyism in the 21st century?

[Andrew Murie]

First of all, you're correct in your assumption, and there's a perspective to look at. If you go back to the 1980s, 70% of teen deaths were alcohol-related. That number has dropped into the 40% range, so we have made progress with our young people. But as a percentage of licensed drivers, they're still the most overrepresented in the group of drivers who have been fatally injured by alcohol. So we still have progress to make.

The other issue of concern with young people especially is that of cannabis and driving. Student surveys clearly show the rates of cannabis and driving at high school levels have now exceeded the drinking and driving levels. Bill C-2 will go a long way in resolving some of those problems because now police will have the tools to apprehend drug-impaired drivers. So there's a perception some young people like to get out there that they're not the problem anymore, it's their parents, it's other people. But we still have a lot of work to do with young people.

On the solution side, it's mostly administrative; it's not criminal. As our friends here from the Canada Safety Council said, the zero BAC has been a very effective tool; it's part of graduated licensing. One of the things MADD Canada is doing with all the provinces is recommending zero BAC to the age of 21 or the first five years of driving. So far, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have adopted that, so we're making headway. Just as much as we work here at the federal level, we do a lot of work provincially.

We feel that if zero BACs to 21 were done in most jurisdictions, hundreds of young people's lives would be saved. That's the most important thing that can be done. Also, the other piece for young people is random breath testing, the fact that police can intervene and put young people back to the beginning or take away their licence. Young people, more than any other group, want the privilege to drive, want the opportunity to drive. So consequently, they, more than any other age group, will follow the rules, especially because it's not their motor vehicle.

Canada Elections Act

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

I realized my mistake the moment I saw you rise, Mr. Speaker.

The Conservative government awarded a communications contract to Marie-Josée Lapointe, who was on this government's transition team. This contract goes against the spirit of the government's own Federal Accountability Act, since political staff are not allowed to receive contracts from the government in place for 12 months after they leave. The contract was eventually cancelled halfway through, following a hard fight in the House.

When Bill C-2 was passed, the point was raised also that the issue of whistleblower protection had not been covered. In addition, the reform of the Access to Information Act has yet to be covered. So, in terms of ethics, it is falling short.

[Chris White, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Automobile Association, thank you for inviting us.

From our establishment in 1913, CAA has been Canada's foremost voice, supporting the rights of Canadian motorists and travellers. With approximately 5.2 million members, CAA continues to advocate for a wide variety of safety initiatives, which have helped guide relevant traffic safety laws, public safety initiatives, and public policies throughout Canada. We continue to work with the federal government, our nine clubs, and other stakeholder groups to ensure safer drivers on safer roads in safer vehicles.

Mr. Chair, as one of Canada's largest member-based advocacy groups, we, like you and the members of the committee, are anxious to see fewer deaths and injuries on the roads as a result of impaired driving. In 1999, this committee tabled the report entitled,Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving. That report concluded that the current level of 0.08 adequately empowered police to remove impaired drivers from the road, while at the same time not burdening the justice system.

More importantly, though, the report stated the following:

...a legal BAC limit of 50 mg/100 ml of blood could result in a loss of public support, especially since scientific evidence suggests that not everyone would be impaired at that level.

Mr. Chair, CAA's only raison d'être on behalf of our members and on behalf of the travelling public is to be a credible advocate for safety issues for Canadians. With this as our sole motivation, CAA continues to support the approach cited in 1999. Based on figures from Transport Canada, we know that nationally 2005 crashes involving drinking and driving accounted for about 33% of all road users killed on public roadways. And until studies show overwhelmingly strong and consistent evidence for lowering the criminal BAC limit, it is our view that the current limit of 0.08 should be maintained and strongly enforced.

To address the growing concern of impaired driving, CAA strongly supports legislation, strict enforcement, and continued education to end the practices of driving while under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication. It is our view that this is where an investment of resources is most needed.

The committee's review of mechanisms to reduce impaired driving in Canada is timely and overdue. Current measures are clearly not providing adequate deterrents, nor are they removing dangerous drivers from the road. It is our perspective that we are not talking about a deficiency in law but rather a deficiency in the social behaviour of drivers. Most drivers inherently know when they have consumed too much alcohol to drive, regardless of the blood alcohol content. The more serious problem, though, is the drivers who lack this understanding and those who chronically and consistently get into their cars under the influence of alcohol well beyond the 0.08 levels. Repeat offenders and an underresourced judicial system are endangering the safety of everyone on the roads, and, as CAA has long maintained, driving is a privilege and not a right.

Furthermore, CAA, like many stakeholders, believes in a comprehensive approach to address the problem of impaired driving. We advocate for specific measures to deal with repeat offenders and measures to increase enforcement.

We would specifically like the committee to consider the following:

One, introduce tougher sanctions for recidivists and drivers with high BACs: the higher the blood alcohol level, the more serious the sanction.

Two, implement a mandatory requirement for the use of alcohol ignition interlock devices that become progressively longer with each subsequent conviction.

Three, encourage provinces to coordinate provincial legal drinking ages to reduce the practice of cross-border drinking and driving.

Four, recommend that the Criminal Code admit evidence from mobile digital breath testing devices in court. These devices have proven to be highly reliable compared to the first-generation devices that were initially used.

Five, encourage the federal and provincial governments to simplify the evidence-gathering and charging procedures, with the goal of reducing the paperwork and time needed to lay an impaired driving charge.

Six, and finally, strengthen coordination and increase funding to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the resources and legislative support to effectively detect and properly charge drug-impaired drivers.

The continued level of public concern about drinking and driving is justified by the persistence of the problem on Canadian roads. CAA appreciates the attention of lawmakers to this issue and is confident the implementation of the aforementioned recommendations will improve safety on the roads and highways and will also reduce the incidence of drinking and driving in Canada.

I would like to conclude by thanking the committee for undertaking this important study. In addition, committee members should be commended for their work on Bill C-32 during the last parliamentary session and the speedy passing of the violent crime bill, Bill C-2, last fall.

CAA strongly supports Parliament's efforts to strengthen the enforcement of drug-impaired driving offences in Canada and would persuade the members of this committee to encourage their Senate colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on the Senate reform this Conservative government wishes to achieve. First, I would like to mention that from time to time, at receptions or on Parliamentary trips, I do exchange greetings with my colleagues in the Senate. As far as I am concerned, they are human beings just like us and friendliness is always in order whenever we have an opportunity to discuss matters. I make no secret of the fact that many of them have the best interests of the public at heart. Yes, what is more, some senators have even accomplished great things in our society. I thank them for their contribution. However, that is not the question.

Despite ideological differences I may have with the senators, it is not the senators who disturb me but rather the institution of the Senate itself. I find it absurd that a democratic society, such as Canada claims to be, can still accept the notion that unelected people should play a role in approving legislation and in governing the affairs of the country.

I am not a historian, but I can easily remember that Canada’s upper chamber, the Senate, descends directly from the British House of Lords. At one time, those lords argued it was essential not to give power to the people and that it was necessary to offset the elected House with a chamber comprised of aristocrats. The Senate is the last sign of an old, obsolete monarchy in which the seats of power are allocated according to blood ties.

That way of thinking has not changed much. Today, some senators are appointed because of their family relations. I think, for example, of one senator from Quebec who was appointed because his father was a minister in the Trudeau government. In the case of other senators, the reasons for their appointments may be slightly different but they owe their places to connections, friends or political allegiance.

Will electing senators change this selection process? Not at all. In fact, the Conservative government must think electors are gullible if it would have them believe that this reform will make a big difference. In the formula proposed in the bill, the Conservatives are trying to reform the Senate with a simple bill, without getting into any constitutional details. I can understand their fear of starting a constitutional debate, as they did with the Charlottetown accord in 1992, because the Conservatives know full well that a reform of the Senate or the Constitution, like the one they are proposing, is unacceptable to Quebec.

Last November, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously—including the government's ADQ friends—passed the following:

That no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

Quebec is not alone in opposing the idea of Senate reform, as proposed by the Conservatives. Premiers Calvert, Doer and McGuinty have mentioned that it would be better to abolish the Senate than to try to renew it. Curiously, our party, the Bloc Québécois, a sovereignist party, has support from the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario to abolish the Canadian Senate rather than have a piecemeal reform. For the Bloc, whether the Senate is reformed or not, it is still a useless institution.

For those who support Senate reform, the upper chamber draws its legitimacy and its need to exist from the fact that it provides a sober second look at the work of the House of Commons. Allow me to be skeptical. Senators are meant to take an objective and perhaps even a regional look at bills that are sent to them and review the work of the House of the Commons, but they are not elected and are not accountable for anything or to anyone. Over the years, partisanship has gained the upper hand over this supposed objectivity.

Electing senators will not change this partisanship in the least. According to the Conservatives' bill, the members of the upper chamber would be elected under a political banner and then appointed by the Prime Minister, if he so wishes. Since these new senators would be elected with a political affiliation, we can expect that they will toe their party's line.

The Bloc Québécois and I are not alone in saying this, and not only today in this House.

On October 1 of last year, Le Droit printed a quotation by Elaine McCoy, an Alberta senator. She said:

—the institutional structure causes senators to close ranks around party discipline and to hold the party line.

According to this senator, we would have to do much more than elect members to the upper house to put an end to this kind of discipline. In other words, electing senators would do nothing more than duplicate the House of Commons.

As everyone here knows, none of the provinces have had upper chambers since Quebec abolished its Legislative Council in 1968. In Quebec and the Canadian provinces, parliamentary democracy is working just fine without a second partisan review of decisions made by elected representatives. Furthermore, I am certain that Quebeckers would be delighted to find out that just by abolishing the Senate, we would avoid duplication and save between $80 million and $100 million per year.

Before wrapping up, I would like to make three points to illustrate the connection between the issue of Senate reform and other current issues.

First, as I said before, neither the existing nor a reformed Senate can be of any use, as evidenced by the fact that the institution slows down and hinders the democratic process. Bill C-2, the omnibus bill we talked about earlier, has been blocked in the Senate for partisan reasons even though this House, which was democratically elected, passed it unanimously.

Second, the Prime Minister rails against the Senate, but he, too, uses it for partisan purposes, as shown by his appointment of the Minister of Public Works. Many people no longer believe the Prime Minister when he talks about democracy, transparency and a new way of doing politics. What a wonderful show of federalism and openness. The Minister of Public Works has had four opportunities to run under his party's banner in Quebec byelections, but he chooses to be a ghost-like presence by putting in precious few appearances in the upper house. He gets paid pretty well for the tiny amount of time he spends there.

The third and final point that connects the bill with current events is being played out in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the courts. Certain Conservative members and ministers broke Elections Canada's rules during the last election. I have no doubt that the Conservatives would consider themselves above the law and use the same tactics when the time came to elect senators.

The simplest solution for everyone—and I would recommend it to my Conservative colleagues who have not yet gotten the point—is simply to abolish the Senate. We should not waste our time on piecemeal reform. The Senate costs a fortune, has no legitimacy and more often than not holds up decisions of the House.

Safer Internet Day

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, more than 43 countries around the world are recognizing Safer Internet Day.

Safer Internet Day is a chance to educate parents about the dangers that lurk online and encourage them to protect their children from harm. As the Internet continues to reach into more homes and be accessed by younger children with each passing year, this need is becoming even more critical.

Our government has taken strides on this important issue. Bill C-2, currently in the Senate, would raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years old and protect Canadian teens from so-called sex tourists who would take advantage of our existing laws to abuse our precious children. We need that bill passed by the Senate and we need it into law now.

All organizations, like Kids Internet Safety Alliance, deserve credit for their tireless efforts to eliminate online sexual exploitation of children and youth, but the battle is far from over.

On this Safer Internet Day, I ask everyone to please encourage everyone who cares for a child to educate themselves and their children on how to stay safe online and to put pressure on the Senate to get the job done and get Bill C-2 passed now.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I would comment, as well, that my colleague from the Bloc is continuing to heckle me.

The reason the Bloc Québécois is in favour of abolishing the Senate is because in order to abolish the Senate we must amend the Constitution. There is nothing the Bloc would rather have this country do than to get into a divisive constitutional debate.

What is more, the Bloc members want to abolish the Senate because it wants to have that Senate debate. They also recognize that about a quarter of the 105 senators are from the province of Quebec, which means that about 75% of the Senate are federalists. The Bloc does not like the idea of having that many more people in Ottawa in one of the two Houses of Parliament fighting for and defending Canada's interests. It wants to have fewer federalists in Ottawa, which is why it believes in abolishing the Senate.

The members of the Bloc Québécois, as usual, are up to their own mischief on this issue. They do not have a sincere position. Their position is about mischief making and about driving their agenda of tearing Quebec from the heart of Canada and we, frankly, will not have any of that.

This bill is about consultation. It is about reaching out to provinces and recognizing their role in having provinces at the forefront of the decision making of who will represent the provinces in Canada's upper house, which is an important step forward.

It is important to note that the province of Alberta has Senate election legislation and it has been exercised twice. In our government, we appointed Bert Brown to the Senate, who was elected by the people of Alberta. When a subsequent vacancy arises, the Premier of Alberta will have the capacity to elect senators in waiting who will then be appointed to the Senate on a democratic basis by the people of Alberta.

Under the NDP, the New Democratic government in the province of Manitoba passed bill 20 to elect senators in the province of Manitoba. The citizens of that province can have their say on who will be fighting on their behalf on Parliament Hill.

In the province of Saskatchewan, Premier Brad Wall has already indicated that he is drafting legislation and working hard to put forward Senate election legislation in the province of Saskatchewan so that the people of Saskatchewan can decide who their senators will be.

In British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell has indicated that he is interested in following this path as well.

We have a conceivable situation where the four western provinces of Canada, based on their democratic choice, will enter into a process to elect senators at the grassroots level so Canadians can have a direct say in which politicians are in Ottawa, spending their money, in scripting their freedom and advocating for public policy changes. It is important that Canadians have that democratic right. That is something our party has always advocated and it is something in which I have always believed.

The is all about that. It is about consultation with provinces and it is about incremental reforms.

My colleague from Timmins-James Bay also mentioned the former Liberal government, under the member for LaSalle—Émard when he was prime minister. He used to constantly say, when he was campaigning in western Canada, that he believed in Senate reform. He was not prepared to engage in sweeping constitutional reform and Senate reform. He was not prepared to have any kind of incremental reform. Outside of that, he was all in favour of Senate reform.

We recognize we have a minority Parliament. We think Canadians are prepared for this debate and are prepared to engage in it. I do not think we want to go down the road of engaging in constitutional discussions if it is not necessary. We think there can be incremental Senate reform in the country, and this is one of the mechanisms by which it can be done.

A couple of bills on Senate reform are being considered by the House. The other bill is to have Senate term limits, to limit the number of years somebody can serve in the Senate, from a maximum of 45 years down to 8 years. That is a reasonable reform and proposition. Also we have the bill before us, which provides for consultation.

I reiterate the point that abolishing the Senate requires a constitutional amendment. The New Democrat position is a very idealistic one, but it is a very unrealistic one. Without constitutional amendment, the Senate cannot be abolished.

There is a backdoor way of abolishing the Senate, which is do not appoint any senators, leave the vacancies sitting there. Over time, these vacancies will accumulate. There are a couple of problems associated with that. One is the Senate vacancies will not come up proportionately across the country. We may be a situation where one province is dramatically disadvantaged in the Senate by virtue of the number of vacancies relative to another province.

We are almost getting to that point in British Columbia. Three out of the six seats in the Senate are currently vacant. Half of our Senate delegation is not there. We hope those seats will be filled through a democratic process, ultimately by consultation.

The other problem with the backdoor way of abolishing the Senate, without constitutional reform, is we get into this dynamic where the smaller the Senate, the more power it has. We have seen this. We have seen the Senate exercise its power in a way that is not helpful to the democratic mandate provided to the House by the Canadian people. We have seen that in the past and we see it today.

We know the clichéd saying that the Senate is supposed to be the chamber of sober second thought. We have the example of Bill C-2, a comprehensive crime bill. It was one of the cornerstone issues on which Conservatives campaigned in the last election campaign. When I campaigned in my district in the suburbs of Vancouver, it was the dominant issue I pushed on the doorsteps. That was what I heard back from my constituents. As good politicians, we talk about the issues that are of concern to our constituents.

Criminal justice reform was probably the central issue of concern for my constituents. We campaigned hard on criminal justice reform matters. We were elected to Parliament on the basis of our criminal justice platform, and we put forward these bills twice, once in the individual forms, and we did not succeed. The House prorogued. We came back, we packaged them together in Bill C-2, a comprehensive tackling violent crime act, and we have pushed that legislation forward.

We had full debate in the House of Commons on the legislation in the original form. When it came in the form of Bill C-2, we had a full debate in the House. We had a full debate at committee. We considered amendments and accepted them. Then the bill finally passed, with the support of opposition parties. Now it is in the hands of the Senate.

The government was elected on the basis of a very specific platform of criminal justice reforms. We passed them in the House, with the support of the opposition parties, and they went to the Senate. Now the Liberal Senate members have proposed 59 witnesses on Bill C-2 to logjam bill at the Senate side. After more than two years of government, where we have compromised on the bill, we have worked together, we have worked across party lines, we have passed the bill, we want to see it become a reality. This kind of activity on the Senate side needs to be stopped.

Therefore, if there is abolition of the Senate through constitutional means, the Bloc will play its games. If there is abolition of the Senate through backdoor means, by restricting senators, a smaller number of people will be empowered to play more games like we have seen on Bill C-2.

The way to go ahead is to have incremental reform with reasonable measures. It is not unreasonable to say that senators should sit for a maximum of eight years rather than 45 years and have that responsibility of being a senator circumscribed to that amount of time. That is an entirely reasonable reform.

The second one we have proposed is to have the federal government sit down with the provinces and consult with them in the best way to allow the people to decide who should legislate on their behalf in Ottawa.

This is quite straightforward. I think if that proposition were put forward to Canadians, we would win this debate 95:5. This is why I hope the bill will see that kind of support in the House, with the support of opposition parties.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, right off the top, I am not very happy to speak in a debate about Motion No. 3, which would send a message to the Senate about its work on Bill C-2. I would rather have spoken about a bill that the government had introduced to increase its assistance to the manufacturing and forestry industries. If they had done that, we could have been dealing with problems that are much more urgent for our fellow citizens than Senate reform.

In any case, though, this reform does not pass muster in our view. As I said yesterday in the debate on Motion No. 3, we think the Senate is a political institution that is not only undemocratic but in the modern era has lost its very reason for being. It is simply a vestige of colonial times and the British monarchy. For these fundamental reasons we will oppose referring it to committee before second reading.

I think we would have opposed it even after second reading because we are opposed to the very principle underlying this bill. Its purpose is to reform an institution that, in our view, is no longer relevant if it ever was. There is no point trying to amend a bill in some way when it is so unacceptable in content and form and when no amendments could possibly make it acceptable. We will therefore vote against referring this bill to committee.

We disagree with the very principle of this bill because it is obvious in our view—and Canadian and Quebec history make it crystal clear—that Canada’s institutions cannot be reformed. By trying to reform the Senate through bills rather than a constitutional amendment, the Prime Minister is confirming something that was already evident to many people in Quebec. For Quebec sovereignists, of course, it is impossible in any case to make significant changes to the Canadian constitution, even more so when taking into account the national reality of Quebeckers.

It is also deeply shocking to see the Conservative government and the Prime Minister bring in bills with which not only the Bloc Québécois but also the National Assembly of Quebec have said they disagree. This is true of both Bill C-20 and Bill C-22, the latter dealing with a redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.

Each time, it is clear that behind these changes—I am not even talking about reforms, because I think the word “reform” has a positive connotation—there is never any will to take into consideration the existence of at least two nations within the current Canadian political space: the Quebec nation, which was recognized by this House, the Canadian nation, which we readily recognize, and, of course, the first nations and the Acadian nation.

I think this has been the problem since Canada was created, and is why Canada's political institutions cannot be reformed. I am obviously talking about the lack of will from the majority of this political space, meaning the Canadian nation, to recognize, and not just by a motion in this House, the existence of several nations within the Canadian political space.

I could talk about the history, but not this morning. At certain points in the history of Canada and Quebec, it would have been possible to mutually recognize two nations and to recognize the first nations and the Acadian nation, in order to build a political structure representative of this multinational space. Unfortunately, the past, and also more recent history—for example, the Charlottetown accord and the Meech Lake accord—has shown us that there was not a broad enough will, yet alone a majority, within the Canadian nation to change the political balance and reflect this reality.

Unfortunately, the current Parliament seems to be the perfect example of the crisis in the Canadian system. I am not talking about the Bloc Québécois, because we chose to represent the Quebec nation in the House of Commons. I am talking about the political parties that call themselves national, but should call themselves pan-Canadian, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP.

Those parties all have essentially regional foundations: the Conservatives, more in the west; the Liberals, in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces; and the NDP, a bit everywhere. They are not yet sufficiently entrenched in a region of Canada to claim to be pan-Canadian parties. It is not their fault. Quite simply, no one has wanted to recognize this multinational dimension in the past.

The Quebec-Canada relations crisis is not a crisis for the people of Quebec. It is a crisis in the Canadian system, with ups and downs, since history is never linear. It is very clear that, as long as people fail to grasp this reality—and in the case of the Bloc and Quebec sovereignists, we will take this reality into account as soon as Quebec decides to become a sovereign country—we cannot resume discussions with our Canadian neighbours to reorganize an economic space, at least, and perhaps a political space between our two nations.

That being said, within the existing political space, considering the mindset of Canadians, it is obvious that Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. This situation will certainly not be corrected by trying to reform the Senate, especially since Bill C-20 is aimed primarily at marginalizing the Quebec nation more than anything else.

I was saying that we are against the bill because Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. Indeed, in our view, the very spirit of the bill is unacceptable. Nevertheless, there is also the fact that Parliament cannot reform the Senate unilaterally and without making constitutional amendments. As many constitutionalists have said, the National Assembly has confirmed, and Quebec's Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Pelletier, has said on many occasions, any attempts to change the composition or the method of appointing senators would require a constitutional negotiation. Obviously, for us as Quebeckers, and especially for sovereignists, a constitutional negotiation will not be held on the Senate question alone, since it is far from our primary concern. We often even forget that that institution exists.

It is therefore very clear to us that the bill as it now stands cannot be acceptable to Quebec or to anyone who wishes to abide by the Canadian constitution.

I often find it amusing—it should make me cry, but I tend to be an optimist—to say that the only people who try to ensure that we abide by the Constitution in this House are the Bloc Québécois. For example, when we talk about respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces or combating the federal spending power, we are unfortunately the only ones who stand up for what was set out in a document that may, in fact, be too old, because it does not reflect the present-day reality of the Canadian political space.

The fact remains, however, that as long as the Constitution has not been amended and as long as we are within the Canadian political space, Quebec, Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois will stand up for the idea that there can be no amendments relating to the specific method by which senators are appointed without constitutional negotiations. Once again, on the question of constitutional negotiations, when that door—some would say that Pandora's box—is opened again, very clearly there will be other matters to be brought in besides mere questions about the Senate.

There is a fourth point that I think it is important to make. Even if it is reformed, the Senate is a useless institution, as I said earlier. It is a legacy of the monarchy, a legacy of British colonialism; it is the fear that the founders of the Canadian political space had of seeing a sovereign people make decisions through elections and elected representatives.

So they appointed these wise and elite people, who are often conservative. I am not speaking here to Conservatives as such. We are talking about elites who often wanted to oppose the desire for social and economic progress felt by a majority of the population. That is true for Quebec and it is also true for Canada.

I will conclude on that point because I have been told that my speaking time will soon be up. The bill itself is full of problems, even though it might have been thought to have some value.

Under Bill C-20, given that indirect election of senators is not going to make the Senate democratic, we are creating senators whom it will be virtually impossible to unseat. This is a non-binding consultation and it is full of holes.

[Gregory Tardi, Parliamentary Counsel (Legal), House of Commons]

Madam Chair, the lifespan of the existence of the Ethics Commissioner as an entity, under the newest form of the legislation brought in by Bill C-2, is far too short to be able to answer that. There is no real precedent yet.

Going beyond that, in an entirely legally based view—which has to be mine—what's at stake here is the application of the sub judice rule to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. With respect, the Ethics Commissioner is not a court of law but an officer of parliament. That being said, it seems to me there is nothing in law or legal custom to prevent the committee from examining the subject matter, albeit perhaps not exactly the same issues as those within the responsibility of the Ethics Commissioner. Under her own legislation, the committee can choose, if it wants, to look at the general subject matter, to investigate the facts, and perhaps to draw conclusions, hopefully, other than those the Ethics Commissioner will draw.

Canada Elections Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I had the time for a question I certainly would want to enquire about some of the current cases before Parliament.

Bill C-29 aims to establish a system of improved accountability for candidates to report loans taken out during election campaigns. Its key elements include creating a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political parties, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors; ensuring that total loans, loan guarantees and contributions by individuals should not exceed the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Canada Elections Act; and allowing only financial institutions and other political entities the capacity to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals and only at commercial rates of interest.

Tightening rules for the treatment of unpaid loans is also important to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans by ultimately holding riding associations responsible for unpaid loans taken out by their candidates.

The bill was first presented to the House during the first session of Parliament as Bill C-54 and reintroduced in November of last year with essentially the same content as Bill C-54. The bill was very seriously examined during meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Members worked hard and agreed upon different elements, not the least of which was a significant improvement which now calls for unpaid amounts of the loan to be considered contributions after three years after the day on which it was made. The original government proposal was to make that period only 18 months. Now the government House leader is presenting motions that would completely disregard the other amendments that were passed at committee.

Government Motion No. 1 would delete the Liberal amendment to allow for annual contributions to a leadership candidate. Under this motion, for example, a person would be allowed to donate $1,000 to a leadership candidate in each calendar year until the leadership candidate paid his or her campaign debt and formally closed his or her leadership campaign.

Government Motion No. 2 would make it necessary for loans to be repaid annually rather than at the point when the loan becomes due. Effectively, this would prevent candidates from taking extended repayment loans. It makes no sense to set up an artificial limit on repayment.

Considering the fact that elections can be called at different times during the year, whether it be January, April or October, it is unreasonable for someone to be asked to pay off a loan before the time limit established by the loan contract. We see that the government is pushing hard on its perception of accountability.

Furthermore, as members of Parliament will know, once we are elected our focus shifts to doing our job, not to running in elections or raising money for elections. It, therefore, would be an absolute hindrance for anyone to have to focus on repaying by the end of a fiscal year if that is not the date that was agreed upon with the lender.

Government Motion No. 3 would delete the Bloc amendment that would have removed liability from registered political parties for loans taken by candidates. This motion would set up a system or a responsibility for registered political parties and riding associations, regardless of whether or not they are aware that the candidate has taken out a loan. Making one entity responsible for the personal debt of an individual does not sound responsible under any criteria.

The government waited for the original version of this bill to die with prorogation so that it could present new motions to completely obliterate the changes that had already been agreed upon democratically at committee.

There are some five bills in Bill C-2, many of which had progressed substantially through the legislative process. In fact, many of those bills would have been law today had the government taken the opportunity it had to reintroduce those bills at the same stage they were at when prorogation occurred.

As a consequence, we now find Bill C-2 as an issue of debate in this place simply because the government suggests that it should happen quicker. However, it engineered the delay in those pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is very similar to what has happened with regard to this bill.

Through this tactic, Canadians have seen that the government is clearly not interested in really working with the other parties to come up with sound legislation. It is only interested in continuing to pursue a philosophy of “my way or the highway” kind of legislative process. It is only interested in presenting political jabs disguised as draft legislation, and we have seen that time and time again on many bills.

While the government continues to repeat that Bill C-29 will finally stop the undue influence of wealthy contributors who were supposedly skirting Elections Act donation limits through the use of personal loans, the bill is clearly designed to disadvantage the Liberal Party of Canada financially and to limit access to the political process for many Canadians.

The fact is our party has demonstrated, in good faith, that we want to work to improve election laws. After all, our party was the one that passed the bill to limit the role of corporations and unions in election financing in Bill C-24 in 2003.

Our party also initiated the most significant contribution limit reduction in Canadian history. Furthermore, during our last leadership campaign, all candidates publicly disclosed all loans made to their campaigns and went above and beyond the requirement set out in the Canada Elections Act in this regard.

The Prime Minister still refuses to fully disclose the complete scope of financing of his own 2002 leadership campaign. Clearly the government is running a “Do as I say, not as I do” kind of operation. How can Canadians believe a government that does not want to practise what it preaches.The Liberal Party supports measures to make Canadians more confident in their politicians by seeking to improve the accountability of the electoral process.

We support the bill, as amended by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which includes the measures that were approved democratically by all of the parties.

Let me refer also to the activity within the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to which many important issues are referred and is represented by all parties. What happens is it is sometimes very dysfunctional in terms of deciding to do things or not to do things. In the case of the so-called in and out scandal, a filibuster has been going on since late October or early November on the ruling by the Chief Electoral Officer that the Conservative Party had breached the Canada Elections Act by transferring loans into and then out of candidates accounts. This kind of issue is very serious and the Chief Electoral Officer found that it was improper. The issue still is not out of procedure and House affairs committee. It is still not progressing because the government is filibustering.

For those who may be watching, a filibuster occurs when a party decides that it will continue to talk. There are no limits on talking when a motion is made. If the chair of that committee permits it to get too broad, effectively what we can do is continue to talk. When one member is finished, another member can get up and continue to talk. Therefore, we have a filibuster whereby the question before the committee never gets voted on and no action is ever taken.

We have seen that time and time again as a tactic. As members know, the government members were given a binder for their committees on how to disrupt the business of committees. Amendments were made to the bill at committee. Now they are being changed. There are all kinds of tactics, which I think Canadians would find very distasteful, with regard to respect for the rule of parliamentary procedures and law and how matters are handled.

I believe parliamentarians on committee, in reviewing the matter before us, did their job. They agreed upon the amendments. These have been tampered with yet again by the government to show bad faith in terms of respecting the fact that this is a minority government. It is important that we move now to make good laws and wise decisions. It does not include the changes proposed by the government.

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the assertions the member for Malpeque made at the beginning of his question. In my address to the House, I said that the delay was on the part of the government. There was no reason at all for the Conservatives to back this up, prorogue and then not allow the bills to go back to the same stage, as the three opposition parties proposed.

Despite the fact that I do not have a crystal ball, I have done an analysis of how crime bills have gone through the House under the current government and under the previous Liberal administration. Three of the five in Bill C-2 would be through and I think the fourth one would be as well. Only the dangerous offender bill would probably still be before the Senate at this point in time. Since that bill went to the Senate, for most of the time the Senate has not sat and neither has the House.

I will make one final point with regard to the Senate and the government. If the government were really serious, it would not be this motion before the House. The government would have a motion something similar to, “we call on all the senators to resign and we call on the Conservative government to initiate a process of constitutional reform to abolish the Senate for the future”.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member for Windsor-Tecumseh was very direct, as he always is. If there is anybody's counsel in the House I respect, it is his.

He said that the delay was really caused by the Conservative government itself, not by the Senate. I heard the remarks of the member for Wild Rose. Yes, there are differences of opinion in terms of the various bills, but the fact is several of these bills were to the Senate before. The debate was held in here and passed with the approval of the House of Commons.

There is no reason in the world why these bills had to be pulled back and then regurgitated into one single bill, named tackling violent crime, other than for political purposes. I think that is what the member was pointing out. Would the member agree with that comment?

Part of the motion today reads, “and that in the opinion of this House, the Senate majority is not providing appropriate priority to the passage of BillC-2”. Whether one agrees or disagrees that there be a Senate, that wording is an attack on reality. We were adjourned for most of the time, yet the government talks about the number of days since the House adjourned for the Christmas break. Could the member comment on that as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion by the government is unprecedented in the history of Canada. We can go back through almost 141 years of Confederation and we have never had a motion like this one in front of the House.

In substance, the motion says to the Senate, “We are telling you from the House of Commons if you do not pass Bill C-2 by the end of March 2008, we are going to bring down the government”. The Minister of Justice was on his feet in the House repeating in his speech this afternoon exactly the same threat.

I want to start with the height of hypocrisy that this motion represents on behalf of the government. Before I do that, I want to deal with the basic lack of logic of this motion.

What are we hearing? We heard from the Prime Minister in the fall when Bill C-2 was put before the House, and I will come back to some of the history leading up to Bill C-2, that he was going to bring the government down if this bill was not passed. It was passed in the House and now the government is doing the same thing in the Senate.

The logic escapes me because behind the threats, the bombast and the macho image the government is trying to portray on crime is a totally illogical position, which is that we need this legislation right now, that we needed it years ago. That is what we hear from the government. There is some validity to that in the case of a number of parts of Bill C-2, particularly those that the NDP supported as a political party and which the Liberal government in previous administrations would not pursue.

The Conservatives are saying, “We need it right now, we are way overdue on a number of these amendments and provisions, but we are going to go to an election”. They threatened it last fall and now they are threatening it again.

This resolution from the House has absolutely no impact on the Senate. We do not have the ability constitutionally to deal with this. It is totally illogical. If it comes to fruition, that is, if the government falls, or brings itself down is a better analysis of what is going on here, over this issue, Bill C-2 will die on the order paper. It will not get through the House of Commons or the Senate until the end of 2008.

Where is the logic behind this? Although it is a rhetorical question, the obvious answer is there is no logic. This is not about dealing reasonably, realistically and effectively with crime in this country. This is all about political posturing and nothing else on the part of the government.

Why are the Conservatives pushing it right now? The answer to that is very obvious. They lost the agenda on making crime the primary issue they want to run on in an election. The Conservatives think that is where they have their best chance of gaining support in the country. I think it is an analysis that is faulty, but that is where the Conservative Party and the Conservative government is coming from.

What has happened in the last several months is that the Conservatives' agenda around the crime issues has been completely pushed aside because we passed that bill before the House recessed at the end of last year. Any number of other issues that have been before the House and the country have taken prominence, issues that the government is very afraid of. Let me mention a few of them.

Obviously, at the top of the list right now would be the economic straits we are in, in particular in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, compelling the government, in spite of the blackmail it tried to pull on the House, to move $1 billion into those sectors and communities in order to deal with the dire economic crises that a number of those communities are facing. That pushed it off its agenda.

Obviously, the Afghanistan war, and in particular, the way Canada is handling detainees in Afghanistan, has pushed the Conservatives off their agenda in that regard. The firing of the head of the nuclear safety commission has pushed them off. Of course, there is always the Schreiber-Mulroney scandal. In the last couple of weeks, there has been the issue of the finance minister not following the rules of the Treasury Board with regard to letting contracts. There is the in and out scandal on the part of the Conservative government, the only party in the House that has been charged by Elections Canada with having in effect breached the election financing law.

There are all of those issues, none of which are favourable to the government. We are seeing, as a result of all of these issues, that the government is falling in the polls. The Conservatives believe that they can hijack the agenda in this country by trying to get back on to the crime agenda.

Let us look at what the Conservatives have done historically in the last 12 months or so. Last spring, just before we broke for the summer, three of the five bills that comprised Bill C-2 had passed this House and were in the Senate. I say without any hesitation that by the end of 2007, had the government not done what it proceeded to subsequently do, those bills would have passed the Senate. I say that on the basis of the way the Senate has handled other crime bills since the Conservative government has been in power. The bills would have passed. I assume, if the government were really serious about doing anything about crime, the bills would have received royal assent and they would have been law.

All three of the bills would have been law by January 1, 2008, if not earlier. Those three parts of Bill C-2, the mandatory minimums on serious violent gun crimes, the age of consent, and the impaired driving bill, all three of those have been through this House. Let me correct that. The impaired driving bill was the one that had not gotten through. It was at report stage. It would have had third reading. It would have passed the House in the third or fourth week of September, when we were supposed to come back. The third one was the bill on the reverse onus on bail hearings which was to keep people in custody if they were facing serious charges involving guns.

Those three bills, the age of consent, the mandatory minimums, the reverse onus, would have been law by now. I believe, quite frankly, the impaired driving bill would have been law by now, because it would have passed the Senate quite quickly in late September or early October, but for the action of the government.

I guess we all know that what the Conservatives did is they did not have enough to do, that is, they did not have their political agenda. They thought they would have fallen as a government, as they probably should have, before the fall of 2007, so they prorogued Parliament. All of the bills on the order paper died. We had to start all over again. All of these bills were off, including the ones in the Senate.

I want to be very clear on this. All of the opposition parties were prepared in the fall when we came back in October after a month's delay to reinstate all of those bills at the same stage they had been, that is, three in the Senate and one here for a quick passage because there was the consent of all of the parties.

Again, with just a little bit of luck, we would have had all of those bills through the Senate by the end of the year, that is, before the year-end break, and if not, we would have had them in the first few weeks of January or February of this year, all of them. Instead, we have had this lengthy delay caused by the Conservative government, not by the Senate.

As members well know, my party and I are not supporters of the Senate. Regularly and consistently since the existence of our political party back in the 1940s, we have been calling for the abolition of the Senate. I am not here to defend members of the other place. We saw last week the kind of delay on Bill C-13, the meddling they do all the time. It is an unelected, unrepresentative, and I think oftentimes an irresponsible body. I am not here to defend them, but by the same token, at this period of time the delay for this legislation lies squarely, entirely in the lap of the government.

If the government were really serious about fighting crime as opposed to, as Lawrence Martin said in the Globe and Mail this morning, using it for, to quote him, “cheap politics”, if the Conservatives were not doing it for that purpose, if they were really serious about the need to deal with serious violent crime in particular and some of these other issues around impaired driving and the age of consent, if they were not seeing it just as a methodology to try to get re-elected, we would have moved quite a bit further along. It is to their eternal shame that we are at the stage we are. Let us look at that stage.

It was interesting in the early and middle part of last week. The government, in the speeches its members were giving in the House, and in some of the addresses they were making to the media, began to sound almost desperate for an election. In that regard, if we have an election, we are going to be in the same situation. The bill is going to die, as all the others will that are on the order paper, and we will not see any of this legislation in place for the use of our police officers and judiciary across the country to apply and fight the various aspects of criminal activity that the bill would allow them to do.

The Conservatives are pushing that button, not because they are really serious about fighting crime. That is not their primary motivation. Their primary motivation is to use this as a political tool to try to save their seats, to try to get re-elected as a government. It is probably a faulty assumption on their part that it is going to work, but that is what their motivation is, not the best interests of the country and not the victims of crime. It is the Conservative political party that this is all about in trying to save their skins in the next election.

If we look at history, it is the height of hypocrisy for them to stand in the House and argue that they are tough on crime. It is simply not the reality when one looks at it.

The other point that I want to make is that if they were really serious about being effectively tough on crime, they would not have broken their promise with regard to the 2,500 police officers that they promised in the last election, and on which they have not delivered. In fact they misled Canadians in the last election. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the former minister of justice, all of them across the country were trumpeting the 2,500 additional police officers they would see put in place.

What has happened? Number one, they did not tell the Canadian people that they were expecting the provinces to pick up most of the tab for those 2,500 police officers, money which the provinces do not have. To some degree, at least a number of the provinces have already moved on with regard to promises they made in elections to increase the number of police officers. They have already put some money into it and now the federal government is coming to them, johnny-come-lately, and saying, “Oh, by the way, although we promised this in the last election and we didn't tell the Canadian people we were going to do this, we want you, the provinces, to pay a big chunk, in most cases at least 50%”. That is not within the financial capabilities of most of the provinces, nor should it be their responsibilities when the promise was made without that condition by the government.

It is a full two years after the election and this broken promise is still hanging over their heads. If the Conservatives were serious about it, they would not be bringing this kind of useless motion in front of the House. They would be moving a motion in the House to see to it that money was put in place, that a budgetary item was put in place. We should have seen this last fall, we should have seen it in the budget in February and we should have seen it in the budget in the previous February.

Today we hear that the next budget is coming. Let me assure the House that there will be nothing in the budget for those 2,500 police officers. The Conservatives are going to break that promise on an ongoing basis and they are not going to fulfill their commitment to the Canadian people.

With regard to that, whenever we look at dealing with crime effectively, we have to look at it from three perspectives.

First, we have legislation, as we see with Bill C-2, that deals with specific problems under our Criminal Code and other legislation. We are working on that against the delays caused by the government because it wants to keep it as a hot button item. It does not want the legislation passed because then it will be behind us. Therefore, we have done that to a great extent. There is still more that needs to be done.

The other two legs of that three-legged stool, if I can use that analogy, is prevention. The big item there is to move programs into our local communities, funded by the federal government. Again, the provinces do not have the taxing power or the revenue capability to fulfill all this. However, we literally have to move $100 million a year to the provinces and the municipal local levels of government, to provide programming that will keep young people, in particular, out of the youth gangs and generally fight the drug culture and keep them out of those parts of our communities that advocate the use of drugs. That money needs to be spent. There is absolutely nothing beyond a very inconsequential amount that the government has done in this regard. It is minuscule. In fact, most of the time the government does not know what to do with it.

I come back to those 2,500 police officers. We know that in those areas of our cities where we have seriously violent crimes, we need to put more police officers on the street. We simply cannot deal with that in any effective ways, even if it is in an interim measure, for the next number of years. We need more police officers on the streets fighting that kind of crime, street level crime, particularly in the youth gangs where so much of the gun crime resides at the present time. The government has done nothing on that and it has done a minuscule about on the prevention side.

Therefore, if the government were really serious, we would see that. We would not see the sham that this motion represents in the House at the present time. We would see concrete action. Most of this is looking at programming that would be successful. There are all kinds of examples of it in Canada and in other communities across the globe that we can look to and adopt, but we have to fund them. The government has been refusing to do that, just as it is refusing to fund those 2,500 police officers, as it promised in the last election.

Where are we at? On a silly waste of time today debating this motion. It is going to have absolutely no effect. The government, whether it is over this, or over the budget or over Afghanistan, is looking desperately to bring itself down, to force the opposition parties to bring it down.

However, in this case it is not even asking the opposition parties in effect. It is saying that we should pass the motion and then if the Senate does not move, it will go to the Governor General and say that it does not have the confidence of the House, even if the motion passes. That is the stupid part of the motion. Even if the House passes it, and it looks like perhaps the Liberals and the Bloc appear as if they will support it, the government would still come down at the end of March, if the Senate, the other house over which we have no control, decides will not pass Bill C-2 by March 31.

It is absolutely silly. It is the height of hypocrisy. It is really the height of demagoguery as well when we look at what has gone on in the House over the last few months around Bill C-2. It is a shame. The government members should really bow their heads and apologize to the Canadian people for it.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the 39th Parliament comes to an end, the member for Wild Rose will retire, sadly, bringing to an end an incredible political career.

The member for Wild Rose has devoted his career to making our streets and communities safer. The age of protection component of Bill C-2 is tribute to his many years of hard work on the justice file.

This brings us to day 74 of Senate obstruction on Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act. Last week, while our government stepped up the pressure on the unelected, unaccountable Liberal Senate, Liberal senators struck back with stunning defences for their inaction.

Let us consider the comments of Liberal Senator Carstairs, who apparently believes that passing the new age of protection component of the act may force 14-year-old and 15-year-old prostitutes underground, preventing them from getting testing for HIV and STDs.

She should want to stop this sexual exploitation. Bill C-2 does that.

I stand here today and join my government in demanding that the Senate stop obstructing Bill C-2 and in thanking the member for Wild Rose for his tireless efforts.

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

My reply is as follows. It is precisely so we do not fall into the trap set by the Prime Minister and the Conservative government.

If this is treated as an important vote, people may be panicked into an election over a motion which, in the end, does not have a great deal of legitimacy. In fact, the Bloc does not believe that the Senate has legitimacy. Furthermore, we voted in favour of Bill C-2.

In our opinion, we should quickly deal with this motion in order to get back to what is really important. For the Bloc Québécois, the best way of neutralizing and dealing with it is to vote for it and not to create a false crisis that will distance us even further from the real debate about the economic situation, which is deteriorating with each passing day.

That is why we will vote in favour of this motion. When there are substantive issues, the Bloc Québécois will be there to force an election, if warranted. However, I remind the House that we were in favour of Bill C-2, even though we were uncomfortable, as stated just now, with reverse onus.

Therefore, in weighing the advantages and disadvantages,—which we must often do in this House—we believe that it is better to vote in favour of Bill C-2 and the motion before us.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not say that I am pleased to take part in this debate because I believe that this is a debate that we could very well have done without.

However, it will give me an opportunity to highlight some elements, including what we expect to see in the budget. In recent days and weeks, we have had the impression that the Conservative government and the Prime Minister have been attempting to blow all issues out of proportion and, if not for the purpose of triggering elections, at least in an attempt to apply pressure on the opposition parties perhaps as an attempt to show in an artificial way, some kind of leadership.

In this regard, I believe that the Bloc Québécois has the responsibility to denounce these manoeuvres that hide the real problems by focusing attention on the motion before us early this afternoon. For those listening, I will repeat the motion:

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.

I will start by saying that we will support this motion even though, once again, I believe it is merely a diversionary tactic. The Bloc Québécois was in favour of Bill C-2 when it was voted on in this House. I would remind the House that Bill C-2 was an omnibus bill of sorts, since it consisted of five bills from the previous session. We were in favour of four of the five bills, and since the House had already voted and we had lost the vote, we thought the debate was over and the vote in the House was legitimate. Thus, from the beginning, we had expressed our agreement with four of the five bills, even before the government talked about making this a confidence vote.

We were, and still are, uncomfortable with one aspect of the fifth bill, that is, the notion of reverse onus for some repeat offenders. That said, after weighing the advantages and disadvantages, our caucus decided that it would be better to vote in favour of the bill, since it contained more aspects that we were completely comfortable with and that we supported. Bill C-2 does not pose a problem for us.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois considers any institution associated with the British monarchy to be completely obsolete. In our view, the Senate, as one such mechanism left over from a time when Canada was a British colony, is completely outdated. Clearly, we kept up this British parliamentary tradition—and many among us are attached to it—but, that said, some vestiges need to be abolished. And the Bloc Québécois makes no secret of the fact that, although it is not a priority for us, the abolition of the Senate would not bother us, I can assure this House.

Since it is an institution made up of unelected parliamentarians, we would have no problem with that, since we do not see any legitimacy in that branch of the Parliament of Canada. As I said, given that we do not see any legitimate reason for the institution and that we would like to see it abolished, clearly, for us, voting on it in the House should be the end of the debate, instead of referring the bill, having it passed by a majority of the members of the House of Commons and sending it to an unelected Senate.

I will point out that there is an unelected minister, Mr. Fortier, who, I repeat, promised to run in an election at the first opportunity that came up. But since then, there have been at least three byelections in Quebec, and we would have been very happy to see him step up to the plate in order to truly have democratic legitimacy and to be in a position to make decisions affecting the day-to-day lives of Canadians and Quebeckers.

We feel that the Senate has no legitimacy and should be abolished. So we have no problem with the motion. But once again, we find it a bit childish that this is being debated in this House.

The Bloc Québécois will not prolong this debate, nor do we expect the Senate to follow up on this message by March 1, since it is a relatively short deadline. As I said, we are not about to give credibility to this institution inherited from the past.

However, I think there is something more fundamental behind this motion, and that is the government's, the Prime Minister's desire to create a diversion. I would even say that we have the exact same elements in the motion concerning Afghanistan. I do not want to say that the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan is not important, far from it, but I, and a number of observers—including all members of the Bloc and several opposition members, since I seem to recall hearing the Liberals' national defence critic mention that it should not be a confidence issue—believe that the debate on this issue should be as non-partisan as possible.

By making this a confidence motion, the government, the Prime Minister, has decided to use this debate to create a political crisis and to trigger, perhaps indirectly, an election. In any event, it is a tactic to divert attention from the real problems Canadians and Quebeckers are currently experiencing.

Among those problems, there is one that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry are being particularly silent about. I am talking about the ongoing situation in the manufacturing and forestry industries. That is what we should be debating today, not some message to the Senate on a bill we all agree on.

To me there seems to be something somewhat unhealthy about the Conservative government and the Prime Minister wanting to dramatize or show us who is boss, even though they are a minority government. They have never understood that and it is not something we should forget. In my opinion, today's debate should have been about improving the aid plan, the first small step announced by the Prime Minister. He tried to use exactly the same tactics there that he is using today and with Afghanistan.

First he tried to make the aid plan, the creation of the community development trust of $1 billion over three years—which is not very much—conditional on passing the budget, thereby blackmailing the opposition parties. We do not know what will be in the budget. It may contain other completely unacceptable items. I would not be surprised to see such items in the next budget. Making this conditional on the budget puts pressure on the opposition members. But worse yet, the people who are in need of assistance in the regions affected by this crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries, were also being held hostage by this government.

Fortunately, because of pressure from Quebec, and the consensus among Premier Charest of Quebec and all the opposition parties in the National Assembly, namely the Parti québécois and the Action démocratique du Québec, the unions, who unanimously condemned the tactic, the business community—particularly those currently under pressure in these industries in crisis—editorial writers, a number of observers and the opposition parties here in this House, the Bloc Québécois in particular, the Prime Minister saw the light.

Last Monday, as we all know, we had the opportunity to vote on the first part of this inadequate aid plan. I want to be very clear that this means Quebec will get $216 million over three years, even though most of the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector in 2007 were lost in Quebec.

Nobody has taken a close look at the specific job loss numbers in some sectors in the Quebec regions. I believe that is true for Ontario too, and for some regions in the Atlantic provinces. It is clear that the Prime Minister's blackmail tactics were reprehensible and that the figures announced were just not enough.

We were hoping that the Prime Minister would take advantage of his meeting this weekend—not with Bonhomme Carnaval, but with the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest—to announce improvements to the plan. We were hoping that we would be here today to talk about a bill that would fix things. However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about Motion No. 3, and I have already said enough about that.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the problem with the $1 billion over three years is that it is to be distributed per capita, not on the basis of need or jobs lost. Furthermore, there is an additional basic $10 million envelope per province, regardless of whether that province is Prince Edward Island, Ontario or Quebec, which is just bizarre. I will come back to that in more detail and give some numbers. In the meantime, in case I run out of time, I want to point out that Prince Edward Island will get about $100 per resident thanks to this Conservative government initiative, while Quebec and Ontario will receive just over $25 per resident, even though 75% of the manufacturing sector is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec.

Therefore, what the government announced was not an aid package but a very broad-based economic revitalization plan. As we know, Alberta will receive its share. I do not think that anyone in the House seriously believes that Alberta, at this juncture, needs a little boost to reinvigorate its economy. Its problem is an overheated economy, which the government has encouraged. In particular, there were the tax cuts in last November's economic statement. For the time being, they are benefiting very few in the manufacturing sector but many in the oil and gas sector.

I will show just how inadequate this Conservative government's first step is and that it needs to be improved. I will simply mention a few articles that I collected here and there during the past week.

For example, last Monday, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, said:

More needs to be done, among other things, with respect to taxation,...research and development as well as assistance for older workers.

He was speaking specifically of the assistance plan that needed to be bolstered.

Mr. Benoît Pelletier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, added that Ottawa is awash in surpluses and that the aid given to Quebec, almost $200 million, represents only 10% of amounts advanced by Quebec.

That is what is written but we know that it amounts to $216 million.

The Government of Quebec invested almost $2 billion to help the forestry and manufacturing sectors. I know that this is being debated in Quebec because some feel it is not enough. We are talking about 10% of this aid, approximately $216 million. Obviously, the financial situation of the Government of Quebec and the federal government are in no way alike. For the Government of Quebec, it is clearly not enough and there has to be more.

The following day, it was the CSN's turn to make its views known. I will read an excerpt from its press release entitled “The Prime Minister must act now and abandon his partisan interests”:

—the time for action is now. As it is, the support announced by the Prime Minister reflects neither the seriousness of the situation nor the means at his disposal. In the past four years, more than 15,000 jobs have been lost in the paper and forestry industry, and some 130 sawmills and pulp and paper plants are currently inactive, depriving 31 of 250 municipalities of their main economic activity. Thousands of families in Quebec are in crisis.

The CSN represents 300,000 workers. It is an extremely important labour congress in Quebec and is very well established in the regions. I know a thing or two about the CSN, because I served as its general secretary for eight years.

I am also very fond of my friends in the FTQ, who weighed in on February 6 in the form of a press release from FTQ president Michel Arsenault, a former head of the steelworkers' union for Canada.

Mr. Arsenault had this to say:

The fact that this government, which is literally awash in our money, with a surplus worth billions of dollars, has given up on tying its measure to the adoption of its next budget does not make the measure any more acceptable.

The despicable blackmail by the government and the Prime Minister had ended, but the president of the FTQ, which has 500,000 members in Quebec and a strong presence in the paper and forestry sector, added this: “Quebec is not getting its fair share. The sectors that are worst off are not getting their fair share—”. He was speaking in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and he said, “Abitibi-Témiscamingue is not getting its fair share”. I would add that Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is not getting its fair share, Mauricie is not getting its fair share, Gaspé is not getting its fair share, the Lower St. Lawrence is not getting its fair share, northern Lanaudière is not getting its fair share and the Outaouais is not getting its fair share. None of the regions of Quebec is getting its fair share. I will prove this in a moment. I am not finished. Unfortunately for us, groups are still having to exert pressure on this insensitive Conservative federal government.

Last Thursday, the Forest Products Association of Canada announced that it had been very affected by the crisis. It said that there were more than 12,000 jobs lost in Canada in 2007 alone, and that more than 100 mills had shut down. The association called on the federal government to intervene and introduce measures, a number of which were proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I will give only one, otherwise I will run out of time, but this particular one calls for a refundable tax credit for research and development. When a business, such as a paper mill, is not generating a profit, it does not benefit from the generosity of the Conservative government, which cut taxes for businesses earning a profit, but there is still research and development to be done. If these companies, Tembec, Domtar, AbitibiBowater or whatever, continue to do research and development, they cannot benefit from refundable tax credits because they are not generating a profit. They cannot benefit from the tax cuts announced by the finance minister in the economic statement because they are not generating a profit. They need help to be able to keep investing in research and development, which is essential to innovation and competitiveness, so that once this crisis is over, they can compete in North America and throughout the world.

We have a consensus—in Quebec anyway—and I am sure that in Ontario it is the same thing. The billion dollars in aid announced by the Conservative government is definitely not enough. A lot more money than that is needed immediately and they could use the existing surplus and they know it. The surplus is not being used to help the industries, the regions and the workers who are dealing with the manufacturing crisis, because it is being put toward the federal debt. Some might think that is a good idea, but I would remind them that the Government of Canada's federal debt is the lowest of the G-7 countries. It has not been this low since 1984. Why would anyone insist on paying off their mortgage when they have just lost their job and their children are starving? That is precisely what is happening. Not only is that not enough money, but the allocation of this money defies logic and is completely unfair. Earlier I gave the example of Prince Edward Island, but I could go on.

Take Alberta for example, which represents 7.8% of manufacturing jobs. It will receive 10.4% of the aid, while Quebec, which represents 27.6% of the jobs in the manufacturing industry, will receive just 21.8%. It is essential that this be corrected and the aid allocated according to need.

I will close by reiterating the measures the Bloc Québécois is proposing. We propose investing at least $500 million in a new Technology Partnerships Canada program, with $1.5 billion as a repayable contribution for new manufacturing equipment, a forestry economy diversification fund that could very well be the $1 million from the community development trust, and $1.5 million for improving employment insurance and the older workers program. To stimulate economic activity in the municipalities—that could be saved for the budget—there could be a $1 billion increase in the excise tax transfer to the municipalities. What we are asking for right now is $3.5 billion from the $10.6 billion surplus projected for March 31. The government can do it and if it does not, it will pay the price in the next election.

[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, it is not a claim that the official opposition on two occasions made formal offers to fast track some of the bills that are found in Bill C-2. That is not a claim; that is a fact. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that the member talked about the Liberals being soft on crime. No, the Liberals are not soft on crime. We attempt to develop, when we were in government and now as the official opposition, Liberal justice policies that are effective on crime, that will actually reduce crime, that are smart on crime. Let me give one very concrete example of that. No, let me give two.

One is the issue of minimum mandatory penalties for gun crimes. Guess which government brought in the first minimum mandatory penalties? It was a Liberal government.

Let us look at the long term offender system. A Liberal government brought that in. People might ask what the difference is between a dangerous offender and a long term offender. As I have to cut my answer short, I would encourage any Canadian who would like to know how the dangerous offender system and the long term offender system work to communicate with my office. The telephone number is 613-995-2251 and the email address is [e-mail].

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

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what some of the witnesses had to say at committee. They came before the committee on Bill C-22, age of consent. They came back for the impaired driving bill, Bill C-32. They came back for the reverse onus on bail hearings for firearm related offences bill. They came back for the dangerous offender bill. They came back for the mandatory minimums bill.

Let us hear what a representative from one of these associations had to said. This was on November 14, 2007, on Bill C-2, in front of the House of Commons legislative committee. It was the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The representative said that quick fixes and band-aids were no longer sufficient, that a comprehensive national but locally focused strategy was required to really tackle crime and that the legislative priority for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police were guns and gangs, child predators, as two example.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that because of its legislative priorities, it had asked and pleaded with the Conservative government for modernization of investigative techniques. The association said that the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, also called MITA, under the previous Liberal government, died as a result of the election. The association pleaded with the Conservative government to bring it back. It waited all through 2006. The government did not act. It waited again all through 2007. The government did not act.

It is now February 11, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is still waiting for the government to bring in the legislation for which it has been begging and pleading, that it says it needs in order to deal effectively with violent crime, gun crime, gang crime, sexual predators and child sexual predators. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has asked the government to bring in legislation modernizing investigative techniques for over two years now. What has the government done? What has the government's response been to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association?

First, the response has been not to bring in any legislation on that. Second, the government has refused to fast track my private member's bill that would do exactly this. I offered the government to take it over if it wanted the credit for it. It is more important to get it into the law and to give our law enforcement officers the investigative tools they need in the 21st century when they try to fight crime committed through our cyberspace. The government again, as it did with the Liberal offer to fast track the age of consent and the bail reform bills, as it did with virtually every attempt on the part of the official opposition to make Parliament be effective and efficient and put Canadians and their safety and security of Canadians first, turned its head and ignored the opposition. The government acted as though it heard nothing.

The government, through this motion, is trying to put the blame on the Senate. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada continues to say “the Liberal dominated Senate”. What he does not say is Bill C-2 only went before the Senate on December 12, 2007. Two days later the House adjourned and only came back on Monday, January 28.

Had the government been serious that Bill C-2 and its elements were of such importance to the government, that it was a matter of confidence and that the government was ready to go to an election because Canadians safety and security was of the utmost importance to the government, then why did it not put forth this kind of motion when it sent Bill C-2 to the Senate? The same power and authority and the same rule that allowed the government to put this motion, which it tabled on February 7, before the House to have it debated and then voted on could have been done last fall.

Again, I have to ask if it is sheer incompetence or wilful incompetence on the part of the Conservative government, the Conservative Prime Minister, the Conservative Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and all parliamentary secretaries who sit on the government side.

The Senate received Bill C-2 on December 12, 2007. The government tabled this motion on February 7. This means the Senate had the bill for two days in 2007, December 13 and 14, and then on January 28, January 29, January 30, January 31, February 1, February 4, February 5, February 6, and February 7, for a total of eight days. On the ninth day the government tabled its motion saying that the Senate majority was not providing appropriate priority to the passage of Bill C-2, when the government in fact was obstructing its own legislation.

All of the bills in Bill C-2 would have been law over a year ago and one of them would have been law for close to two years had the government not obstructed its own legislation either through sheer incompetence or through wilful incompetence.

Let me see how good I am at math. One year is 365 days. Two years would be 730 days, not counting the 31 days in January, 2008. If I go to February 7, when the motion was tabled by the government, that is 31 days plus 7, which is 38 days. The Senate has had the bill for literally eight sitting days. The government obstructed its own legislation for 730 days.

Who did not give appropriate priority to the age of consent legislation? It was Conservative members. Who did not give appropriate priority to the impaired driving bill? It was Conservative members. Who did not give appropriate priority to the dangerous offender bill? It was Conservative members.

Who did not give appropriate priority to the bill concerning conditional releases? It was the Conservative government. It was not the opposition. It was not the Bloc Québécois. It was not the NDP. It was not the official opposition. It was not the Liberals or Liberal senators in the upper house. It was the government itself. Imagine that.

Canadians must ask themselves the same question that I have been asking myself for the past two years: Is this Conservative government simply incompetent or wilfully incompetent? When one looks closely at the facts concerning all these justice related bills, when one looks closely at the actions and decisions that this Conservative government has taken, or has failed to take, one can only conclude that it is either simply incompetent or wilfully incompetent.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of this House for their attention. I would be happy to answer any questions they may have. If I do not have the answer, I will be frank. I will say so and try to address the issue with that member outside the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a member on the government side, I believe from the Ottawa area, who seems to be very active in my discussion and my speech. I suggest that if he knows so much about the issues we are talking about, he might want to explain to his constituents why he approved his own government's obstruction of its own legislation. He should go back to his riding and explain why 14 and 15 year olds are still vulnerable to predators for over a year now. Why? it is because he and his government wilfully obstructed their own legislation.

I suggest that he might want to address that in his own riding rather than attempt to destabilize the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. He has been here long enough and he should know that I am able to drown out and block out nonsense.

Bill C-27 had one improvement to the dangerous offenders system that we find again in the dangerous offender section of Bill C-2. What was that? It was that somebody who has already been deemed a long term offender and who commits a breach of the conditions ordered by a judge or who commits another serious crime will automatically go before a judge as a dangerous offender. That was an amendment by the Liberals.

Is it simply that the government is so incompetent that it did not understand how the dangerous offender system and long term offender system actually operated? By the way, the long term offender system was actually brought in by a Liberal government n the late 1990s.

Is the government simply incompetent or is it wilfully incompetent?

I repeat, is this government simply incompetent or is it wilfully incompetent?

I talked about the prorogation of Parliament. In proroguing Parliament, the government killed the age of consent bill, the bail reform bill, its mandatory minimums bill, the impaired driving bill and the dangerous offender bill. Then when the government brought Parliament back with the new throne speech, it announced to great trumpeting and chest beating that tackling crime would be a major plank in its policy, its agenda and action plan. What did it do?

The government could have reinstated those bills where they were, which was in the Senate. If the government were so concerned about the Senate possibly taking too long to deal with it, it could have brought in a motion, as it did last Friday, giving a deadline to the Senate for dealing with the age of consent bill, the impaired driving bill, the dangerous offender bill, the mandatory minimums bill and the bail reform bill. It did not do that.

Therefore, one again has to ask if it is shear incompetence on the part of the government or wilful incompetence.

My parents raised me, and I am sure many people in the House, if not all were raised the same, to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, my grandmother also used to say, “The first time is a mistake. The second time is a bad habit”.

The first time the government did not take up the Liberal offer in October 2006 to fast track the age of consent bill, to raise it from 14 to 16 years old, one could say that was a mistake. However, when it again refused to take it up in March 2007, that was no longer a mistake. That was a bad habit.

When the government decided to kill the age of consent bill by proroguing Parliament in the summer of 2007, that was not a mistake. I have come to the conclusion that the government's incompetence is not shear incompetence, but it is wilful incompetence.

Then that begs the question. What would be the reason, the justification, for a government to be wilfully incompetent? I am not at a point where I can answer that. While I developed the—

[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--

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent presentation this morning. I am hopeful that the Senate can expedite Bill C-2 through the Senate as soon as possible.

As my colleague mentioned, I do not think there is an issue that resonates more through constituencies across the country, through all 308 ridings, than reforming our justice system. We had a forum in our riding on Friday and yesterday we had a mother calling us. We need to toughen up the legislation and give the tools to our RCMP and police services across the country.

We have a catch and release program with our justice system and I want to help our enforcement agencies. As mentioned, I want to give some help to those who are victims, and also to people who have done wrong, by giving them the ability to have some training within the penal system.

Could the minister briefly update the House on drug impaired driving? How will this change from the present legislation?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

My colleague says “bon”. Yes, you bet.

This is exactly why MADD Canada has come forward and is urging us to get this passed. Again, we are not talking about people who are employed by the Conservative Party. These people are dedicated to the best interests of this country. They have come forward and have asked us to please get these things through. There are improvements there.

There also are improvements to the dangerous offender legislation. How often do we hear about some individual who clearly should have been labelled a dangerous offender, who does not get that designation, for whatever reason, and who gets back out on the street and is then charged with additional crimes?

Then the cry goes out as to why the government is not tightening up the dangerous offender legislation. We have done that here. That is what Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, does. It does that specifically. It responds to the concerns of Canadians with respect to dangerous offenders.

I think that what we are asking this Parliament to do is infinitely reasonable. As I said, Parliament has had these provisions, all of them, since 2006. We have listened to some of the concerns from the opposition parties. We have made changes to the components of this legislation as it was originally introduced in the House of Commons. We are simply asking Parliament to do something that is reasonable.

At one time the members of the Liberal Party said they would like to fast track justice legislation. That is great. They can get hold of their friends down the aisle and tell them to fast track it, to get it done by the end of February. That is not unreasonable. Let them do it. Let us get it done.

I am absolutely convinced that the people of Canada support what we are trying to do to fight violent crime in this country. My colleagues have made it clear that if the opposition parties, or anybody else, want to make this an issue, go to the Canadian people and say that their soft on crime approach and their delays on these things are justifiable, they can make that case to the people of Canada.

However, I am absolutely convinced that if given the opportunity the people of this country will support what we are doing as a party and as a government, because I firmly believe, and I always have believed, that we are certainly acting in the best interests of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin this debate in the House of Commons and I am grateful to my colleague, the leader of the government in the House of Commons, the Minister for Democratic Reform, for making this a priority and sending a very clear message on a very important piece of legislation of this government.

To indicate just how important this is, let me reiterate something that I said in the House of Commons when Bill C-2 was introduced for second and third readings. I indicated to the House at that time that the government considered tackling violent crime and the provisions of that particular act so important, that if there were any attempt to sabotage that, derail it or gut that bill, we would consider it a confidence motion.

Again, I was pleased that it passed the House of Commons in November of last year, and then it was on its way to the Senate. Interestingly enough, there were a number of people whom I ran into at the Christmas break who said, “Congratulations, you got your bill through. You must be very happy”. I said, “Well, it has gotten through the House of Commons. It has not gotten through the Senate yet. That is not quite the same thing”.

Nonetheless, I remained optimistic. I want to see the bill passed. We got to January of 2008 and the bill had been in the Senate since the end of November.

One of the things that got me very nervous was when the Liberal Premier of Ontario, Mr. Dalton McGuinty, approached the Leader of the Opposition and indicated to him that he wanted to see this passed because this was good for the province of Ontario, this kind of thing had support in the province of Ontario, just as it had support right across this country.

When the Leader of the Opposition sort of hummed and hawed, and he was not sure about mandatory jail terms for people who commit serious gun crimes, that is when I started to get very nervous because I had this feeling that the Leader of the Opposition might get the Senate to do the dirty work that he did not want to do in the House of Commons, and I think that is very wrong.

I was prepared the week before last and was scheduled to go before the Senate committee to address the issues, then my appearance before the committee was cancelled. The committee said it could wait an extra week, so I went last Wednesday, but I made it very clear to the committee members that these issues had been around for a long time and that these were important issues for Canadians.

I was quite frank with them, as they were with me. I indicated to them that if this bill could not be passed by the end of this month, if they could not expedite this, if they could not fast-track this bill to get it done by the end of February, that I believed I had no choice except to advise the Prime Minister that I thought this to be a confidence measure and I would leave it in his capable hands.

We have not received the kind of help that we would have liked from the Liberals in the House of Commons, and we are not getting it right now from the Liberals in the Senate, and that is too bad because I think I have been very honest about this bill.

The components of this bill have been before the Senate before. The provisions that would protect 14 and 15 year olds from adult sexual predators have already been before the Senate. I remember when it did not get passed by the Senate last June. I remember speaking to a reporter in my hometown of Niagara Falls and I said I was disappointed that 14 and 15 year olds were not as well protected as they should be from adult sexual predators because this bill did not get past the Senate.

That was in the summer of 2007 and when I went home for Christmas, again the provisions that protect 14 and 15 year olds that are in the tackling violent crime bill were in the Senate, so I had to say the same thing over again, that 14 and 15 year olds were not as well protected in this country as they should be. That is a shame.

Now I hear the humming and hawing from the Leader of the Opposition to his colleague, the Liberal Premier of Ontario. The man is not in the business of trying to help us get our legislation through. He has his own agenda, but is there anybody in this country who thinks that the Liberal Premier of Ontario is intervening just to help out the federal Conservatives? I do not think so. He is doing it because it is the right thing to do.

I say to members of the Liberal Party that they do not have to listen to me. We have made it very clear, the importance we place on this. The Liberals should listen to some of their colleagues. Mr. Chomiak, the Attorney General of Manitoba, has told me on a number of occasions how important these provisions are to him. He has made it very clear. We do not share the same political party, but we share some of the concerns about crime in this country.

As I have said to members of the opposition, fighting crime is not something that takes place when there is a disaster or a murder on the streets of some of our largest cities. That is not when we wake up to the tackling violent crime agenda. It is not something that can just wait until the election comes. We get all kind of support during the election when everybody wants to be tough on crime. I say be tough on crime between elections. That is what I want to see. We should stand up for law-abiding Canadians, for victims, between elections.

That is what I am asking members to do and this is why I am so pleased that my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, has introduced this very important issue.

We have been very clear throughout this process. We made it a priority since the beginning of 2006. In the very first Speech from the Throne that we presented to Parliament, we said that tackling violent crime was our priority and that victims come first. We want Canadians to know that there are a group of individuals in Parliament who stand up for law-abiding Canadians because people are worried about their communities, worried about safe streets, and worried about the sometimes forgotten individual when crimes take place.

I was very pleased and very proud to introduce the first federal ombudsman for the victims of crime. My colleagues joined with me and others in our government in pushing that initiative. Why? Because there is somebody who speaks for everybody in this town. There are more special interest groups than any of us could count, but my colleagues asked, who is here to stand up for victims of crime, who is that individual, where is he or she?

That office did not exist until this Conservative government created the first office of the ombudsman for the victims of crime and appointed the first ombudsman. That is a tremendous step forward in standing up for those sometimes forgotten individuals.

I believe that Canadians do support the approach that the federal Conservatives are taking, that our government is taking. I have found it more than just passing interesting that within the last week there was a CTV strategic council poll that said that an overwhelming majority of Canadians believed Canada's justice system was too lenient on repeat offenders. This reiterates and underscores what we have been saying on this side of the House, that we have to have a criminal justice system that responds to the legitimate concerns of Canadians.

I indicated when I began my remarks, that the Liberal Premier of Ontario supports us. Mr. Chomiak, the Attorney General from the New Democratic Party in Manitoba supports what we are doing. We have had very good support from the N.S. justice minister, Mr. Murray Scott and his successor. He is very supportive of what we are trying to do. Indeed, right across this country, we have people at the provincial level who have spoken up and who are very interested in seeing legislation of this type passed.

There are many components of the tackling violent crime act, but other individual groups have come forward as well. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, has come forward. It wants to see the bill passed and become law. The Canadian Police Association, Ottawa Police, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, the Centre for Substance Abuse Awareness, thousands of Canadians right across this country have written expressing their opinions that they want to see the bill passed.

We are not asking Parliament to do anything that Parliament has not had the opportunity to have a look at in depth. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that every single component of the bill has been before Parliament since 2006, never mind 2007. Every single component of this has been before Parliament since 2006.

The mandatory prison terms for serious gun crimes was one of the first pieces of legislation we introduced. On the age of protection, we recommended changes in 2006. The provisions with respect to dangerous offenders, the impaired driving provisions and the reverse onus on bail for serious gun crimes are all elements that have been before Parliament for quite some time.

This is not something new. People say we are trying to push this through. We are not trying to get the thing through in a hurry. It has been here a long time, too long. This should be the law of the country.

When people ask me why we put it all together, I say it is very simple. We did not get it passed when we had it in five different components. Half of the provisions ended up in the Senate and were lost. Nothing happened. The Senate went home for the summer and these things did not get passed, I think to the detriment of Canadians, and the other couple of bills were here in the House of Commons.

In the fall of 2007, since we did not get any of the five pieces of legislation done, I said, “Let us put them all together and see what our chances are”. We underscored the importance of this to our government by indicating that we would consider it a confidence measure if there were any attempt to sabotage the bill.

What is it that we have? What are we asking Canadians to accept? Indeed, Canadians are buying into it, but what are we asking the House of Commons and the Senate to accept? Let us have a look at some of the things we are saying.

For illegal firearm possession and use by persons involved in criminal gangs, we know that type of activity is increasing. We are saying there will be a mandatory five year sentence if one is in the business of using a gun or associated with gangs. What kind of offences are we talking about? We are talking about attempted murder, sexual assault with a gun, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, extortion and hostage taking. This is not jaywalking.

I remember standing here when we introduced the bill. I had one opposition member say to me that he did not understand that a lot of the people who commit those crimes do not understand the consequences of their actions. I said, “that is where I want to help”.

We want to ensure that any individuals who want to get involved with these serious firearms offences will have the opportunity to focus on the consequences of their actions. We are prepared to do that and any individual who does not get the message after the first five year sentence, we will continue to help by making it a seven year mandatory prison term. This is exactly what the country wants and what the country focuses on.

We hear it when people pick up a paper and read about a drive-by shooting in one of our major cities. They start calling for this type of legislation. I tell them the same thing, that it is already here before the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada. Our job is to get it passed and that is what we are asking this Parliament to do.

We are going to strengthen the bail provisions with respect to gun offences. We are putting the onus on those alleged criminals to show that they do not pose a threat to public safety and that they will not flee before trial.

Why is it necessary? There are a number of reasons. I think it is only a matter of fairness. If someone wants to get involved with some serious gun crimes, if a person has a pattern of being involved with serious gun crimes, if a person is involved with guns and gangs, particularly in our major cities, what is wrong with putting the onus on such a person to show why he or she should be back out on the street?

There is an interesting product of this particular provision. I have had police officers in both Montreal and Toronto, as well as other law enforcement agencies, who have mentioned something very interesting about that provision. They tell me that this would send out the right message. They say that if individuals who have a pattern of gang-related or serious gun crime offences, if they are back out on the street in a couple of hours, guess what?

That sends out the exact wrong message to the victim. It sends out the wrong message to potential witnesses. Indeed, if that individual is back out on the street, it sends out the wrong message to the neighbourhood. This provision is exactly what we need and it is what this country wants. We are determined to provide it.

I indicated as I began my opening remarks, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, that one of the important provisions of this bill is that it will raise the age of protection in this country from 14 to 16. Canadians ask why this not been done. I tell people quite honestly that this is not something out of the 20th century; this is something that should have been changed in the 19th century.

That is how long this has been around, and what happens is that it allows adult sexual predators to prey upon individuals as young as 14 and 15 years of age. That is absolutely reprehensible. It is exactly what our party has to take a stand against. That is exactly what we are doing here.

One police officer gave me an example. He told me that they had encountered some character from Texas, about 40 years old, who struck up a correspondence by email with a 14 year old. He comes to Canada and has sexual relations with a 14 year old and the police cannot do anything about it. They cannot do anything.

I have had police officers ask me what they are supposed to tell parents when their 14 year old or 15 year old is being victimized by some of these predators. It is cold comfort to say to parents that we are sorry, it is not the law of Canada and these predators can do that in Canada. That is absolutely wrong and we are absolutely determined to change that.

I appeared before the Senate last Wednesday. I can tell members about some of the feedback I received. Someone said that this would drive youth prostitution underground. I did not know what that was all about. Another point was that this would discourage young people from reporting sexually transmitted diseases. I have no idea where that is coming from.

We are talking about protecting 14 year olds and 15 year olds from sexual predators. This is exactly the kind of law this country should have.

There also are provisions to tighten up and improve Canada's impaired driving laws, providing the framework for the drug recognition expert program to be effective.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had enough of the Liberal leader's hear nothing, say nothing and do nothing approach to tackling crime, while the members of his party sit back and watch the Liberal-controlled Senate delay and obstruct the passage of the tackling violent crime act.

I have sat with families of crime victims in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, who have shared how their lives have been changed forever by violent criminal acts. I would like to remind the Liberal leader that the Liberal premier of Ontario and several other stakeholder groups are also urging the Senate to act now.

Margaret Miller, National President of MADD Canada, stated, “Bill C-2 will save lives and reduce impaired driving incidents on our roads”. She continued, saying, “We plead with the Senators in the Committee and in the Chamber, don't delay passing Bill C-2”.

I join these groups in their call to action. The safety of Canadians is a priority for this government. When will the Liberal leader finally stand up and take action?

[Tony Cannavino]

First of all, if you hear in the news that somebody has been arrested for the fifth time or the tenth time, everybody is going to have a concern here. Everybody is going to ask how the hell that person could have been arrested 10 times, or why he still drives, why he still has a permit, and why he is not in jail. But a person who has driven impaired and caused an accident for the first time is as dangerous.

The other thing was about drugs. We have addressed that, and it's in Bill C-2, where we talk about drug recognition experts. We hope this legislation will be passed as soon as possible. We have addressed that part.

As I said earlier, we have to be very careful. I don't say there should not be a deterrent, that there should not be a more severe sanction or penalty for somebody who is a repeat offender. Of course there should be even more severe sanctions for that person. But let's be careful here. We are talking about people who are impaired, who are using a car, a truck, or a motorcycle and putting the security and the lives of others in jeopardy.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Allow me to make an aside to emphasize that Bill C-2—which we passed, but which the Senate is slow in ratifying, which stresses the Conservatives—contains a measure concerning the defence of witnesses. Their two-beer defence has thus been eliminated. You say that there's a question of social condition related to whether people are convicted. I'm very sensitive to that.

[Tony Cannavino, President, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear today before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning your comprehensive review of matters related to impaired driving.

The CPA is the national voice for 57,000 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, to our largest municipal cities, to provincial police services, to the RCMP.

Let me begin by thanking the committee for the work you and your colleagues in the House of Commons completed with respect to the issue of drug-impaired driving as addressed in Bill C-32, and subsequently in Bill C-2. We anxiously await these important measures and remain hopeful that the honourable members of the Senate will see fit to proceed with swift passage of the important legislation.

Motor vehicle collisions caused by impaired drivers are not accidents; these are crimes. Impaired driving remains the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. Despite our collective best efforts and intentions, it is apparent that the problem of impaired driving is worsening in Canada, and we are losing ground in our efforts to eliminate impaired driving.

We need a coordinated and integrated approach involving the federal government, provincial governments, and all stakeholders in the justice system, and we welcome the work of the committee in this regard. We would point out, however, that there have been numerous committees, bills, and studies over the past decade. The real problem seems to be in moving forward, beyond consultations, with adequate legislation and implementation.

We submit that the areas that need to be addressed in your review include the following.

The first is a legislative preamble. We would like Parliament to provide guidance to the judiciary through a legislative preamble or statement of principles, which acknowledges the inherent risks of impaired driving and the importance of meaningful and proportionate consequences for those who endanger the lives of others and of themselves.

The second is a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%. Currently the legislated Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) limit is 0.08%. Given the margin of error accepted by the courts, this has been de facto enforced as a 0.10% limit, as police and prosecutors will not normally prosecute for less than 0.10%. Proposals have been advanced to reduce the legislative BAC to 0.05%. While the CPA does not have an official position on this issue, there is compelling evidence to suggest that this is a serious concern that needs to be addressed as part of a coordinated and integrated approach to Impaired Driving. Experience across the country varies by provincial legislative scheme and enforcement mechanisms. More work can and needs to be done, and Canada needs to adopt a strategy to address this issue.

The third is maximizing available technologies. We would encourage the committee to consider mechanisms to enable greater flexibility to improve the use of technology in combating Impaired Driving. Suggestions include enabling Mandatory Alcohol Interlock programs as a component or alternative to a mandatory driving prohibition period, and streamlining the approval process for Approved Instruments and Alcohol Screening Devices.

The fourth is random roadside breath testing. Presently Canadian police officers may only administer a roadside test using an Alcohol Screening Device when the officer has reason to suspect a driver may have consumed alcohol. Unfortunately this is not always practical especially when dealing with drivers involved in motor vehicle collisions. Some countries have permitted the use of random roadside breath testing, with significantly increased results. This recognizes that driving on Canadian roads and highways is a privilege, and not a right. Random testing of drivers is a reasonable and efficient measure to deal with a serious public safety concern. It is no more inconvenient to submit to a random test on our roadways than to be screened and searched at airports, public buildings, and public events.

The fifth is extending the presumption of temporality. This would enable evidentiary breath and blood samples taken within three hours of the alleged impaired driving offence to be admissible as evidence of the accused person's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of the offence.

In 1999 the Criminal Code was amended to increase from two to three hours the time period within which the police could demand evidentiary breath and blood samples from suspected impaired drivers. However, Parliament failed to make any corresponding amendments to the presumptions of temporality. Consequently, the breath and blood analyses are still only presumed to reflect the suspect's BAC at the time of the alleged offence, if the samples are taken within two hours.

The time constraints under the criminal code can be a problem for a police officer if the arrest occurred in a rural area or on a busy night, or if the officer was delayed in assisting crash victims or securing an accident scene.

The presumptions relieve the prosecutor of the time-consuming and costly obligation of calling a toxicologist in each impaired driving case. A prosecutor who wishes to introduce samples taken outside of the limit must still call a toxicologist to testify. Given the time, expense and complexity of obtaining such evidence, the charges will most likely be withdrawn except in cases involving death and serious injury.

The sixth is authorizing police to videotape field sobriety and drug recognition tests. Where practical, police should have the authority to videotape and submit, as evidence, the testing of impaired drivers. Many police agencies have found that the use of such technology assists police in demonstrating the demeanour, behaviour and condition of an accused person. It reduces the potential for frivolous public complaints and reduces the potential for dispute over test results.

In conclusion, impaired driving is not an accident, but a serious crime with tragic consequences. Canada requires a coordinated and integrated approach, involving the federal government, provincial governments, and all stakeholders in the justice system.

Thank you.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to keeping our communities and streets safe, which is why it is imperative that members on that side of the House come to their senses and do the right thing and pass the tackling violent crime act which imposes mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes, cracks down on drug and alcohol impaired driving, increases the age of protection for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years old and ensures that high risk and repeat offenders face tougher consequences when they are convicted.

Our government is committed to keeping our promises and committed to passing Bill C-2. By stalling the passing of this bill in the unelected and unaccountable Liberal Senate, the Leader of the Opposition continues to put our communities and children at risk. Canadians demand more. They demand cooperation on a bill that affects the lives and well-being of all our loved ones.

It is time that the opposition stopped playing its petty partisan games and work with us to better protect our children. It is time that the Liberal leader do just that: lead, follow or get out of the way.

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13, which is fairly technical. It deals with the language of juries, procedures for service of documents and also, the aspect that interests us most, the whole issue of official languages and the provision of trials in the official languages. Consequently, it addresses access to justice by minority groups.

We support this bill and are in favour of the amendment tabled by our Liberal colleagues. If I have understood correctly, this amendment clearly recognizes the responsibility of a judge to inform the people before him in a court of law, the people who will be participating in a trial—whether or not they are the accused—that they have the right to a trial in either official language, naturally in the language of their choice. This ensures that justice will be served.

In general, I would like to remind the House that Bill C-13 initially proposed that an accused who does not speak the same language as the majority of a group of accused should not be penalized. It suggested as well that it would be possible for a judge or the chief court coordinator to ensure that a co-accused who does not speak the same language as the majority appears before a bilingual judge or has a separate trial. That is part of our constitutional guarantees. It is also in the Criminal Code and is one of the factors we should always remember as parliamentarians, that is to say, people must always have access to justice in their mother tongue.

For example, when francophones outside Quebec are put on trial—especially when the trial involves multiple charges or there are several accused at the same time—there is always a danger that they will be assimilated because the majority rules, and obviously that is not what we want. The bar expressed its concerns in committee that justice could be denied to minority groups at various points in our current trial procedures.

In regard to linguistic rights, the current system provides that at the request of the accused, a judge will order a preliminary hearing. We all remember that the preliminary hearing is the stage before the trial itself when a judge assesses the evidence that the Crown has and commits the accused to trial. It is a very important stage. The legislation currently provides that, at the request of the accused, a judge will order a preliminary hearing and trial before a judge alone or a jury that speaks the official language of the accused. There is always a concern, therefore, that no one in a minority language situation should be denied knowledge of the evidence against him and the legal procedure or prevented from interacting with the officers of the court and the judges, so that there is always the possibility of ordering a trial in the language of the accused.

I also want to remind the House of similar concerns surrounding the entire question of legal documents. When an accused asks to have his trial in the official language of his choice, in accordance with section 19 of the bill, the Crown must have the documents containing the charges, the information and the indictment translated into the official language of the accused or the language that he best understands. After everything is translated, if that would help the accused understand it better, it is turned over to him.

Changes have also been made in regard to the examination, cross-examination and preliminary hearing. I mentioned that the preliminary hearing is very important because it is here that the Crown reveals its evidence. This is when it is determined whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed to trial.

It should be noted that witnesses can use either official language at the preliminary hearing and the trial. Clause 20(2) of the bill enables the prosecutor, if authorized by the judge and if the circumstances warrant, to examine or cross-examine a witness in the witness’s official language.

Let us look at the case of a francophone accused of a crime. For example, suppose the member for Québec, a francophone, were accused—let us imagine the worst—of having killed her husband. She is ordered to trial and there is a person who saw her kill her husband, Mr. Lemieux, a man who gave her more than 20 years of his life, a veritable saint of a man. If the person who saw her kill her husband is an anglophone, he or she will be summoned to testify as a witness. In this case, the crown prosecutor is bilingual. One may ask in what language the prosecutor will ask questions of the witness. Thanks to the amendments to Bill C-13, it will be possible for the person conducting the examination of the witness, even if he or she speaks a different language than that of the accused, to communicate directly with the witness, thereby avoiding the need for interpreters. Thus, the member for Québec, a francophone, kills her husband; an anglophone witness is called to testify and the prosecutor who laid the charge is bilingual. The cross-examination could be conducted in the language of the witness. In my example, I referred to my colleague, the member for Québec, but honourable members will recognize the fictitious nature of my example because the member for Québec is well known as a peacemaker, without excess of any kind, far removed from anger and possessing total self-control.

That said, I want to say a few words about the amendments that the other place, the Senate, has proposed.

In my opinion—it was a recommendation of the Senate and it is a recommendation of the Liberal opposition—it is desirable that the judge should personally ensure that the person who appears before the court, whether at the preliminary inquiry stage or during the trial on the merits of the case, is clearly aware of his or her linguistic rights, including the right to request a trial in either official language. In a case were there are co-accused, one accused person can even ask for a separate trial when necessary.

Obviously, there are many people involved in the trial proceedings who could inform the accused that his or her linguistic rights must be respected. The prosecutor or the accused’s attorney could do so, or others. In my view, it is a wise move to make certain the judge is able to do that.

Our colleagues in the other place, the senators, have also asked that the legislation be reviewed in three years. This kind of review mechanism, I believe, is now quite common in our bills.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois supports this amendment. The Senate has submitted different cross-referencing provisions, particularly with regard to Bill C-2, the omnibus bill tabled by the government. I have been told there was a bit of a delay in the Senate, which provoked some anger from the parliamentary secretary. As I recall, Bill C-2 was a combination of five previous bills, namely, C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentences), C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make consequential amendments to another Act, the bill on dangerous offenders, the bill on reverse onus in bail hearings and a bill dealing with impaired driving and the new charges that could be laid.

So, Bill C-2 impacts on Bill C-13, and the Senate has presented cross-referencing amendments.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-13 and the amendments proposed by the Liberal opposition. However, I cannot conclude without talking about the court challenges program.

How sad it must be for all parliamentarians to see how this government has taken an insensitive measure. I thought the Minister of the Environment would join his voice to that of the Bloc Québécois and defend francophone minorities. If I am not mistaken, he was responsible for this issue when he was a member of the Mike Harris cabinet. Mike Harris will not be remembered as one of the most progressive parliamentarian in history, but I thought that the Minister of the Environment wanted to follow the philosophical saying to the effect that taking the middle road is doing the virtuous thing. How can one support abolishing the court challenges program and thus move away from the middle road and virtue?

As members know, the Bloc Québécois is a very responsible opposition party. It is the number one political force in Quebec, and it will continue to be so, if such is the wish of Quebeckers. So, the Bloc Québécois brought forward an amendment at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and also at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to resurrect the court challenges program. Unfortunately, we were disappointed by the Conservatives' response. The Conservative Party can no longer be called “progressive”. The fact that they removed the word “progressive” from their name is quite telling.

So, the Bloc Québécois brought forward an amendment in both of these committees. As we know, had it not been for the court challenges program, the French fact outside Quebec—for which our ancestors fought—would not be what it is now. And the Minister of the Environment must raise his voice in cabinet, regarding this French fact.

It is being said that the Minister of the Environment is part of the progressive wing of cabinet. How could he have supported this decision? I will have to tell the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, because I believe he has some influence with this man. I believe that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will have to make the Minister of the Environment understand that he has failed in his responsibilities by not crossing party lines and by leaving francophones outside Quebec to be denied an extremely important tool in this way.

Why is this important? Take the example of school boards. In Quebec, we call them commissions scolaires, but outside Quebec they are conseils scolaires. Governments have not always spontaneously decided to grant resources and equip francophones in some communities with all institutions, from Prince Edward to Alberta, and including Saskatchewan. By using the court challenges program, with public funds, they were able to bring challenges in the courts. The case went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada and forced the establishment of school boards in francophone communities outside Quebec, which are of course minority communities.

How bizarre, not to say stupid, is the reasoning of this government, which claims that it never enacts or introduces unconstitutional laws? Well, I have been sitting in this House for 14 years and I have seen legislation and regulations repeatedly challenged and held to be invalid. Remember that the tobacco regulations, for example, were declared invalid by the Supreme Court. A number of decisions that have been made have been held to be invalid. It is not simply a matter of laws being ruled invalid, it is a matter of getting new ones recognized.

For example, Michael Hendricks, a resident of Montreal, used the court challenges program to have same-sex spouses recognized.

Today, people whose sexual orientation is homosexual can marry, can have proper weddings and experience the joys of marriage—and of course sometimes also the anguish of divorce. Had it not been for Michael Hendricks and his spouse, René Leboeuf, we would never have moved so speedily toward full recognition of rights for the gay and lesbian community. So you can see that the court challenges program has served both francophone communities outside Quebec and gay men and lesbians well.

When we come to examine the Conservative government’s record, the debit side will include the insensitivity it has demonstrated. I can only mourn the fact that no one in the Quebec caucus of the Conservatives felt the need to stand up for francophones outside Quebec. In fact, I say “francophones outside Quebec”, but there is nothing in the court challenges program that made the anglophone minority automatically ineligible to use it. Of course I will be told that the National Assembly has long made sure to respect the anglophone minority in Quebec. In the plan he put forward before the 1995 referendum, Jacques Parizeau said that it was a founding minority of Quebec.

In Quebec, the constitutional rights of anglophones were recognized, and still are. For instance, anglophones have access to learning institutions from kindergarten to university. Even though Quebec is not officially bilingual, a whole range of programs and measures is available to anglophones outside Quebec.

Valéry, a famous name in history, wrote that one can measure how great a civilization is by how it treats its minorities. Of course, in Quebec, we have every reason to be proud of how we have treated the anglophone community. We are equally proud of how we have treated our aboriginal communities. It is well known that René Lévesque was the one who gave recognition to aboriginal communities. Indigenous languages are still used by aboriginal people, and mechanisms maintained by the state allow them to assert themselves as founding nations of Quebec.

In summary, we support this bill. It deals with a number of technical details, but where language rights are concerned, we feel that it is a good piece of legislation, particularly with respect to the right of the co-accused to be tried in the language of the minority, provided that it is one of the official languages. We also support the Liberal amendment that will see the judge presiding at the preliminary hearing or trial be put in charge of recognizing the rights of those appearing before him or her and having them recognized.

In addition, we condemn the Conservative government's insensitivity to minority communities. Hopefully, by the next election, the government will have had a burst of conscience and lucidity and restored the court challenges program.

Finally, I hope that the Minister of the Environment will rise and put a question to me.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments on the bill and then on the process.

First, I certainly appreciate one item in this bill, which originally came from Liberal consultation. It is the power to delay sentencing proceedings so an offender can participate in a provincially approved treatment program. We say it all the time that treatment is more of a solution than is incarceration, especially crimes involving drugs, a point that will be made a great deal stronger in the next bill once we finish with this one, which will be shortly.

In relation to this bill, at one time I asked the committee to make it mandatory to present the accused with the short court documents containing charges in the person's language of choice. The committee did not agree because there would be too much paper and yet it would only be maybe less than a couple of dozen papers a year.

The parliamentary secretary said that one Senate amendment could not be accepted because the federal Attorney General would not have the information as to whether a trial was conducted in English or French. One just has to read the record. It would be pretty easy to see that something is written in English or French.

The other thing I want to comment on is the whole ridiculous diatribe on the process from a government that has held up Bill C-2 for so long and in so many ways, as the member outlined, through proroguing Parliament. We had many witnesses. I am sure the minister is being chastised in the Senate today for how long he took, much longer than the Senate probably will to review a bill. The Senate has made many changes.

We will remember that the government not very long ago passed a bill that would disenfranchise the majority of people in a number of constituencies in the country.

[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”.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly some of these provisions have been a long time in coming, decades in fact. We need to update and streamline our Criminal Code procedures.

We heard testimony on the old Bill C-23 and now Bill C-13 as to the impact that these changes would have and that they would be a positive impact on our criminal justice system to ensure timely access to the system for all. I believe that is a goal all of us share to ensure an efficient and effective criminal justice system.

The hon. member mentioned the Senate amendments. Yes, the Senate has dealt with this bill and has put forward six amendments. We are opposing two of those amendments as a government and supporting four of them. The hon. member is quite correct. My take certainly and the take of our party is that the Senate has been delaying Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

In my response to the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, I spoke a bit about what the act would do. I do not know how any member in this House could be opposed to what the tackling violent crime act does. In fact, it has passed this House.

It is necessary legislation to ensure the safety of our communities, the safety of our children, to get impaired drivers off the streets, to ensure that those who commit serious crimes with firearms are behind bars, to ensure that dangerous offenders are in jail rather than out roaming the streets preying on innocent Canadians.

We have handed this legislation off to the Senate. The Senate has not even begun to deal with it until today when the Minister of Justice will be appearing. There is no doubt in my mind there has been tremendous delay. We are urging the Senate to get on with it. We call on the leader of the official opposition to insist that Liberal senators pass the tackling violent crime act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty with the government's position. It has repeatedly, I think as recently as this afternoon in question period, stood in the House and attacked the other place for delaying bills. Certainly, a strong argument could be made that that is exactly what is happening here with the old Bill C-23, now Bill C-13, where the Senate has amended this bill in its chamber and sent it back.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary does not see some contradiction in the government's position of accepting some of these amendments now and, at the same time, literally at times screaming at the other house for delay, which is the effect this has.

There are some provisions in this bill that the NDP would have liked to have seen, quite frankly, 20 years ago in terms of some of the amendments. This is a bill that is based on a number of different sections in the code. A number of them would make the enforcement of our laws, the conduct of police as well as our judiciary in our criminal justice system much more efficient. We now are seeing months and months of delay of this law coming into effect because of the amendments that have been sent back to us by the other house.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment on the apparent contradiction and also whether he is not exposing this House to seeing the Senate make amendments to Bill C-2, send it back and cause delay on that bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary and I would both know that former Bill C-23 was part of the Conservative justice agenda, along with all of the other bills, the five bills that are now part of Bill C-2.

My first question is, why was Bill C-23--we are discussing Bill C-13, the same bill--plucked from that raft of bills?

This bill deals with, for instance, taking away equipment and material from people who lure children through the Internet, the crime of Internet luring. It increases summary conviction fines from $2,000 to $10,000. It was agreed upon by all parties. Why are we sitting here in February, probably just before an election, why did we have to wait? Why was this bill, which also deals with language rights in his own province of New Brunswick, a bilingual province, why was it given such short shrift? Why was it put to the bottom of the order paper with respect to justice bills?

Finally, he said that his minister had consulted with provincial and territorial governments and it would be too onerous for them to require judges to instruct both represented and non-represented accused of their right to trial in the language of their choice. What evidence does he have of that? Could he be more specific? We would certainly like to know.

Those are the two short questions I have for the parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the debate on the amendments made in the Senate to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

Bill C-13 was passed by the Senate on January 29 with six amendments. I will speak to each of them.

Four amendments to the language of trial provisions were made, including the creation of two new provisions. An additional amendment makes changes to the coming into force provision of Bill C-13, while the sixth amendment coordinates changes proposed to the same Criminal Code provision in both Bill C-13 and Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

Before turning to each amendment, I wish to underline the fact that, with respect to the language of trial amendments, both the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, a national federation representing the provincial associations of francophone jurists, are satisfied with the proposals found in Bill C-13 as passed by the House of Commons. The proposals in this regard were carefully studied by both the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

I will now turn to each amendment.

The first amendment proposed by the Senate is with respect to clause 18, a clause meant to ensure that all accused persons in this country are aware of their fundamental language rights. As members know, the current Criminal Code provision grants only unrepresented accused the right to be advised of their language rights by the judge.

As passed by the House of Commons, clause 18 proposed to extend this right to all accused, whether represented by counsel or not. In other words, clause 18 would broaden the right to be advised so that it would benefit all accused persons. This would heed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Beaulac case of 1999 as well as respond to a recommendation made by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This being said, clause 18 as introduced did not impose a duty on the judge to personally inform each accused of his or her language rights. Rather, the clause stated that the judge “shall ensure that they are advised”.

The amendment proposed to clause 18 by the Senate would now require the presiding judge, at the accused's first appearance, to personally inform each and every accused of their language rights. We do not agree with this amendment.

During the consultation on the proposals that led to Bill C-13, provinces and court administrators clearly told the government that a requirement for the judge to personally inform all accused, including accused persons with legal representation, would create a significant burden on judges and courts as well as considerably increase delays in criminal proceedings.

Obviously, further delays in criminal proceedings is something that all of us in this House should work against.

As many provinces developed efficient ways of ensuring that accused persons are made aware of their language rights, the government drafted Bill C-13 with a specific view to recognizing different provincial and territorial practices in this area.

Let us be clear. The duty continues to rest upon the judge. He or she must ensure that the accused is advised. The use of the words “shall ensure” does not, as some have suggested, dilute in any way the right that is granted.

In fact, it is an expression that is often used in federal legislation, for instance, in the Official Languages Act. For example, section 22 of that act states that:

Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from its head or central office in either official language....

Section 16 states that federal courts have the duty to ensure that judges can understand the proceedings in either English or French, without the use of an interpreter.

To use the wording of the Supreme Court of Canada, the right granted will continue to be “a substantive right and not a procedural one that can be interfered with”.

By ensuring that all accused, whether represented or not, are advised of their language rights, clause 18, as introduced and as passed by this House, not only avoided the possibility of accused persons exercising their language rights outside of the prescribed timeframe, but, more importantly, ensured that positive measures are taken to improve the means by which all Canadians can avail themselves of their language rights.

For all of these reasons, we disagree with this amendment, this being the first amendment.

The second amendment proposed in the Senate was made to clause 19, dealing with the translation of charging documents. Clause 19 of Bill C-13 grants all the accused the right to ask for a translation of the information or indictment. An amendment to the English version of clause 19 was made by the Senate, as it was felt that the wording needed to be changed to clarify that the entire charging document is to be translated.

I must say that this was the intent of the initial provision and as such, we do not think that the amendment is absolutely necessary. This being said, we do not object to the amendment, as it has simply clarified what was the original intent.

The third amendment adopted by the Senate is the creation of new clause 21.1. This clause calls on the Minister of Justice to prepare and table an annual report in Parliament on the number of bilingual trials, the number of trials held in French outside of the province of Quebec and the province of New Brunswick, and the number of trials held in English in Quebec.

I appreciate that statistics of this kind may be useful in assessing the implementation of the language rights provisions of the Criminal Code. Detailed statistics often provide indicators that are essential for an overall appreciation of the impact made by legislation. Indeed the department has explored with its provincial and territorial counterparts ways in which this could be accomplished and will continue to do so in the future.

I am sure that hon. members will agree that it is not good public policy to enact a provision that imposes responsibilities on those that do not have the means to fulfill them. Practically speaking, the amendment also fails to take into account the fact that in some jurisdictions, minority language trials will take place without any formal orders issued, pursuant to section 530 of the Criminal Code. These cases are thus difficult to track and call into question the accuracy of the data that would be collected.

However, the problem with this amendment is that it imposes a statutory duty on the federal Minister of Justice, whereas in fact it is only provincial and/or territorial attorneys general who have the ability to actually collect this information. In addition, provinces and territories have told us that they do not keep statistics related to the language of trial provisions in the Criminal Code.

As I already stated, we would be asking for, and enforcing in criminal law, provisions that the provinces are not at this time equipped to fulfill.

For all these reasons, we do not support this amendment, not because we disagree with the principle or the idea that statistics of this kind would be useful, but mainly because it imposes upon the federal Minister of Justice an obligation to provide information the minister does not possess or control.

Other informal avenues to collect such data will continue to be explored. However, we cannot support the inclusion of a legislative requirement in the Criminal Code to report on information that is not under the responsibility of the federal Minister of Justice.

The fourth amendment creates new clause 21.2. This clause requires a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code's language of trial provisions be undertaken by a parliamentary committee. I understand that the Senate committee considered it necessary to create this provision in order to ensure that monitoring the implementation of the new provisions, as well as of part XVII of the Criminal Code as a whole, will occur within three years of the coming into force of this provision.

Although we do not disagree with this amendment, we do not believe that this new section is actually needed in order for Parliament to review the provisions and operation of the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code.

Section 88 of the Official Languages Act specifically provides for the creation of a committee of the House, of the Senate, or both, to review the administration of the act. Two such committees currently exist and have the authority to study the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code.

The fifth amendment adopted by the Senate makes corresponding changes to the coming into force provision at clause 46. It provides that new clauses 21.1 and 21.2 will come into force in the same manner as other language of trial provisions. While I disagree with the creation of new clause 21.1, we support the amendment to the coming into force provision as it does not directly refer to clause 21.1.

Finally, a sixth amendment was made to create new clause 45.2 for the purpose of coordinating two sets of amendments in Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, and Bill C-13, both of which propose changes to the same Criminal Code provision dealing with impaired driving. This amendment is required and should be supported.

I would like to urge all hon. members to support amendments numbered 2, 4, 5 and 6, but not to support amendments numbered 1 and 3.

I hope that both Houses can come to an expeditious agreement on this very important piece of legislation that aims to improve many other aspects of the criminal justice system.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

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

Mr. Speaker, another week has passed and again I am forced to question why the leader of the official opposition allows his Liberal colleagues in the Senate to block passage of a bill offering free legal protection for Canadian families.

Bill C-2 was passed in the House of Commons after a month of debate. However, after 69 days in the Senate, the bill is not even close to being passed.

MADD Canada's national president said today, “We plead with the Senators in the Committee and in the Chamber, don't delay passing Bill C-2”.

The Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness also called on the Senate to move the bill quickly through the upper chamber. It stated, “It is essential to ongoing public safety and the maintenance of continued citizen confidence in the Canadian criminal justice system that this legislation be quickly passed”.

Despite the support of these organizations, the Liberal Premier of Ontario and ordinary Canadians, the official opposition leader's weak leadership continues while his Liberal senators stall and delay.

Justice

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again important legislation such as Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, gets held up in the Senate, a body whose members are unaccountable and unelected. Of course, the Senate being dominated by the Liberals is also a factor in the politics that play out when a bill leaves the House and goes to the Senate.

We are all tired of the rhetoric and stalling tactics used by the Leader of the Opposition and his party.

The tackling violent crime act would better protect our children from sexual predators, would protect society from dangerous offenders, would get serious with drug impaired drivers and would toughen sentencing and bail for those who commit gun crimes. These are important issues for all of our communities and for the rural communities in my riding.

I strongly encourage the Leader of the Opposition to speak with his senators to ensure that this piece of crucial legislation, the tackling violent crime act, goes through without delay. Canadians want it. Canadians demand it.

Bill C-2

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if stall tactics could kill, not many Liberals would be left in the Senate. Indeed, while Canadians are calling for action and our government is doing its best to act quickly and responsibly, they are unnecessarily blocking the legislative process that would allow Bill C-2 to be passed. That bill, which aims to tackle violent crime, would allow our government to make the reforms needed to strengthen our criminal justice system.

By speeding up the process, these senators could ensure that Canadians would no longer have to be afraid of sexual predators attacking our children, that irresponsible people would stop driving on our roads and highways while impaired, and that those who commit crimes with a firearm would be removed from our communities.

I would like the Liberal opposition to come to its senses and stop its appalling tactics, so that the quality of life of Canadians can be preserved.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's tackling violent crime act, Bill C-2, will make Canadians safer. From allowing police to charge those suspected of being drugged up while behind the wheel to protecting children from sexual predators, Bill C-2 is the most comprehensive crime legislation to pass the House of Commons in recent memory.

However, sadly, after passing this chamber, whose members are elected and have to report back to their constituents, the unaccountable, unelected Liberal dominated Senate is putting Canadians at risk by stalling this important legislation.

We all know the Liberals are soft on crime and that their position changes on a daily basis. However, I, along with millions of Canadians, am sick and tired of Liberal games. Enough is enough.

On behalf of all Canadians, I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to stop flip-flopping, stop putting lives at risk and demand that his Liberal senators pass the bill immediately.

Death Penalty

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and participate in this debate. Unfortunately, the motion before this House today is really a total waste of this House's time and nothing more than what I would say a cheap political trick and a feeble attempt by the Liberal opposition to draw debate where there is no debate.

We therefore oppose this motion today. The motion calls on the government to reaffirm that there is a not a death penalty in Canada. We have said before and we will say again, there is no death penalty in Canada. The Minister of Justice and other members of this government have clearly said that this government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty.

Since December 10, 1962 no one has been executed in Canada. That is over 45 years. On July 14, 1976 the death penalty was removed from the Criminal Code. The death penalty was then removed from the National Defence Act on December 10, 1998. Since that day there has been no death penalty in Canada in law as well as in fact.

In 1987 a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote sent a very strong signal that Canadians were in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty. As the Prime Minister has confirmed, this government is not going to reopen this debate in Canada.

The second part of the motion asks the government to reaffirm its policy to seek clemency on humanitarian grounds for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries. As we have said repeatedly, in cases where Canadians face the death penalty abroad the Government of Canada will continue to consider whether to seek clemency on a case-by-case basis based on what is in the best interest of Canada.

According to today's headlines, a majority of Canadians support our case-by-case approach and as we found out last fall, a majority of Canadians support our overall approach to justice, an approach that focuses on tackling violent crime and tackling crime in our communities.

It is an approach that puts victims first rather than the approach of the Liberals in the past, and what frankly continues to be their approach, of putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The protection of Canadians is a priority for this government. It is the priority of this government and if securing clemency is contingent on a murderer or a multiple murderer being repatriated to this country and let free to roam our streets, this is not a risk that our government is willing to take. Bringing back convicted killers sends the wrong message.

The third part of the motion before this House today calls on the government to continue its leadership role in promoting the abolition of the death penalty internationally. This government has been and will continue to be a leader in speaking up for a principled stand on human rights and the rule of law in all international forums.

For those states that legally retain the death penalty, the government will continue to advocate for full respect for international law including international legal obligations. I might add that it is standing up for humanitarian issues that is the reason why we have men and women from Canada across this world today who are fighting for those very freedoms and those human rights.

Many states do retain the death penalty. International law imposes restrictions on the use of the death penalty and imposes strict safeguards on its imposition. Canada's interventions with other states, whether made at a bilateral level or in a multilateral arena, are made in the context of supporting human rights within the framework of international law.

There has been no death penalty in Canada for 45 years. Our government has indicated that there is no intention to change that. We have also indicated that the decision as to whether or not we will seek clemency will be assessed on a case-by-case basis based on what is in the best interest of Canada.

I also find it very interesting. We are having this debate tonight on this issue and yet in the Senate sits stalled the tackling violent crime act. We have the leader of the official opposition who has absolutely refused to force Liberal senators in the Senate to pass the tackling violent crime act.

The tackling violent crime act would protect Canadians right here in Canada, would make our communities safer, would make our children safer, would take a tough approach on gun crimes, and would tackle the very serious issue of impaired driving.

Just today I got off the phone with a constituent who was concerned with the exploitation of young children by violent sexual offenders. We have in our legislation measures to protect young people, all of these stalled in the Liberal dominated Senate.

We have been calling on the leader of the official opposition for weeks to have the Liberal senators pass Bill C-2. This is legislation that provinces are calling for, parents are calling for and law-abiding citizens are calling for.

The only people I can imagine who would be against Bill C-2 would be criminals, and apparently the Liberal Party is also against passage of Bill C-2.

Everyone else I have talked to is in favour of getting tougher on crime. They are in favour of protecting children. They are in favour of making our streets and communities safer. They are in favour of tackling impaired driving. They are in favour of having an age of protection of 16 years rather than 14 years so that adult sexual predators cannot prey on Canadian young people. They are in favour of having laws that say if people commit a violent crime with a firearm, then they will do serious time for that crime.

That is what Canadians want. That is what our party wants. That is what this government wants. That is what we have introduced in the tackling violent crime act, and it is time for the Liberals to get the message.

If the Liberals want to stand with the criminal lobby that would prefer that we not pass this kind of legislation, they can continue to do so. We will stand on this side with law-abiding Canadians. We will continue to stand up for their rights. We will continue to make our streets and communities safer for all Canadians.

Leader of the Opposition

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are seeing weak leadership from the Leader of the Opposition who has failed to make passing our tackling violent act a priority.

Our government's Bill C-2 would better protect our children from sexual predators, protect society from dangerous offenders, get serious with drug impaired drivers and toughen sentencing and bail for gun crimes.

Bill C-2 was passed by this democratically elected House and has widespread support from Canadians and yet the Leader of the Opposition has failed to direct his Liberal senators to pass this legislation quickly.

Why is the Liberal leader so allergic to leadership? Why does he refuse to stand up for the safety of Canadians? The opposition leader is weak and could never be entrusted to lead our country. Furthermore, he has revealed the true agenda of the Liberals. They are just like members of the NDP. They talk tough when it is time for an election but Canadians know they are soft on crime.

Only one party continues to stand up for safe streets and communities and--

Status of Women

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is very concerned about the 2010 Olympics. We want to make sure that the infrastructure is built on time and obviously as close to budget as possible. The labour shortages have presented some challenges within the construction aspect, but that is the buildings.

We are looking at human beings and the physical aspect implications for men, women and specifically the children. Our government is looking at law enforcement to make sure the games are safe for all who attend, and to ensure the safety of those mentioned previously, and to avoid the potential abuse of using the games for financial benefit. The figure of $3.2 billion was mentioned with respect to the human commodity market.

Just over 200 years ago William Wilberforce abolished the sex trade in the U.K. and last year the film Amazing Grace was released. I think of how far we have come, yet how far we have to go.

Our government is doing diligent work in building a strategy not only for 2008, but for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Once again I reach out to my colleague, who is a member of the Liberal Party, to encourage his senator colleagues to act quickly and responsibly and pass Bill C-2, the age of protection legislation. It would be one way of helping our children for the 2010 Olympics and for the future.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia and I both have a concern for this issue. As she mentioned, it is not isolated to one specific age group or sexual orientation. We have a real concern in dealing with this issue and in allocating the additional resources that I mentioned.

I had the pleasure of hosting and working with the International Justice Mission in my riding. That organization has worked in an integrated and coordinated approach with our government, led by our Minister of Public Safety, who also spoke at that event in my riding.

We have allocated resources in our budget to increase the number of RCMP members by a couple of thousand to help deal with issues such as human trafficking of all ages, not only in Canada but all around the world.

A video documentary identified a situation in Thailand. It showed how young boys were being lured in. We all have to be cognizant of this. It is not exclusively females, but it is a concern for young boys as well who are being abused at a young age. In many cases it ruins them for life.

I truly support the initiative that we have taken. I agree that it is something we have to invest in for all ages and all sexes.

As well as the allocation of dollars that we have put into our budget, we have also put forward Bill C-2 to increase the age of protection. This is something that is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of many of my constituents. I have met with the mayor of Kelowna who had worked for many years on this issue trying to ensure that we raise the age of protection from 14 to 16. That legislation is being held up in the Senate. Anything the Liberal opposition members could do to convince their colleagues to get off their hands and support this bill would be the best thing for all Canadians.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to lend my voice to this very important issue.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to the attention of the House because trafficking in persons is a vile criminal act. It strips individuals of their freedom and basic humanity, and leads ultimately to a life of exploitation, usually in the sex industry or forced labour. These individuals are coerced into such a life, often through violent assault or threats to their families.

I also rise at this time to remind opposition members that they do not have the monopoly on care and compassion for Canadians. Our government takes this matter very seriously and we have taken a number of measures to deal with this issue.

I would like to take the time to explain the role that our public safety agencies are playing in combating this crime in Canada and abroad, led by the hon. Minister of Public Safety.

The Government of Canada is taking a collaborative approach to dealing with trafficking in persons. The government has made the interdepartmental working group on trafficking in persons the focal point for all federal anti-trafficking efforts. This working group brings together 16 departments and agencies, and serves as the central depository of federal expertise. It works to strengthen federal responses through the development of government policy on human trafficking, information exchange and the facilitation of international and national cooperation.

We are also working collaboratively with the provinces and territories to respond to this issue. For example, we are utilizing various federal, provincial and territorial networks, including FPT ministers responsible for justice, the FPT heads of prosecutions, the coordinating committee of senior officials, and criminal justice and FPT victims issues.

The federal government's strategy for dealing with this heinous crime is consistent with other international approaches. This reflects the unanimous agreement for the need for a multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral response.

In essence, the government is addressing this issue through a variety of responses aimed at prevention, protection of victims and bringing perpetrators to justice. The government is committed to fighting this crime within its own borders and abroad.

Victims may be exploited within Canada or transported through Canada for final destinations in the United States. This is a challenging issue, but fortunately our public safety agencies are working diligently to crack down on this crime.

Both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Border Services Agency play a crucial role in combating trafficking in persons. For instance, the RCMP has established the human trafficking national coordination centre to coordinate the federal government's law enforcement efforts to combat human trafficking and provide training.

This includes offering specialized training for law enforcement; producing awareness-raising material for municipal, provincial, federal and international law enforcement officers to help identify a potential victim and traffickers through, for example, a new awareness video; building an extensive network of partnerships with domestic and international agencies; and gathering, sharing relevant domestic and international information and intelligence through a team of analysts across the country to help law enforcement at home and abroad coordinate their approach.

For its part, the CBSA is contributing greatly to the fight against human trafficking by providing enforcement at various ports of entry, but more than that, the CBSA works to screen and intercept inadmissible individuals before they arrive in Canada. It has been proactive by doing research and making sure checks and balances are in place as much as possible before these individuals arrive into the country.

The CBSA monitors regular migration to Canada and publishes regular intelligence analysis which identify trends and patterns in irregular migration and migration-related crimes, including trafficking in persons.

The CBSA also performs a number of functions to help shut out the flow of victims by preventing their transport to Canada as well as to deter trafficking organizations from using Canada as a destination country or a transit country.

CBSA's network of migration integrity officers works overseas with airline security and local authorities in 39 countries around the world to prevent irregular migration, including migrant smuggling, by taking measures to intercept individuals before they arrive in Canada.

CBSA intelligence officers also work with Canadian and U.S. partners and integrated border enforcement teams, known as IBETs, that bring a harmonized, specialized approach to cross-border criminal activity. IBETs are strategically placed at our shared borders to detect and apprehend individuals who commit illegal activities, including migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons.

Integrated border intelligence teams also support IBETs and partner agencies by collecting, analyzing and disseminating tactical, investigative and strategic intelligence information pertaining to cross-border crime between Canada and the United States. This intelligence is shared with participating agencies to target international, national and criminal organizations, once again an example of an integrated, coordinated, unified approach.

To effectively combat trafficking in persons, the government is providing additional resources and encouraging training for law enforcement agencies. One of the most horrible aspects of human trafficking is the fact that young children get caught up in this exploitation.

As we have heard from various speakers today, it is truly the ultimate when children are being victimized. Consequently, in budget 2007 our government allocated an additional $6 million to strengthen current activities to combat child sexual exploitation and trafficking.

Initiatives related specifically to human trafficking include: reinforcing law enforcement capacity to combat trafficking in persons; providing for public education, awareness and outreach to combat trafficking in persons; and working with the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association to launch a national campaign on human trafficking and provide for a central point to report potential cases of trafficking in persons.

The central Okanagan and the area that I represent, Kelowna—Lake Country, have incredible crime stoppers organizations that have been recognized internationally for their efforts. I would like to applaud them as well for their coordinated work in helping to reduce human trafficking and identifying those involved in human trafficking in British Columbia, Canada and around the world.

Coming from British Columbia, I am very concerned. It will be two years next Wednesday that the countdown will start to the Olympics. We are doing all we can to ensure that we can stop the trafficking of humans, not only in 2010 but from today forward.

There are initiatives to conduct research to assess the impact of trafficking and the sexual exploitation of children and the impact on aboriginal and visible minorities communities, as well as help communities and individuals whose social economic status affect their prosperity and allow them to be victimized.

Funding is one thing, but promoting training to ensure our people are well equipped to deal with this crime is all the more crucial. That is why, for example, in November 2007 officials from the RCMP, Justice Canada, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the CBSA provided four one-day intensive workshops on trafficking in persons to RCMP officers, municipal police, border services and immigration officers, as well as to victim service providers in Alberta. These workshops were built on previous ones organized in Toronto and elsewhere.

I had the privilege of attending a workshop in my own riding that involved a variety of organizations throughout my riding and the province that are very concerned about human trafficking. It was hosted by a member of the RCMP. It was well attended and was an excellent education forum, an example of how we are trying to continue to raise the awareness and education for all Canadians of this heinous crime that is taking place.

The RCMP and CBSA continue to provide training for their officials on this issue, supported by a range of resource materials, including computer-based learning modules, videos, toolkits and reference cards.

I would like to say in conclusion that trafficking in persons is a horrible crime. We are taking a multifaceted approach to fight it and it is providing results. Back in mid-January, for example, Toronto police arrested four individuals allegedly involved in a human trafficking ring. Such arrests give hope to law enforcement agencies that this difficult crime can be thwarted.

From speaking to RCMP members, they find it very discouraging. They go through the exercise, but when they go to court, the accused persons often get off on a technicality. The government and all elected officials need to stand and give the tools to the men and women who are providing the safety in our communities, so they can bring justice where it is required, in this case arresting these individuals involved in human trafficking and making sure justice prevails.

More important, it gives hope to victims that someone is working to end their ordeal. It gives hope to our RCMP officers, hope to those agencies that are working in the communities to support and encourage the elimination of human trafficking. It gives hope to our children, who are our future.

As the hon. member for Kelowna--Lake Country, I thank the member for bringing this issue to the House. My concern is that our government has been working diligently and cooperatively with all these agencies, as I mentioned, and we are trying to bring forward legislation such as Bill C-2, which is being delayed in the Senate right now. We would like to see some cooperation from the opposition parties, specifically the Liberals, to get their members in the other house to pass that legislation. One item that is on the agenda for today that is being delayed because of this concurrence motion is Bill C-3, which deals with security certificates.

Hopefully we can all agree that we need to work more cooperatively and get action from both houses so we can make Canada a stronger, safer, better country.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has been very tough on crime. I am a mother of a police officer and I can assure the House that police officers across the country have been very pleased with the tough legislation we have put forward to combat crime.

I share with my colleague that there is a need for tougher legislation against organized crime. Indeed, the justice minister continues to work hard on this very issue. Members opposite could certainly help us out by supporting Bill C-2. It is sitting alone in the Senate and is being held up. If we could get those types of bills into the House and pass them, it would be very helpful.

Internationally, in Vienna, on February 12, there will be a meeting with the UN. Many countries are getting together to talk about human trafficking. Our government has been dealing with people from across the globe in terms of this issue.

In 2008 there will be a lot of good partnerships throughout the globe to combat human trafficking. Networking, collegiality, assessing the problem and establishing concrete steps to stop it globally will impact on every country, including Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from London—Fanshawe for once again bringing this motion on the issue of human trafficking to the House.

Human trafficking has become a big issue in Canada. After two attempts to get this issue to the status of women committee, I finally got it there. I must commend my colleague for being a part of that committee and getting on the human trafficking issue.

The Government of Canada takes this issue seriously and is taking real action to address this horrendous crime. Several initiatives have already taken place. It is hard to get a hold on the crime of human trafficking. Things need to be put in place quickly to help the victims and our government has done just that. We have taken quick action to implement laws and programs that are helpful to the victims.

In 2007, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced changes to the guidelines for immigration officers to help victims escape the influence of traffickers. The new guidelines extend the length of the temporary resident permit, or TRP, for which victims are eligible from 120 days to 180 days. In individual cases it can be extended beyond that.

With respect to our actions on improving the guidelines to help victims of human trafficking, the president of the Canadian Council for Refugees said:

These measures mean that the government will begin to treat trafficked persons, often women and children, as victims of a crime, rather than as people who should be detained and deported. Like many other organizations, the CCR has been calling for this policy change for several years – we are very pleased....

I must commend members on all sides of this House who have worked hard with our government to ensure that action was taken very quickly.

We have also introduced legislation to help prevent the potential exploitation and abuse of foreign nationals seeking to work in Canada. Bill C-17, which is in committee right now, would help prevent the sexual exploitation and abuse of foreign nationals seeking to work in Canada. It would also address an important gap that currently exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-17 would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the authority to instruct immigration officers to deny work permits to individuals who might be at risk of exploitation or abuse should they enter Canada.

Why is that so important? It is important because our law enforcement and NGOs are beginning to understand how easily it is for innocent victims to be trafficked into Canada. As the member for London—Fanshawe said, traffickers become friendly with girls travelling alone. They will convince her that she can have a new life in Canada. They show her how she can get through customs and often the perpetrator is going through customs at the very same time.

The training video for RCMP officers on the human trafficking issue shows how this happens. I was at an event last night where the RCMP video was shown. People need to understand the nature of human trafficking and what happens to these women. Border guards need to be trained and alert. They need to wonder why a girl is travelling alone. They need to ask her questions and listen very carefully to her answers.

Bill C-17 would provide a window for protecting the most vulnerable young men and women. People think it is only women but it is not. Without the authority in Bill C-17, our immigration officers are not able to deny a work permit to someone meeting all the requirements to enter the country, even if they believe there is a strong possibility of exploitation and abuse.

The fact is that a gap exists where people can supposedly meet all the requirements but red flags should go up all over the place when a girl is alone. One must wonder why she cannot answer the questions in quite the way she should.

With respect to Bill C-17, we have strong support from various stakeholders because they have experience working with trafficked people and they know the gap was there, which was frustrating.

Sabrina Sullivan of The Future Group said:

[The] Immigration Minister... has taken an important step to protect women from sexual exploitation and end a program that made Canada complicit in human trafficking. It is clear that [the] Prime Minister’s... government is serious about combating human trafficking.

I would dare say that members on both sides of the House are very concerned about this issue and are very aware that it is a growing issue. They have made a number of recommendations as outlined in the report from the Status of Women to ensure that this human trafficking issue is stopped.

The Salvation Army has worked very extensively with trafficked women and children. Christine MacMillan, the territorial commander for the Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda, said:

This announcement is an excellent advancement towards the protection of women from sexual exploitation. It is another positive step in the fight against human trafficking, and we are encouraged by the leadership shown by the Federal Government.

As was John Muise, director of public safety for the Canadian Centre of Abuse Awareness, said, “Bill C-17 is part of the response that needs to occur in protecting women and children in the country”.

It goes on and on.

The member for London—Fanshawe mentioned another important point. She talked about the 2010 Olympics. As is well-known, sporting arenas or any big events that occur in any country are often magnets for human traffickers to set up shop and to make as much money as they can off the backs of innocent victims.

I know ministers throughout our government have met, continue to meet and are taking specific action across all ministries to ensure the educational component is in so the public is aware of human trafficking. They are also in the process of implementing initiatives. As the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, I have been very concerned about the 2010 Olympics. It is something that we on the committee for the Status of Women talked about. I dare say that it is something our government is extremely concerned about and is taking concrete action to ensure vulnerable citizens and people from inside and outside of our country are protected.

Also, Bill C-2, which is sitting in the Senate right now, addresses a myriad of crime issues. It would help to put laws in place in Canada to suppress criminals who exploit children, the age of consent being one of those laws. This side of the House has been trying for a long time to raise the age of consent and the bill is still sitting in the Senate. I hear, to my dismay, that about 59 witnesses have been lined up. I am really suspect of the number of witnesses required to get this very important bill through. The age of consent has been in the House for such a long time and was finally put into Bill C-2 and now it is being held up in the Senate.

When we talk in the House about stopping the crimes against vulnerable victims, this is the concrete kind of action that needs to be taken. We need to pass Bill C-2 to ensure the laws of the land are in place to protect our most vulnerable citizens. We need to ensure that Bill C-17 is passed and in place, so border guards and patrols, NGOs and people who work at the borders can spot these vulnerable citizens who come through. We need a tool to use to ensure we can do something in a concrete way and protect these people.

We know human trafficking occurs in Canada. We have studied it and we know about the severity of the situation.

I commend the ministers in our government who have taken this issue extremely seriously. I also commend the members in the House who take this issue very seriously as well.

I caution that we should work together and support this. We can stand in the House and say that we need tougher laws, but when Bill C-2 is stopped in the Senate, we cannot get age of consent on the books as a law of Canada. It means that what is said in the House is not carried through.

We need to ensure that everything is done. Bill C-2 needs to be passed. The age of consent has to be raised. It helps innocent victims, not only the ones who are being trafficked but the young girls who are being sexually exploited. They go to court and because they are a certain age, they are up against older adults who can intimidate them. There is no law in Canada that raises the age of consent. If they are 14 right now and if a lawyer is skilful enough, he can prove it is was consensual sex.

We can do some very concrete things right now. Every one in the House of Commons can support the kinds of things that need to be done by allowing the things to go through in a timely manner and to ensure we also work together for additional support for our most vulnerable citizens, our youth.

The educational component of human trafficking is of paramount importance. If we can as Parliament stand up for the right laws, work together and ensure that Bills C-2 and C-17 are passed, that is a good start.

The educational component for the Olympics is already being talked about as well as other things.

I call on all members in the House to work together. I think we are all on the right page in many respects. We have to put our partisan differences aside and we have to work together.

I commend the member for London—Fanshawe for her interest, her support and for what she has brought forward this morning. However, I caution that the partisan issues need to be set aside. We need to get Bills C-2 and C-17 passed as laws in Canada. Then we have to continue to work, as we all are right now, on the human trafficking issue. It is very serious.

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues and the staff here on the Hill a happy new year. After all, one can do so until the end of January. I hope that 2008 will be a productive year for all parliamentarians. Who knows what the future holds?

Bill C-27 is very important because it deals with a new kind of crime. Everyone was familiar with old-fashioned crime—theft of goods. Everyone knew about organized crime rings and gangs. You all know how hard Parliament had to work in the early 1990s to develop new legislation and move away from conspiracy provisions to make gangsterism a new offence. Everyone here is familiar with traditional crimes concerning offences against the person.

However, a new kind of crime—identity theft—is surfacing, and it is very worrisome. Identity theft is an economic crime. One in four Canadians has been a victim of identity theft or knows someone who has been a victim of an offence related to identity theft. The most common of these crimes is the fraudulent use of a personal identification number.

When people withdraw money from a bank, there are more and more organized crime rings that can access their PINs and, unfortunately, empty, steal from or appropriate their bank accounts. We know that this can cause major headaches for victims, not to mention damage their credit rating.

I would like to share some relatively recent numbers that illustrate just how big this problem has become. For example, in 2004, an estimated $50 billion was involved in identity theft in the United States. In Canada, this phenomenon is just as worrisome. If my information is correct, we are talking about approximately $50 million. Identity theft is therefore a very serious phenomenon. We need to define new offences to deal with it, and that is the purpose of the bill before us.

What are the most serious forms of identity theft? Here are some examples: theft of credit cards or debit cards, whether they are used in bank machines or credit unions; redirecting mail, that is, taking someone's mail and sending it somewhere else; pretexting, that is, pretending to be someone who is authorized to obtain the information. This can include telemarketing. We learned from recent news reports about people who claimed to be representatives from the Red Cross, soliciting by telephone, pretending to sell first aid kits. Such offences are becoming more and more common: pretexting in the context of telephone solicitation by marketing networks.

In addition to credit card theft, redirecting mail and pretexting, there is also hacking into computer databases. In fact, there are specialized networks capable of searching software programs and networks to steal data.

We know, for example, that even within public services such as the Régie de l'assurance maladie, the Régie des rentes du Québec and others, there are fraud artists who are able to extract information and use it for completely illegitimate purposes.

Another offence is the use of skimming devices to capture credit and debit card information, and stealing someone's PIN, something that we would never have imagined a few years ago. When we went to our credit union or bank to pay our bills, withdraw money or make deposits, we naturally thought we were in a secure environment. However, people routinely spy on seniors, in particular, and try to steal their PINs.

In a program I was watching on an English language channel, I even saw people in shopping malls and other public places stealing purses, like the one the hon. member for Québec left here. If I were not such an honest person, I could take the hon. member's credit card and PIN, and try to reproduce them for illegitimate purposes.

There are also networks in shopping centres. Someone will distract a person in a public place by engaging that person in conversation while two, three or four other people steal the person's wallet. One member of the network will claim to have witnessed the crime and will talk to the person, who is clearly shaken and emotional. The witness will give the person a telephone number, supposedly for a centre where you can report theft. This centre is bogus. A tape recorder has been used to record a voice as if the centre were real. The person who calls has to give his or her PIN, social insurance number, address and personal information, which completes the theft that is in progress. This happens in public places such as grocery stores, arenas or busy places where an organized group of three, four or five people can carry out such an operation.

So there is identity card theft, redirection of mail, false pretence, hacking into data banks, using sorting devices to gather information, stealing PINs by spying on people in financial institutions and, obviously, computer theft. These are examples of modern ways individuals and networks can use to access personal information. This is why we have to be increasingly vigilant about sharing information about ourselves. We have to be increasingly vigilant and shed the reflex to give out such information.

The government has introduced a bill that creates three new offences. Bill C-27 mentions obtaining and possessing identity information. That is the first new offence. Section 347 of the Criminal Code already prohibits the use of false pretence or forgery for unauthorized purposes. These offences have been on the books for a very long time. But the government is proposing three other offences, including obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use the information deceptively, dishonestly or fraudulently in the commission of a crime. This is a new offence that will be added to the Criminal Code, and we support this.

The second offence is certainly the most interesting with respect to what is currently happening. It concerns trafficking in identity information. This is an offence that targets those who transmit or sell information to a third party knowing that or being reckless as to whether the information will be used for criminal purposes.

The third offence is the unlawful possession or trafficking of certain government-issued identity documents that contain information about other persons.

These are three new offences introduced by C-27 and we will certainly support this bill. We support it because the issue of identity theft is of great concern. In committee, we will hear and obtain the opinions of our fellow citizens. We believe that we must do more. We are urging the government to consider the possibility of strengthening this bill.

We must recognize that the fight against identity theft is not just a matter for criminal law. The former Information Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, appeared before the committee dealing with information issues. This is the same committee that deals with ethics, which has been in the spotlight of late owing to the Schreiber-Mulroney affair. I do not wish to dwell on this matter but I must at least comment on these events.

Last night, I read the report by the former rector of McGill University who outlined for the government and the Prime Minister a certain number of scenarios, including first listening to the testimony of parliamentarians who will continue their work. The Bloc Québécois has the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I believe that my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin also sat on this committee.

There is, of course, cause for concern when a former prime minister, someone who held the highest ministerial and public office in this country, accepted money for making representations while he was still a member of Parliament and under circumstances that remain unclear.

While provisions concerning lobbying were added to Bill C-2, the fact remains that we have had a code of ethics since 1985 at least and that, in light of various ethical concerns, such action might appear suspicious. The presumption of innocence applies to everyone of course. The former prime minister has the right—it is his prerogative—to clear these things up; still, one can wonder, if only because this former prime minister did not report until 1999 income received in 1993. All this is fueling a climate of suspicion which, unless the record can be set straight, might tarnish the office of prime minister.

I will be following, with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We can count on the dynamic member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to put the most pertinent questions. We will recall that the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert was voted parliamentarian of the year on the Club des ex show broadcast on RDI between Christmas and New Year's. I think that it is very wise to recognize the energy and professionalism of the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I will close by saying that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the person responsible for access to information, was clear that the issue of identity theft, which is a growing phenomenon in Canada, cannot be fully and satisfactorily resolved through criminal law alone. She invited us to adopt civil sanctions as well. I will read what she said in committee on May 8, 2007:

I don't think it's just an issue of the Criminal Code. As you know, our law administrators hesitate to use the Criminal Code: the standards of proof are higher, and the charter may apply.

We know that in criminal law the standard is not balance of probabilities but proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard.

The Commissioner added:

And so very often you have to have a fairly clear-cut case to use the Criminal Code.

There needs to be a causal link between an offence, harm and the consequences. The Commissioner added:

[They] are very easy to prove and easy for citizens to understand.

She was talking about civil sanctions and gave the example of small claims court. Such courts exist in Quebec. I do not know whether they exist in other provinces. They are courts where one can submit a claim before a judge without the need to be represented by a lawyer. Matters that are important to a person are considered more quickly than in superior courts, where they may not be considered as important.

The Commissioner went on to say:

Small claims courts may provide a more easily accessible deterrent to the growing industry of ID theft. This means, of course, that I think the federal government has to work closely with the provinces, because a lot of what happens in terms of ID theft falls within provincial jurisdiction.

I get worried when cooperation between the federal government and the provinces comes up. The federal government has sometimes flexed its authority and completely ignored the will of the provinces.

For example, take the recent statement by Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, who is also president of the treasury board and an MNA in west Montreal. Like previous finance ministers and all the premiers in the National Assembly, including Bernard Landry, she is opposed to creating a national securities commission. We know that this is an area the provinces can regulate. We therefore do not see the need for a national commission.

The same thing is true of the Kyoto protocol and the manufacturing and forestry crisis. It is quite something to hear all the premiers join together in condemning the federal government's insensitivity in offering $1 billion in assistance. This is very little, considering what is needed.

Of course, what is most upsetting about the federal government's strategy is that it does not take into account where the job losses have occurred. In a case like this, you cannot simply distribute money on a per capita basis.

The Prime Minister says that each province will be guaranteed $10 million, and each territory, $3 million. Yet central Canada—Ontario and Quebec—accounts for nearly 60% of all the manufacturing job losses—57%, in fact, if memory serves.

Quebec, which has invested billions of dollars to help its industry, will therefore get $276 million. Yet the federal government will have an estimated $24 billion surplus for the next two years. Consequently, $1 billion is simply not a serious offer when the Canadian economy is in crisis and central Canada—Quebec and Ontario—is being hardest hit.

The information commissioner invited the federal government to exercise its prerogative by using point 27 in section 91 of the Constitution, which enables the government to legislate on criminal matters. However, she said that Canada cannot combat identity theft without using civil law measures. This is the responsibility of the provincial governments, especially the National Assembly, because Quebec is the main jurisdiction where civil law is in force.

My time is up. I do not believe anyone has a question, but I will be happy to answer questions if there are any.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the unelected, Liberal dominated Senate is doing everything in its power to delay the passage of the tackling violent crime bill.

The Liberal leader has the ability to ensure this vital legislation is passed quickly, but instead he ignores the safety of Canadian families and even ignores the advice from the Liberal Premier of Ontario.

Our government is getting tough on crime with this legislation. Bill C-2 would protect youth from sexual predators. It would protect our communities from dangerous offenders. It would get serious on drug-impaired drivers. It would toughen sentencing and bail for those who commit serious gun crimes.

Why is the Liberal Senate stalling? Canadians are fed up with a justice system that puts the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens. When will the Liberals stop sitting on their hands and support Bill C-2?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Canadians that this government is taking action on tackling violent crime. Bill C-2 is our comprehensive legislation that will finally get tough on crime.

The proposed bill will impose mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes. It will toughen bail rules when a gun is used to commit crimes. It will increase the age of protection. The bill cracks down on drug-impaired driving. It ensures that dangerous offenders face tougher sentencing.

Liberals pretend to support this legislation, but the Liberal-dominated Senate is stalling, delaying and obstructing this much needed legislation, and the Liberal leader does nothing. It is time he got up off his hands and stood up for something. He does not listen to the Liberal Premier of Ontario. He does not listen to the people of Canada. His concerns about crime are all smoke and mirrors. It simply—

Criminal Code

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

In reverse order, Mr. Speaker, on the idea of amendments I do not see this bill, that is, the Criminal Code as a whole, being able to deal with some of the other policy and legislative changes that are needed in other legislation, in consumer legislation and corporate commercial legislation, or in policy within government. Those issues that we have raised around this in regard to regulating and trying to provide greater security to our databases would have to be dealt with outside the Criminal Code, which is just not the mechanism for dealing with it.

In terms of other and more straightforward amendments, I have never let the attempt of intimidation by the government to say we are going to have a confidence motion over bills prevent me from bringing forth amendments. I think that is just silly on the part of the government.

As we saw even in Bill C-2, the omnibus bill around dangerous offenders, there were actually a couple of minor amendments that went through because it was obvious even to the government at that point that they were needed.

However, I think the point I was making about looking at trying to strengthen the wording around reasonable inference is one that is going to have to be closely looked at. If we can come up with better wording, I am expecting that the minister in his wisdom will ignore the PMO and allow us to have the amendments.

Justice

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the soft on crime Liberals are again fighting with each other. Our Conservative government's Bill C-2 imposes tough new mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes. Even the Liberal Premier of Ontario has demanded that the Liberal dominated Senate finally pass the bill to make our streets and communities safer.

Yet, after almost two years of obstruction and delay, what is the response from the Liberal opposition leader? He says he will not help. Shameful, Mr. Speaker.

For years Canadians of many different backgrounds have demanded action on gun crime. Bill C-2 delivers that action. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition and his cronies in the Senate continue to play political games while the violent crime rate continues to rise.

Liberal stonewalling is becoming a national disgrace. Canadians want action and they want it now. Why will the Liberal leader not listen to Dalton McGuinty? Why will he not listen to Canadians?

Unborn Victims of Crime Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-484, which aims to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the injury or causing the death of an unborn child. I commend my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, who proposes the creation of new offences and penalties where an unborn child is injured or killed when an offence is committed against the mother.

I believe the majority of the members in the House agree with the intent of my colleague's bill.

On a personal note, his heartfelt passion to ensure that violence against women and children does not occur is very compelling. I have looked at all his notes and the bill very carefully I support 100% the intent of the bill.

Surely a criminal assault that seeks to involve or harm an expected child is deserving of a sanction. However, I am not yet convinced that the private member's bill in this form is the best way to proceed without a bit of further examination. I have some concerns that the bill may reduce rather than increase the actual penalty for causing harm or death to an unborn child, and I will tell members why.

Subsection 223(2) and section 238 of the Criminal Code currently provides some protection to the unborn child by stating that a person commits homicide by killing an unborn child in the act of birth, under certain conditions. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The Criminal Code also contains comprehensive assault and homicide offences, which apply to violent acts against pregnant women. Under the accumulated common law, resulting harm to unborn children is considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and the offender is punished severely.

Should the code permit two charges to be laid in such cases, as proposed by Bill C-484, it is likely that the two sentences would be served concurrently. Pregnancy, as an aggravating factor, could no longer be taken into account and, therefore, the end result ultimately could be a shorter sentence than is currently provided for in the law.

I do not believe this is the intent of this important bill, but we have to realize that it could be the result and we have to guard against that.

I would respectfully suggest that perhaps what is most needed is a Criminal Code amendment to allow for consecutive sentences for offences of this nature, as well as other serious personal injury offences.

During the last election campaign, our government proposed that sentences for multiple convictions be served consecutively. I have spoken with the justice minister and I am confident he will introduce legislation early in the new year to address this deficiency in the law.

The justice minister has been extremely busy over the course of the year. Our government's efforts and our aggressive law and order agenda, including Bill C-2, the tacking violent crime act, are very much appreciated by women all across the nation.

Bill C-2, which is currently before the Senate, merges most of the criminal laws from the last session of Parliament into one comprehensive bill, and we know what that bill includes. It includes mandatory minimum penalties for firearm offences, age of protection, dangerous offenders, impaired driving and reverse onus on bail for firearm offence.

The proposed reforms to deal with dangerous and repeat violent offenders are of particular importance to this dialogue today to address a concern that I believe needs to be looked at today in the context of this very important debate, which is violence against women and children in general.

The dangerous offender proposals are designed to address concerns with respect to the ability of police, crown prosecutors and the courts to sentence and manage the threat posed to the general public by individuals who are at very high risk to reoffend sexually and violently. The victims of sexual and violent assaults are all too often women.

Under Bill C-2, where offenders are convicted of a third sufficiently serious offence, the Crown must formally advise the court that it has considered whether to bring a dangerous offender application forward. The declaration requirement is intended to ensure more consistent use of the dangerous offender sentence by Crowns in all jurisdictions.

Where the Crown decides to bring such an application, an offender convicted of a third primary designated offence, a narrow and proportionate list of the 12 most serious and violent sexual offences that commonly trigger a dangerous offender designation, and often that is involved in this kind of a crime that we are speaking of today, will be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless he or she could prove otherwise.

Bill C-2 also proposes reforms to ensure that persons who are designated as dangerous offenders are appropriately sentenced.

I do not want to go over my time and I want to make sure that I get everything that I wanted to say said. The approach our government has taken has been a step in the right direction to bring law and order to our country. We are all familiar with Bill C-2.

Early last month the Minister of Canadian Heritage acknowledged woman abuse prevention month in Ontario. Members were talking about combating violence against women and women abuse, and these are common threads in legislation here in Parliament. In Winnipeg several projects were announced recently, one of which is to combat violence against women with intellectual disabilities.

I want to applaud our government for its efforts to recognize and prevent violence against women. I want to particularly applaud the member for bringing this bill forward. I reiterate my support for the intent of this private member's bill.

I do question its effectiveness in its present form in actually providing lengthier jail terms for the offence of injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an assault against the mother. This type of horrendous, abhorrent crime must be addressed. Having said that, all these issues should be taken into consideration so that this bill achieves its intended objective.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented on Thursday, December 6, be concurred in.

First, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party from Newfoundland and Labrador for bringing this motion forward through the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans to the House so we can have a proper analysis and a debate in the initial stages of what is called Bill C-32.

First I will give a little history. Bill C-32 is former Bill C-45 from the last session. Bill C-45 was an attempt by the Conservative government to bring forward massive changes to the Fisheries Act of Canada. The Fisheries Act of Canada is the oldest legislation in the country. It has been around since Confederation, in British Columbia time, since 1871, and in Newfoundland and Labrador time, since 1949. We and many people within the industry from coast to coast to coast and within our inland waters had many objections and concerns to BillC-45.

Through the delays and everything else, the House was prorogued and it came back as Bill C-32.

We said to the government then, and we are saying to it again, that we were willing to work with it. We are offering an olive branch, an open hand, to get the bill to the committee prior to second reading so we then can have the consultations from coast to coast to coast, to ensure that the people whose lives are at stake, environmental groups, first nations, fishing communities large and small, the industry, the provinces, the territories and the federal government, can get together and come up with the proper recommendations, changes and amendments to the bill.

Long after we are gone, this act, or whatever derivative comes out of it, will be left behind. We have to ensure we get it right. There is no sense in rushing this. We will assist the government in getting it to our committee before second reading so we can make the changes, the exact same principle and policy that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley had asked for with the environment act, Bill C-2, which was fine legislation. This is what we aim to do with the fisheries act.

Recently in a press release, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that all we wanted were NDP amendments. That is not true. We said very clearly that we wanted fishermen to write the bill, not bureaucrats. In 1992-93 one of the world's greatest collapses of a natural resource happened off the coast of Canada and, more specific, off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. It cost the Canadian taxpayer over $4 billion to readjust the industry for the east coast, and we have not finished counting yet.

Not one person at DFO was ever held responsible, even though we now know the scientific information from DFO science was manipulated at the highest level and changed. Those are the facts, yet there was not one inquiry, not a public inquiry, not a judicial inquiry, nothing. Now we will trust the same department in one of the most vital areas of our industries in Canada, the fishery?

I remind members that sport fishing alone in our country is over $7.5 billion to our industries. Commercial fishing is between $3 billion to $4 billion. It has sustained first nations people since their entry into the North American continent and ever since European contact as well. Many communities along coastal areas, including the north and our inland waters, were sustained by the fishery.

It is our job to ensure that the number one goal of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the protection of fish and fish habitat. What do we get from the government? Earlier this year, in the minister's province, two vibrant, healthy, fish-bearing lakes, two healthy aquatic lake systems, were being destroyed, to be used as tailing ponds for mining companies. In fact they are becoming cheap waste disposal solutions for the mining companies.

The NDP has nothing against mining. We only want to ensure that it is done to the highest environmental standards. We want to ensure, as other mining companies have, that it has independent, aligned tailing systems so it cannot leach out into water systems. The fisheries department has the authority to protect fish and fish habitat, but it simply has not done it.

After we raised this issue, the department did it again in Nunavut. We found out that two more lakes in Nunavut, which carry various species of fish, were slated for the disposal section of the mining act. The fisheries department allows these mining companies to dump their waste into healthy aquatic systems. Why would the government allow that? Maybe it wants to make it cheaper for the mining companies.

Once the ore is gone, then the fish are gone. If we do it right, the fisheries can be here for our great grandchildren. If we keep destroying the fish habitat, we are not only destroying it for our grandchildren, but we are destroying it for ourselves. That is the long reach we are looking for in this bill.

We also want economic opportunities for fishermen and their families from coast to coast to coast. We want members of Parliament to be able to grab a hook and line and take their children fishing, but in a healthy environment. We want them to have the opportunity to fish. However, a lot of our fish species on the east and west coasts and in the north are being reduced in numbers. In fact, many scientists are saying that the large pelagics on the east coast are down to 90% from what they used to be.

This is all under the watch of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his department. I am not putting the total blame for all the destruction on the current government. For 13 years the Liberals had the watch and before that the Conservatives and back and forth.

We anticipate that in 2008 the runs up the Fraser may be very low. We know what happened in 2004. We are very concerned about the early Stuart run in the parliamentary secretary's area. He knows very well what I am talking about. There are great concerns about the future of salmon stocks on the west coast.

If we have proper and true consultations with fishermen, their families and their communities, including first nations, we could have an act that would be proactive and desired by everybody. We could move it forward. If the government had listened to us in December of last year, we may have had a new act by now. The government insisted that the bill go to committee after second reading. There was only one reason for that. The government knows very well that we cannot make substantive changes to a bill after second reading. Many of the changes that fishermen would have liked to have seen would be ruled out of order in the amendment process. The government knows that.

I remember very clearly when the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in opposition. In February 2002 he said that the problem with DFO bureaucrats was that they sat around with their corporate fish buddies drinking cognac and ignoring the needs of small fishermen. When he became minister, I asked him about that statement. He jokingly said that he did not drink alcohol so he did not have time for cognac, but his people did great work.

A lot of people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans mean well and do their best under the circumstances. If Canada is to have a brand new Fisheries Act, it should be written by the people who are most affected by fisheries, and that is the fishermen and their families from coast to coast to coast and those in our inland waters, not by politicians or bureaucrats.

One of the problems, besides the environmental concerns that we have expressed, is there will be a lot of downloading to the provinces. I remind the government that the terms of union in British Columbia for 1871 was the federal government had the financial fiduciary responsibility and management of all fisheries in tidal waters.

We see the government slowly but surely downloading the responsibility for our fisheries to the provinces. What happened a few years ago in the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the minister's own province? The government of the day cut the rivers keeper program. It was up to the province to hire 20 more people to keep an eye on the rivers for the protection of the wild Atlantic salmon.

In Prince Edward Island, every year around late spring we hear of another massive fish kill on the Tyne River. It is directly related to pesticide runoffs from the farms. The federal government should work with the provinces to have buffer zones near fish bearing lakes and rivers to ensure pesticides do not flow into the water system.

We cannot keep going and killing off massive amounts of fish for other industries. They can cohabit and they could work together, but we need a comprehensive plan that protects fish and fish habitat and not use it as an afterthought.

One DFO official asked me how far I wanted to go to protect fish. I told him his department received $1.6 billion of Canadian tax dollars to do one thing and one thing only, and that was the protection of fish and fish habitat. It should not be an afterthought.

As I tell DFO officials, fishermen are not a nuisance, they are their job and so are fish. That is what we are asking the Government of Canada, through its Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to do.

When the Minister of Natural Resources was in opposition, I remember he questioned, on many times occasions, what the people in the ivory tower at 200 Kent Street were doing for a living. Anywhere between 1,300 to 1,600 work at 200 Kent Street for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Every morning when I come to work, I walk along the Rideau Canal. I have yet to see a trawler, a seiner, a gill-netter, a lobster pot, a crab pot or recreational fishermen. I never see anybody fishing in the Rideau Canal, yet we have 1,300 to 1,600 people working for the fisheries department in Ottawa. When the Minister of Natural Resources was in opposition, I remember him asking what those people did. I wonder if he ever received an answer on that.

The country requires more habitat officers, more money to science and enforcement and more cooperation between everybody to ensure that fisheries are protected now and in the future. That does not mean downloading federal responsibility to the provinces. We are very concerned about this.

The other issue we are very concerned about is the corporatization of a public resource. We are pleased to see that the government, after saying absolutely the reverse, has inserted the words “common property resource” in Bill C-32. They were not in Bill C-45. We had to push and push to get it in there. However, it is only in the preamble. We would like to see it in the main body of the text to ensure that the fisheries is a common property resource owned by the people of Canada and not the Government of Canada.

It is ironic that today's National Post talks about the Magna Carta. That right was given to us by the Magna Carta. It is the public right to fish and the government must manage the fishery in the public manner to which we should be accustomed, not what happens now.

A public resource being slowly, or whatever way we look at it, privatized makes us ask this. Why does the Jimmy Pattison Group controls most of the salmon and herring stocks on the west coast. How is it that Clearwater control most of the scallop stocks on the east coast? If it is a public resource, how does one entity manage to have control of the vast majority of that public resource?

On trust agreements, again the government is very vague about this in the bill. This is when companies buy up licences and put them in other fishermen's names. Instead of the fishermen becoming independent, they end up working for the company store.

We want to ensure that the owner-operator and fleet separation clauses are intact in the legislation where they cannot have any wiggle room to get around them. If we have that, it would go a long way in protecting the interests of fishermen in the country.

Many times we stand in the House and we thank the fishermen very much. Every morning when I have breakfast I thank the farmers who give us our nutritious food. At the same time we must thank the fishermen. Fishermen risk their lives to give us the opportunity to have nutritious and good, wholesome food. We thank the fishermen for what they do.

It is our parliamentary obligation to ensure that fishermen can maintain their livelihood. Anyone who has been out on a gill netter off Texada Island off the coast of Vancouver Island at 4:30 in the morning and watched the sun come up slowly over the horizon as the fisherman had his second cup of tea while he put his line out has watched God's work at hand.

There is nothing better than to go out at about 3:30 or four o'clock in the morning off the coast of Canso, Nova Scotia with a fisherman to lay his 200 lobster traps in the water. When the job is done at six in the morning and the fisherman comes back, that is a wonderful day.

There are fishermen out there who love to do that work. They love living in their coastal communities. They love being able to earn a living with their own two hands, but consistently, year in and year out, we make it more and more difficult for them to ply their trade. It is simply unacceptable.

What happened in Newfoundland and Labrador after 1992-93 was that over 50,000 people left that province to seek an economic livelihood elsewhere because of the collapse of the fishery. Have we learned anything from that? Absolutely not. Does this act reverse that and ensure that it never happens again? No, it does not.

If the government is so confident that this bill is the way to go, then it should send the bill to committee before second reading. If the government does that, it already has our pledge, and I am sure the government has the pledge of my hon. colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, that we will constructively work with the government to bring a new modern act to this country. We can do it fairly quickly. In fact, that is what we said almost a year ago. If the Conservatives had listened to us then, we would probably have a new act now.

We are asking the government to work in cooperation with the opposition parties. We do not want to kill this bill, but if forced to, we will. If the government brings it to us after second reading knowing full well that fishermen in their communities cannot make major amendments to it, then we will have no choice but to delay and destroy Bill C-32. That is something we do not want to do.

We want to be proactive. We want to be constructive. We want fishermen and their families to have real input into what will affect their lives for many generations to come.

This is the minimum Parliament should be able to give to fishermen. We are not the fishermen. In fact, at the last count I believe there were only two members of Parliament who were commercial fishermen. One is from the Delta area, and I cannot mention his name of course, and the other is from the Kenora area. They are the only two commercial fishermen in this place.

Guess what happened to the Conservative member from the Delta area when he opposed Bill C-45. The government kicked him off the committee. He was the only commercial fisherman that we had and the longest serving member since 1993. He objected to the bill. He was standing up for his constituents. What did the government do? The government removed him from the committee so his concerns would be silenced, but he is not going to be very silent. The reality is we do not want that to happen to anyone else. We want to make sure that fishermen and their families have an opportunity down the road.

As a first nations friend of mine once said to me, we need to think in the seventh generation principle. We need to understand that what we do today will affect seven generations from now. If we do it right and if we protect the fish and the fish habitat, if we ensure an economic livelihood for fishermen and their families from coast to coast to coast and on our inland waters, then that would be a bill we could all be proud of.

I look forward to further debate on this particular issue and any questions or comments that anyone may have.

Motions in Amendment

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate on a bill that aims to correct another problem with the Federal Accountability Act. I would remind this House that when Bill C-2 was studied, the government was interested in passing the bill quickly, an attitude that we in the opposition parties, the media and Democracy Watch criticized.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-29 in principle, because it addresses the problem of loans that allowed individuals to bypass political contribution restrictions. In fact, Bill C-29 fills the gaps the government left in studying Bill C-2, which contains little protection for whistleblowers and does nothing to improve the Access to Information Act.

Quebeckers have long understood the importance of having clear, reliable rules on financing political organizations. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-29 in principle, because it should prevent people from getting around the financing rules, especially as regards contribution limits.

I want to stress that the Bloc Québécois fought long and hard for these limits. Inspired by the system that has been in place in Quebec for 30 years, we called on the government to put an end to financing by companies and limit individual contributions. Bill C-29 incorporates the only change proposed by the Bloc Québécois when Bill C-54 was studied in committee. Then, we decried the fact that the political party was held responsible for its candidates' debts, even if the party was not a party to the contract between the individual and his or her financial institution.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed that the government is refusing to comply with the committee's decision on this. Although the current government wants to demonstrate good faith and sincerity, the fact remains that its intentions are not really genuine. In fact, the Conservatives are using this bill to point out that during the most recent Liberal leadership race, several candidates took out big loans to bypass financing restrictions. Yet the Conservatives are forgetting that the Prime Minister himself has not disclosed all of the contributions he received during the 2002 leadership race.

If the Conservatives think they can pass themselves off as the champions of transparency and the standard bearers of ethics, I must remind them of a few facts that might force them to reconsider. We all remember, as does the public, all the back and forth between political offices and lobbying firms, the contracts awarded to political friends, the use of public funds for partisan purposes, the many partisan appointments, the appointments of judges and immigration commissioners, that is, to the IRB, on the basis of their political beliefs, and the publication of a guide intended for Conservative members who chair committees that lists every possible, imaginable measure to obstruct the work of committees.

Bill C-29 aims to correct the problem of loans used to circumvent the limits on contributions paid to political parties, but certain problems remain. Whistleblower protection comes to mind. During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to guarantee whistleblowers greater protection. They wanted to “ensure that whistleblowers would have access to adequate legal counsel”. Yet the Conservatives' bill allows for only $1500 in legal fees.

They also wanted “to give the public sector integrity commissioner the power to enforce the whistleblower legislation”. They wanted “to guarantee protection to all Canadians who report wrongdoing within the government, not just to public servants”. Furthermore, they wanted “to take away the government's ability to exempt crown corporations and other entities from the application of the whistleblower legislation”.

In the recent sponsorship scandal, one of the whistleblowers, Allan Cutler, a Conservative Party candidate in the 2006 election, I should mention, was somewhat critical of Bill C-2. He maintained that Bill C-2 was far from perfect and had some problems that needed fixing, especially with respect to the provisions for protecting whistleblowers.

On April 5, 2005, the Liberal government released a discussion paper on reforming the Access to Information Act. This document met with general criticism. In addition to doubling the minimum administrative fees charged to the public, the proposal by the member for LaSalle—Émard, maintained all the exceptions provided for in the legislation.

If the Liberal Party never managed to bring about any useful reform of access to information in 13 years, the Conservative government, despite its election promise, did not do any better. We are still waiting for this reform.

The public knows that once in power, the Conservatives and the Liberals are not in such a hurry to reform the legislation. The information commissioner recently observed that this is a common trait in all governments:

The reason that action, not more study, is required is that governments continue to distrust and resist the Access to Information Act and the oversight of the Information Commissioner.

With regard to the lack of transparency in election financing, we can see that the Liberals and the Conservatives are equals. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to disclose all the contributions he received during the 2002 Canadian Alliance leadership race? The public must know that the Prime Minister admitted, in December 2006, that he failed to disclose to the Chief Electoral Officer that he had received hundreds of thousands of dollars. The money consisted of registration fees collected from Conservative delegates attending the Conservative Party's May 2005 convention. The party was forced to treat convention registration fees as donations. The report indicated that three delegates, including the Prime Minister, had exceeded their annual contribution limit of $5,400 to the party.

At the very least, the Conservative government is a government susceptible to powerful influences. The Prime Minister, when he was leader of the opposition, reprimanded the Liberals for the comings and goings between political offices and lobbying firms. Yet, since taking power he has done no better.

To summarize, the bill establishes a standard and transparent reporting system for all loans made to political entities, requiring the mandatory disclosure of the terms of these loans as well as the identity of the lenders and guarantors.

The bill would prohibit all unions and corporations not only from making contributions, in accordance with the Federal Accountability Act, but also from lending money.

Loans, loan guarantees and contributions from individuals could not exceed the limit set out in the Federal Accountability Act, which is $1,100 for 2007.

Only financial institutions, at market interest rates, or other political entities would be able to lend money exceeding that amount. The rules for unpaid loans would be tightened so that candidates could not default on their obligations.

Loans not repaid within 18 months would be considered a political contribution.

Riding associations, or where there are none, the parties themselves, would be held responsible for their candidate's unpaid loan.

For all these reasons, we support the principle of this bill but we truly hope that motion no. 3 will be defeated.

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill, but it is sad that we are having to debate this bill. I do not think the bill should have been brought forward in the manner it was. I say that because one of the things that we on our side of the House have been very clear on is that Canadians need to have a fulsome debate as to how the surplus of the nation is spent.

I want to begin my comments on that note because of something I call truth in advertising. When the government was in opposition, it was very clear in its position as to how we should be dealing with the finances of the nation. In fact, I recall in 2005 the then leader of the opposition party, now Prime Minister, went as far as saying to have these kinds of surpluses was akin to fiscal mismanagement. He was saying that because of what had been happening with the previous Liberal government's pattern of underestimating the surpluses.

Of course, we agreed with him on that note, the fact that there should be more accuracy and truth in advertising in understanding exactly how much money is projected to be in the surplus. We know over the years the private sector forecasters, the not for profit forecasters, were all accurate in their projections of what the federal surplus would be and the government would always underestimate it.

The surpluses would come forward and the government would say, “oh, look what we have here, a terrific surplus” which was no news to those who had been paying attention and keeping an eye on these things, but apparently it was to the then government.

What happened of course is that the surplus would be spirited away to pay down the debt, which is noble and might be the best thing to do, but in the way it was done there was no debate. There was absolutely no indication to Canadians that the surplus was something that we could actually talk about, that we should decide where the money should be spent and invested in our communities.

It is rather sad now that the Conservatives are in power they have decided to replicate the same behaviour as the previous government when it comes to surpluses. Further to that, which is more egregious, in Bill C-2, the accountability act, there was a provision for a budgetary officer of Parliament. It is in the act. Anyone can go and look at it. That bill was passed.

What has not been acted on, brought into force, is that budgetary officer of Parliament along with the idea that we can actually have people who are appointed to agencies, boards and commissions to have to be appointed according to merit. Those two key foundations that the NDP supported, and in the case of the public appointments commission amended, have not brought into force.

We now have a government that in opposition said that we need to debate the surplus, we need to have accurate forecasting, and we need to make sure that Canadians are aware of the finances of the nation.

However, not only do the Conservatives continue the past poor practice of the previous government of not being upfront about the surpluses, but they do not bring into force and appoint a budgetary officer of Parliament whose job it would be to give unblemished, objective forecasting, so that all members of Parliament, and by extension Canadians, will understand the fiscal framework of this nation.

Add onto that this method of using a fiscal update to bring forward a very substantial change in the fiscal framework. We just have to look at what is being proposed in this: major tax giveaways to corporations and effects that will continue on for many years. This is not a fiscal update.

A colleague said the Conservatives make it sound like it was a mini-bar in a hotel and they were just doing little fiscal updates in those little bottles. He said in his own way that this was more like a 40 pounder. This is a big giveaway. This is a substantial tax giveaway to corporations with no debate that is substantive. We are debating this now, but normally this would come forward in a budget. Instead, we have it as a “fiscal update”.

I just want to begin my comments on process, on accountability and on what the government said it would do in opposition vis-à-vis surpluses as well as what it said it would do around the accountability act with a budgetary officer of Parliament to provide objective, unblemished fiscal updates.

It is important that parliamentarians and Canadians in general know exactly how much the surpluses will be so we can have a fulsome debate. The money should not automatically go toward paying off the debt, holus bolus. There should not be these fiscal updates without Parliament being provided the information ahead of time.

That said, the fiscal update bill is before us. Essentially it says that the government's role is to shrink the pie on what we invest within our respective communities.

When we look at the amount of tax giveaways to corporations, there will be less in the federal government's revenue stream, at a time when there is up to $123 billion in infrastructure debt across this land, when we have needs in terms of housing, affordable education, affordable drugs. There is a widening prosperity gap, and the Conservative government has actually shrunk the pie so that in future, there is less ability for the federal government to make a difference in the everyday lives of Canadians.

The $123 billion infrastructure deficit that exists was recently brought to the attention of Canadians by an excellent study that was done by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I might add that the government used that group as a validator in previous budgets, but now seems to want to distance itself from that group when the news the FCM provides is not the news the government wants to hear.

The study outlines the infrastructure deficit across the land. People may ask why we should care about that in that we are at the federal level and it is a municipal concern. The Conservative government would tell the municipalities to quit whining, and in fact we have heard the government say that, to make do with what they have and to raise property taxes.

The government has denied the reality of our communities. The FCM study showed that our bridges, sewers, water systems, et cetera are falling apart and need updating. We have heard the horror stories throughout the land of infrastructure falling apart. It is a real cost. It is a real shame that the government did not see the need for investing in our communities.

I implore the government to take a look at the deficit across this land among our partners at the municipal level. The Conservatives should listen to them. The municipalities know what is going on in our communities. The fact that they will be provided with no relief in this fiscal update is not only a shame, it is an abhorrent action by the government. It shows the lack of responsibility of the Conservatives in terms of the infrastructure of this nation.

I implore other parties to join with us and oppose the bill. I ask them not to abstain on the vote. We saw that occur before. It is not a credible position by any member of Parliament to abstain on this issue. It is too important for Canadians. It is too important for the infrastructure of our cities and municipalities.

I look forward to any comments or questions from my colleagues on a debate that is very serious, very important and incredibly sad in terms of the actions of the government vis-à-vis the bill.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I feel we are going to learn something this morning. I get the impression that there is a professor emeritus in you and that he might come out.

We know that, in Bill C-2, the Conservative government has begun a quest for transparency and that a position of director of prosecutions was created. However, no one has yet been appointed to that position. I had every hope that it would be you. Well, we don't know the future, so we'll see.

Your services have assessed the possibility of prosecuting a person who has previously belonged to the political system. Let's take a random example, that of a former prime minister. Let's imagine that it appears from a public investigation that a former prime minister has, for reasons it is not for us to assess today, accepted funds from a businessman.

This is a pure fiction, but if it occurred, would you have complete flexibility in bringing charges or would you be accountable to some form of political hierarchy? You of course understand the fictitious nature of my example, but I'm counting on you to make it pedagogically interesting.

I am trying to understand how independent you are when it comes to instituting proceedings. In the case of charges under federal narcotics legislation, that would be fine, but, if a former prime minister were involved, would you have complete flexibility to institute proceedings?

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to sit through a discourse from my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. He talked about the hypocrisy of why we are at this point in the discussions today and also about the partisan politics being played around these crime bills.

I think it is important to talk about forward-looking leadership on the prevention of crime and the things the NDP talks about. I want to quote my hon. colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh. In his speech, he talked about the five parts of Bill C-2, four of which the NDP is okay with and one we are having some trouble with. He mentioned that quite eloquently in his speech.

The most knowledgeable member of Parliament, the member for Windsor--Tecumseh, said:

--the balance of the bill had provisions in it that either we had ourselves brought forward in the last election in our platform or were prepared to support the government on because we felt that it was in the best interests of Canada. It actually either protected people or met the requirement of having to make amendments to the Criminal Code where it was long past needing these amendments....

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh went on to talk about prevention and named some of those things. A little later on, he said:

--the greater majority of this bill is a bill that we looked at and said that, yes, these are good provisions, these are provisions that make sense in terms of building a fair, equitable justice system that protects our society.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he could give us more examples of the kinds of things that could be put in place to reduce crime, examples of the preventative measures that Canadians are asking for.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is just very little in Bill C-2 regarding some of the issues the member has raised. If the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster can answer the question with some relevance to Bill C-2, I will allow him a chance to respond.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I made a comment earlier today about questions and comments being relevant to the bill before the House. I am afraid that I just do not find anything relating to Bill C-2 in the question. If the hon. member has a question relevant to the bill, I will allow it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Victims. Exactly. My colleague from the Conservative Party got that right. We never hear the word “victims” from the NDP. The victims are the ones who are caught in the middle.

I would suggest that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster consider his position. Again, after all the railing against this legislation, Bill C-2, which he just finished after some 20 minutes of rambling and ranting, I am astounded by the fact of what he did yesterday when he had a chance to stand and say he is against getting tough on crime. What did he do? He stood and voted in favour of the legislation. How can that be? I ask the member that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up where the member for Timmins—James Bay left off in terms of Bill C-2 and setting the context for what is very clearly hypocrisy from the Conservative government on justice issues.

The member for Timmins—James Bay talked about some of the areas where the Conservatives have taken no action or actually cut back on funding. That is an important starting point because if the government was really serious about tackling crime issues, it would take the NDP lead on being smart on crime. It would take the whole spectrum of measures that need to be taken to reduce crime rates and the number of victims in society.

Indeed, though there are some measures in this bill that the NDP can support, the reality is that this seems to be more political spin than an actual attempt to deal substantively with criminal justice issues and lowering the crime rate.

I will be addressing some of these points later on, but let us look at what is not in Bill C-2 and what has not been part of the Conservatives' justice platform since they were elected.

There is nothing to deal with youth at risk. We know that $1 invested in preventive crime measures actually saves $6 later on in policing costs, penal costs and justice costs. Yet, the Conservative government has done virtually nothing to provide support for youth at risk programs.

With regard to addiction programs, we know that certain countries have managed to achieve reduction rates of about 80% in addictions, particularly drug addicts. Countries, like Switzerland, have made very substantive leaps forward in reducing the number of addicts.

We know that when we reduce the number of addicts, we essentially reduce the crimes committed by those addicts in their addicted frenzy, trying to find their next fix. Many innocent Canadians get hurt and yet the government has done nothing to put in place addiction programs to lower the addiction rate and reduce the crime rate at the same time.

We have seen an utter failure by the government in supporting community policing. It talked about increasing the number of police officers, however, it has done absolutely nothing substantive to support communities from coast to coast to coast that are looking for funding for community policing.

One of the two communities I represent, New Westminster, has an extraordinarily high cost for policing that was passed on to the federal government. The federal government did nothing to support the community of New Westminster and its extraordinarily high policing costs that were undertaken because of actions by the government.

It is the same with the other community of Burnaby because of the refusal by the government to restore the cutbacks that we saw under the previous Liberal governments for the RCMP, where there was a shortage of front line police officers. There is no support for community policing or for the overall crime prevention measures, whether it is safety audits or other community initiatives to reduce crime.

What the government does is it shovels billions of dollars out the back of a truck to the corporate sector in tax cuts. We are talking about record levels of corporate profits and all the government can do is shovel money off the back of a truck to the corporate sector rather than provide support for community policing, youth at risk programs, addiction programs and crime prevention measures.

The government funds none of those programs. It just shovels money to its corporate friends. It is the same old, same old. That is exactly how the former Liberal government acted. We see, generally speaking, no concrete measures being taken.

In terms of the international initiatives undertaken by the government, we see a clear contradiction with the purported aims of Bill C-2. Even today in question period there was a refusal by the government to stop crimes against humanity in Darfur. There was a refusal to do anything about that.

Yesterday, at the trade committee, Conservatives and Liberals were working together to ditch the NDP motion that would put an end to the trade negotiations taking place with Colombia. This is extremely important because we know the Colombian government is linked to crimes. There were summary executions, hundreds of them this year by the Colombian military. Dozens of trade unionists were killed by paramilitaries connected to the Colombian government and yet, instead of the government saying these crimes must be punished and taking a stand, it is actually rewarding the Colombian government linked to crimes against humanity by negotiating a trade agreement.

That is symbolic of just how hypocritical the government is. People can commit crimes. They just have to do it in dress suits or be connected with a right-wing government and then it is all right.

That just does not wash with most Canadians. They understand the hypocrisy that when a Colombian regime, paramilitaries, or the Colombian military commits crimes against humanity, commits murder, instead of being rewarded with a trade agreement, the Canadian government should be condemning them.

That is the hypocrisy between how Conservatives act when somebody is in a dress suit or when somebody is in a military uniform in Colombia, as opposed to how they purport to act by bringing this legislation forward.

Let us look at the process around Bill C-2, which is another symbol of the hypocrisy of the Conservative government.

Sixty per cent of what was in the bill was before the Senate. We have seen with this Senate, though it is Liberal-dominated, that it has done absolutely nothing to stop the Conservative agenda. Liberals work in cooperation with the Conservatives.

The Conservatives essentially have a functional majority in Parliament because the Liberal members have given up their right to be a member of the opposition. They sit on their hands. They do not protest anything. They accept anything the Conservatives hand out, and essentially those justice bills were in the process of being passed by the Senate.

The other chamber passed the softwood sellout, which was clearly not in Canada's interest, in 72 hours. This justice legislation would have been passed, but instead, the government withdrew it, took all the legislation back and now is resubmitting it to the House. It was a delay of months. If that is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is.

Essentially, they were right at the finish line, as we were with the softwood sellout winning in American courts. We were at the finish line and the government said, “No, we do not actually want this stuff to pass now”. It prorogued Parliament and reintroduced the bills in order to have the same debates all over the place because it is not really serious about taking action on justice issues. The Conservatives are not serious about community policing or crime prevention measures, dealing with addiction, or dealing with youth at risk. No, they are not serious about that, but they want to pretend that they are, so they are going to reintroduce all this legislation. Now it is here before us today.

The Conservatives said they wanted to deal with dangerous offenders. That is part of what they wanted to do. They said that this bill would deal with it, and as the member for Abbotsford well knows, because he has been doing the same kind of mailings into my riding that the member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned earlier, this legislation will be thrown out under a charter challenge.

It is important to note that the NDP submitted amendments at committee and in this House, and has been consistently saying to the government that since it knows it will be thrown out under a charter challenge, since it knows this legislation cannot work, because we do live under a Constitution, since it knows that, let us do the smart thing and remove the caps on dangerous offender designation.

Let us look at what is in the bill. I will read it because it is important for Canadians to know the intense hypocrisy of the government. It says:

--an application under subsection (1) not later than six months after that imposition;

It is repeated in paragraph (b):

--that is not later than six months after the imposition of sentence--

It is still in the bill, the limit of six months. Is that important? Yes it is. The balcony rapist, Mr. Paul Callow, who was released because of these provisions that are currently in the Criminal Code, continued by this Conservative government, was released into the community because there was no provision in the Criminal Code for designation later in sentence of a dangerous offender.

That is important because in this case, this individual did not go through the required treatment programs, and this individual reportedly and allegedly assaulted a nurse in prison.

Under this Conservative justice bill that is before us now, the same situation can arise tomorrow, next week or next year because the six month deadline for the designation of a dangerous offender still exists.

It is not as if the government did not know. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who has been voted by all members of this House as the most knowledgeable member of Parliament in this Parliament, told the government repeatedly, warned the government and sent letters. He went to committee and he brought forward the amendment.

Liberals and Conservatives, obviously not having the slightest understanding of what was actually in the bill, refused to adopt the amendment. Then it was brought forward to the House. There was the same rejection from Liberals and Conservatives.

Therefore, we are now looking at a bill that allows the exact same circumstances that happened earlier this year to happen again because the government does not seem to be serious about criminal justice issues.

When we take a smart on crime approach, we have to look at everything: crime prevention measures, funding for that, funding for community policing, and changes to the Criminal Code that actually address the issues. We do not look at changes to the Criminal Code that are simply there as make-up to pretend that we are doing our job.

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this whole process of putting forward legislation, of pulling back the legislation, of putting forward the legislation again, refusing to heed the advice that the government received from committee representatives and witnesses who appeared before the government, and refusing to heed the advice of the most knowledgeable member of Parliament in the House, as voted by members of the House of Commons, is that we are back to exactly the same situation that we were in last spring with no capability to provide for dangerous offender designation later in the sentence. That is the appalling thing about this whole process.

It is appalling to hear the hypocrisy when crimes are committed internationally. The Conservatives simply say, “That's fine. You can commit a crime. You can commit a murder if you're a member of the Colombia military. You can do these things. We don't care. At home we are going to pay lip service to some aspects of dealing with criminal justice issues, but by no means all of them and by no means in the comprehensive way that is required”.

That is the net result of what we have before us. Some of the elements I have supported and some of the elements other NDP members have supported, but the process disappoints me enormously. The process points to the fact that the government is not serious about these issues. What it wants to get is political spin out of this. It does not want to deal in a concrete way with all aspects of the criminal justice system,

Perhaps the clearest hypocrisy is that the government surely does not want to change its priorities of forking out, shovelling out, billions of dollars to the corporate sector in tax gifts. It certainly does not want to change that focus to actually adequately funding the programs that will reduce the number of victims.

In other words, if there is a victim, there are certainly some enforcement measures in the bill, but the government does not do anything to actually reduce the number of victims through youth at risk, through addiction programs, through community policing, or through crime prevention measures. That is the most appalling thing.

I would like to move on to one of the other elements. Today in the Ottawa Citizen it was revealed that the federal Minister of Justice has received studies prepared by his own department that indicate that his own criminal justice measures will not work.

I will read this into the record because I think this is very relevant to the debate we are having on Bill C-2. Some of the provisions of Bill C-2 are improvements, but generally speaking the overall so-called crime fighting agenda of the government is designed for political spin. It is not designed for the kind of practical measures that do make a difference. The article by Richard Foot states:

[The] federal Justice Minister is pressing ahead with plans to create mandatory minimum prison terms for drug crimes in spite of two studies prepared for his own department that say such laws don't work, and are increasingly unpopular as crime-fighting measures in other countries.

That is from the study for the minister himself: minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool with regard to drug crime. That is one conclusion of these reports prepared for the justice department itself.

The report states in regard to mandatory minimum sentences that “while they show success in deterring firearms or drunk driving crimes”, and those are measures we have supported in this legislation, “particularly among repeat offenders, they appear to have no impact on drug crime”.

Of course, the justice minister did not respond to any requests for interviews on this particular subject.

I think this begs the big question. If some of the measures that are most effective in reducing the crime rate have not been considered by the government, and in fact most of the measures we have outlined today that actually do reduce the crime rate have not been considered by the government at all, and if the departmental studies that the Minister of Justice gets in his own department indicate that some of his legislation is flawed, the question is, where are the Conservatives getting their advice?

The government had recommendations from the most knowledgeable member of Parliament in this House, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. He indicated very clearly that what was needed was the provision for later in sentence designation of dangerous offender. He indicated that it would have an effect and avoid the kind of loopholes that led to the balcony rapist being released into our community of New Westminster with no support whatsoever. He was put into a homeless shelter and, of course, according to the rules of the homeless shelter, it put him out onto the streets every day.

We can imagine the impact on our community of that kind of wrong-headed approach to criminal justice measures, yet not a single member of the Conservative caucus and certainly not the justice minister, no one within the Conservative caucus, actually took action to close that loophole. As we saw, the loophole is very much still there. This legislation that the justice minister is bringing forward and which the Conservatives say we should adopt still has the loophole.

So the Conservative political spin about actually dealing with that issue is very clearly nothing but spin. The studies indicating that some of the other legislation coming forward is ineffective come from the justice minister's own department.

If what is very clearly here in place is legislation that does not do what it is purported to do, that does not deal with the issues it is supposed to deal with, then we have to ask the question, what is the real agenda here? The real agenda appears to be trying to have this Conservative government campaign on crime and justice issues without having done a whole lot on those issues.

The government has flawed legislation, admittedly flawed legislation, that it has not worked to improve. In fact, there is legislation that was almost passed but that the government has now pulled back. The former justice minister was fired because of the admittedly poor nature of some of the legislation coming forward.

Most importantly, the key components of crime prevention in lowering the crime rate and actually producing fewer victims have been ignored or cut back by this government: youth at risk programs, crime prevention measures such as safety audits, community policing funding, which has been sorely inadequate, as it was under the former Liberal government, and addiction programs.

All of those measures would make a difference. All of those measures have been ignored by the government. All of those measures have been simply put aside.

As for the priority of the government, disappointing I think to any Canadian who looked at what was being promised and expected at least that the Conservatives would put into place some realistic funding envelopes that would actually address these issues they campaigned on, instead of having that as the priority, the Conservatives have put into place a priority of shovelling billions of taxpayers' dollars into tax gifts to the wealthiest of Canada's corporations.

That is why the government's real record is so disappointing. That is why when we look at Bill C-2 we can only look at it, with some good elements, as a missed opportunity.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed hearing the comments of the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay. I also enjoyed his involvement on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He has a great sense of humour and he brings a lot of knowledge of the arts to the table at that committee. He is a great piano player and guitar player. In fact, I have heard him play piano and he puts my modest talents to shame.

However, I will say that he is away out of his depth when it comes to addressing the scourge of crime that is plaguing our country.

He took great care and joy in attacking my Conservative colleague for Nepean—Carleton and yet my colleague from Nepean—Carleton was spot on when he accused the member for Timmins—James Bay of being, not only soft on crime, but of trivializing the work that we are doing in the House to try to attack violent crime.

Bill C-2 addresses dangerous offenders who repeatedly offend. These are violent offenders. It addresses the issue of gun crimes. It addresses the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in our society, our children, against adult predators. He refers to the Conservatives as “wanting to run after the kids who steal handbags”. Imagine him trivializing that work.

He went on to say in this very House, “Grabbing old ladies handbags; kids tossing litter out on the sidewalks”. He refers to not getting serious about mandatory minimums for “furniture theft and bicycle theft”.

I would suggest that he should apologize to the House for trivializing the victims of crime in this country and the work that we are doing in the House, the very serious work we are doing to address crime in this country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it really speaks to what is happening in terms of these issues. The statement the member made is silly. If that member wants to come up to Timmins—James Bay and run around with a little Conservative ten percenter saying that I am soft on crime, by all means do it.

The people back home sent me here because they want to get rid of that bunch. They do not believe what those members say for an instant. If the Conservatives want to spend money using the public's ink to attack me personally in my riding, they can go ahead. They can send as many ten percenters as they want. They can do their little fife and drum show and say I am soft on crime. People back home know it is not true. They know we are here to reflect on crime bills and try to get them through.

With regard to Bill C-2, it is the misinformation that party has used again and again to try to show that members are delaying. In fact, it was the Conservative government that prorogued Parliament and let those bills die, particularly the age of consent bill, which would have been law if the Conservatives had simply signed, with a stroke of the pen, to revive it.

There is speculation that there might be an election by the time the bill goes through the Senate. The Conservatives know full well that the bill might not become law. I asked yesterday whether they might enjoy that situation and then they could run an entire campaign on how everyone else in the House was soft on crime. That is not doing Canadians any good.

My dear friend from Nepean—Carleton offered $1,000 to young people to write an essay on how to protect themselves from Internet luring. However, there was a catch. They had to take his petition around to people, a petition that blamed the Senate for stalling a bill that his own government had killed. He did not tell those young people about that.

This is another example of how the Conservatives continually put their grubby, partisan fingerprints on the imagination of our young people. What happened with that petition was a real debasement of Parliament. It brought discredit on all of us in the House, because we take these issues seriously. We take the issue of the age of consent seriously. We take the issue of gun crime seriously. We now have to play this little soap opera out day after day in the House.

The government has no national vision. It has no plan. It has been trying to rag the puck on crime bills because it has nothing else in its war chest. We are now involved again in a debate that has already been done. Everything had been settled, yet the government turned the clock back and rolled out the legislation again.

No wonder people do not have any faith in politicians when we look at the government's crime agenda. If a government is willing to be that partisan about issues involving the protection of the public, then how can we have faith in it on anything else? There are so many crime bills coming forward: mandatory minimums for bicycle theft, mandatory minimums for furniture theft, getting tough on whatever. All the government has on the docket are more crime bills. As I pointed out yesterday, this is like a wound that will never heal. All we need is one more horrific crime, one more drunk driver and the government will that say our laws are not serious enough.

This debases the larger issue of what Canada's policy should be in terms of crime. Do we need to get serious on gun crimes? Certainly we do. Do we need to have policies in place to take on gangs? Yes indeed. We need to effectively target the ability of police to serve the regions of our country where we see spikes in crime. However, we also need to have a clear, coherent plan for dealing with criminals and recidivism.

I keep going back to the member for Nepean—Carleton because it was such an amusing piece. In fact, I might send it out as my ten percenter so people can see what they would have if they had a Conservative member instead of myself.

He said that I was opposed to the “three strikes and you're out” policy. Yes I am. I am certainly opposed to what the Conservatives are trying to do with their simplistic “three strikes and you're out” policy. People in California have been sentenced to life for stealing a pizza. That is the direction the government would like to take us.

The Conservatives are detracting from the larger issue. As long as we sit in the House having to defend ourselves about being soft on crime or about supporting child pornographers, or whatever else the government wants to throw at us in terms of its mud, we are not discussing the substantive need for having a forward thinking policy for the nation in the 21st century.

For example, there is a need for a committed infrastructure program for municipalities, whether rural or urban. We have no plan from the government. We are not talking about that because we are running around talking about bicycle theft today and whatever crimes tomorrow.

The other issue detracting our attention from the House by continually having bills brought back, argued again and dragged out is the example this past week of the Prime Minister, who shamed us on the international stage. At the Commonwealth talks he showed that Canada was no longer an international leader, that the government did not represent a national interest. It was a front for the ecological free booters, who are pillaging the tar sands. We need to have a serious discussion in the House about the failure of the government to come forward with an environmental policy that is anything but acting as a shield for big oil.

The issue of crime is a serious issue. We went through this in the House. We dealt with the issue of the age of consent. We dealt with the issue of gun violence. We came forward with coherent elements on which every party worked. At the end of the day, that is our role as legislators. We have to bring forward the experience of our communities so we bring in laws that will actually work, laws that can be applicable on the street, that the chiefs of police will agree with and for people who work with cases of recidivism, laws that are part of a coherent policy.

At this point we are now going through an entire debate process that should have already been done. These laws should be on the books. Why are we debating it again? I am not sure. However, I will not at this point turn around when the Conservatives say to take it or leave it, stand up or sit down. It is my role as a legislator to speak out on bills and I will continue to do that, regardless of the partisan mailings that go into my riding, regardless of whether they get backbenchers to stand to attack me or any other member of the House. Let them do it. It does not detract us from our job in this caucus of reflecting on the bills that are brought before the country. We need to ensure that when we introduce laws, they are workable laws and they are laws that will, at the end of the day, bring us forward as a nation rather than backwards.

I will finish on the “three strikes, you're out” policy. We have seen the complete failure of the crime policy in the United States, a vision for dealing with crime. The rates of violence continue in the United States. Gun crimes continue. People who should not have been thrown into the justice system are eaten up with its mandatory minimums and its “three strikes, you're out”. It is a failed policy.

The only thing worse than a failed policy are people who look at that failed policy years later, when they have all the empirical evidence, in the cold light of day, and make a calculated decision to approve a failed policy. That is even worse. It is much worse than the mistake our American neighbours made. If there were gun and gang violence, there would have been reasons for thinking that maybe the approach taken in the United States would work, but we have seen the failure of that approach. We know it has to be balanced and it has to be balanced between the need to ensure there is a way to get people out of the criminal system and into rehabilitation. We also need to have laws in place to take out the gangs, to have the police on the streets and to get serious on offences where need be.

We tried to strike that balance in the House. Having struck that balance, the Conservatives are driving in a much larger wedge. In the end, it comes to protecting our communities, and I have to always take it back to Timmins—James Bay, which I represent.

If the government is serious about getting tough on crime and protecting citizens, why have our communities on the James Bay coast been left almost without policing. The police officers, the service and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation police across the NAN territory are continually put in dangerous situations because there is no funding for them.

When we have one or two police officers in an isolated fly-in community of 2,000 people, that is not a place we should put anybody. We should have proper backup for police. Any other part of this country would take that for granted, but for some reason, in our isolated first nations communities, not only are the police underrepresented but the citizens are underrepresented. We have much higher rates of violence in these communities because of the lack of services, the lack of supports for communities and the lack of policing support. We know the stress that our police officers are under and the stress these communities are under.

If we are to get tough on crime, where is the money? Show me the money that would ensure that in the places where there is violence, which is on the isolated first nations reserves, that we have police, that the police have the necessary social supports and that we have the regional centres for victims of violence they could be taken to. They have none of that on the James Bay coast. I have always said that it is like a virtual third or fourth world.

However, one would think that a government that talks about getting tough on crime and dealing with the needs of citizens would recognize that we cannot simply put one police officer on his or her own in an isolated community with no backup. First, we are hurting the citizens and leaving them without police services, and second, there is not a non-native police service in this country that would put up with that.

Do we have to get serious about crime? Yes, we do. That is our job. Our job is to bring in laws and to ensure these laws work. We will reflect on these laws as they come forward. We will bring forward amendments that will make good laws and we will oppose laws that will not work. However, what we will never do is abrogate our responsibility as legislators to take the time to reflect on those bills.

If the government wants to take the time to prorogue the House for five weeks, that is its business. If it wants to allow bills that should have been law to sit and die, bills like the age of consent and the bills dealing with gun violence, and then begin again from scratch, that is its business. If it wants to take as long as it has to take, that is its business, but it cannot tell us in the House what our business is, which is representing our people and ensuring that any legislation the government brings forward, whether it is wrapped up in an omnibus bill or whether it is called a confidence motion, that it is legislation that will work and, at the end of the day, it has an efficacious nature that we can actually bring back and say to the people of Canada that 308 members of the House brought forward legislation that will work.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay to discuss Bill C-2.

What we are called to do in Parliament, as parliamentarians and despite everything else, is to make laws of the land that will hold up and reflect a sense of jurisprudence and also a belief that the laws will establish a way we should be as a nation. This is the forum in which that happens.

Unfortunately, we have seen over the last number of years, particularly with the Conservative government and its crime agenda, the debasement of debate. There are 308 members to reflect judiciously on serious issues. Then when they stand up and speak, they are ridiculed. We have the cheap cat call gallery in the Conservatives, which is always looking to twist and take words out of context. What we end up having is the notion of debate passing through some kind of spinmeister's message box in search of a wedge issue.

At the end of the day it serves a certain political group very well. It creates a legitimation crisis. It creates a sense that Parliament is not there to get something done, that parliamentarians are sitting on their rear ends doing nothing because they are not responding.

I will speak in particular about the Conservatives' crime agenda. They government has accused basically everyone in the House of stalling on crime and being soft of crime. Conservative members have said at times in the House that members somehow support child pornography. These claims are outrageous, and it is debasement of our role, which is to bring forward reflection on bills that deal with crime.

Nowhere is this clearer than on Bill C-2. A number of the sections of this bill were brought through the House, voted on, discussed and brought forward with good amendments, to the point of being law, particularly the age of consent bill, which at the point of being law. The issue of gun crime sentencing, which all parties worked on, and provisions with regard to bail would all be law now. Yet the Conservatives prorogued the House and allowed those bills to die.

The government then started the whole process over again and began to accuse our friends in the upper chamber of not doing their job. If we even stood and asked questions, we were told we were being soft on crime and delaying the issue. It is a total obfuscation of fact. It really raises question as to why are these laws not already law, if the government were serious on a crime agenda and having laws that would work for people. The bills were ready to go.

What we have is this continual cheapening of political discourse. That leads me to the shenanigans we saw today during statements and question period. My good friend from Nepean—Carleton, who is often a favourite partisan ankle-biter, stood and tried to take the words I said yesterday and spin them into a little wedge issue for the Conservative Party and make it seems that I somehow refused to support the age of consent from 14 to 16, that I tried to block the bill and that we were soft on crime.

I will not respond to the member's comments. I admire his partisan glee, but if he is going to do a hatchet job, he might as well do the job properly. This is unfortunately the problem we see, the debasement of debate. These discussions have become so absurd and silly. I do not know exactly to whom he thinks he is appealing.

I spoke about this yesterday, about how the Conservatives would try to twist facts. The Conservatives will misrepresent what was said. Then the spin doctors will take the ten percenters—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Bill C-418. On the Order: Private Members' Bills:)

Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-418, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of remuneration)--Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain).

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

The House resumed from November 27, consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Liberal colleague.

When a first-time offender is imprisoned for drunk driving, as the member was saying, he is sentenced for two years less a day. So these sentences must be served in a provincial penitentiary.

With the new Bill C-2, if many people are sentenced to two years less a day, they would have to serve their sentences in provincial penitentiaries.

What will be done about the tax burden, the money that will be injected into provincial prisons? Because we may be forced to build more prisons. If we incarcerate people, we will run out of room. If we run out of room, we will have to build prisons. Buildings cost money, as do the inherent operating costs, such as heating, hiring new staff, new prison guards. All of this will be done at the provincial level.

How much money will the federal government give the provinces to help absorb these costs? Have they thought about that? Perhaps all they thought about was taking $4 or $5 million to hire police officers and focus on more repression? Once these people are put in prison, who will foot the bill? The provinces. How much money will they get from the federal government to support the bill?

Is the member's province prepared to invest even more money to please Conservatives with no social conscience? I await his answer.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his speech. He spoke about the crime rate, which is at an all time low in Quebec as well as in Canada. He also said that the media want sensational news. And he mentioned that there must be balance.

The NDP has been talking for a long time about this balance based on three principles. The first is prevention, that is, we work with young people and we try to have crime prevention programs in place. Second, we want a certain amount of protection, that is, enough police officers in the community to work with these individuals. Last, there is punishment, which we are discussing today in Bill C-2.

Does he see this as an example of a well-balanced program to fight crime?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-2 which we are examining today.

It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to help those listening to us by casting some light on what an omnibus bill is. An omnibus bill is a bill which combines several bills that could not be enacted in the previous session because the government decided to prorogue the House and terminate them at whatever stage they had reached. That was the choice of the Conservative Party and the reason behind Bill C-2, the bill before us now. If the government had not decided to prorogue the House, a goodly number of those bills would have already been passed.

Before getting into the heart of Bill C-2, I would offer a reminder to those listening. When a bill amending the Criminal Code is being passed, we need to keep the crime situation in mind. That is something easily done by people who follow the television news. We all know how the print and electronic media try to attract readers and viewers by focusing on certain situations, trying to sell papers or attract viewers by interviewing victims or their relatives.

Ours is, of course, a media-driven society. The media make the situation more difficult when they neglect to show the other side of the coin. It is all very well to focus on crimes, to opine that certain sentences are too soft, and so on, and to try to find evidence that the justice system is not working, but when it comes to the other side of the coin, discussing the crime situation in general, the media is not pulling its weight there.

This is what I wish to draw to your attention, as well as to the attention of those listening. Things must be balanced. That is our objective as legislators, to begin with. And it is my colleagues here in this House, such as the hon. members for Trois-Rivières, Shefford and Manicouagan, and all the members of the Bloc Québécois, who have the onerous task of balancing things out.

The Conservatives have but one thing in mind: to do everything they can to hold on to power. I often say jokingly—though I sometimes believe it seriously—that power drives one mad. One only needs to look at how the Prime Minister and some of his ministers are behaving to see what it is like to be in power after having been in opposition. A person might well say that power does have that effect on certain people and their sanity.

I am providing this background because crime has been declining steadily in Quebec as well as in Canada over the past 15 years or so. That is not an invention of the Bloc Québécois or the sovereignists that we are. Statistics Canada recently confirmed that the national crime rate reached its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006. Moreover, the homicide rate in Quebec was the lowest in that province since 1962.

So, we are doing fine. I am bringing this up, because the hon. members may have heard of people being surveyed. The Conservative Party, through the government, conducted a large survey of more than 2,000 people across Canada to determine how it might win its election by listening to what the people had to say about crimes and punishments. Interestingly enough, however, there was no mention of the current state of crime in any of the questions; I know this because, by chance, one of my assistants was among those surveyed. The press and electronic media give the impression that crime is rampant, but when we check the statistics and see that crime is down, with a crime rate at its lowest level in 25 years, we put things in perspective.

That is, of course, what the Bloc Québécois is trying to do. We have always been very aware and have always endeavoured to find a balance.

It is not easy to find a balance between the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. I can say candidly that they are pretty much all the same. In light of all the surveys published all over the place, it is clearly important to have a party representing a majority of Quebeckers and trying to bring some balance to this House.

The Bloc Québécois has tried to bring such balance throughout the debate on Bill C-2 while at the same time bearing in mind the statistics. As I indicated, the national crime rate reached its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006. In Quebec, the homicide rate was the lowest since 1962.

Does this means that all is well? No, all is not well. We know that crime has not been eradicated. It is sad to say, but in our industrialized countries where the rich and the poor coexist alongside one another, there will always be crime. Our objective is to try to lower the crime rate as much as possible, and that is something the members of the Bloc Québécois work on every day.

However, we must also put all this crime into perspective. I will provide another statistic. In terms of violent crime, Quebec has the second lowest rate and is just behind Prince Edward Island. Quebec even recorded a 4% decrease in youth crime in 2006, surpassing all the other provinces.

It is important for members from other provinces to understand that it was quite some time ago that Quebec opted for social reintegration rather than repression and increased sentences, the establishment of minimum sentences or other measures. That is a choice made by Quebec.

I do not wish to repeat the statistics mentioned by other colleagues in this House, but when we look at U.S. states that also opted for reintegration rather than repression—the state of New York among others—we see that crime rates in those states, compared to others, are decreasing. That is the kind of statistic that is of interest to us.

As parliamentarians, we must mitigate the very harmful influence of media sensationalism. It is understandable because they have to sell newspapers or the best television news reports. They will try to capture the sensational aspect of an incident rather than portraying the balance that can be inherent in a society.

It is important to us that the rest of Canada understand that Quebec has done things differently. In addition, the effects on crime rates are very important and hence the position of the Bloc Québécois in the committee that discussed Bill C-2. Our position was different than that of the other parties in this House. We do not hold that against them. It is just that Quebec and the rest of Canada are very different. We do not think in the same way.

One day, Quebeckers will make the rest of Canada understand. We will decide to have our own country with our own laws and so forth. In the meantime, we participate and try to bring Canadian society up to speed with Quebec society. And that is not easy. It is not easy.

I will give some examples of the Bloc Québécois proposals made in committee that were rejected.

We proposed amendments to Bill C-2, to eliminate the practice of granting parole almost automatically after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. Since in Quebec we have reintegration, this causes a problem. Automatic parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served means that when we want to create programs and force criminals to attend therapy, we find that they participate less when they know that they are automatically eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence.

Again, everyone will say that it does not make sense that criminals are eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence. This has been going on across Quebec. We wanted to change this in a House committee, but our proposal was rejected by the Conservative Party and the other parties.

Once again, Quebec society is much more advanced than Canadian society.

We also suggested putting an end to 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.

As for social reintegration, we believe that statutory release once two-thirds of a sentence has been served is no longer acceptable in Quebec society. Before criminals are almost automatically released, we want them to be assessed by professionals. We made that suggestion in committee, but, once again, the other parties did not agree.

We suggested that the 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.

It was the Bloc Québécois that proposed reversing the burden of proof with respect to the proceeds of crime in cases involving organized groups. As some may remember, the Bloc Québécois led that crusade against organized crime by proposing that the burden of proof be reversed so that it would no longer be up to the Crown to prove where the money came from to acquire the goods. The opposite is now true. The burden of proof automatically falls on members of criminal organizations, who must prove that they paid for their goods with legitimate earnings. Since that is difficult to do, goods can be seized automatically.

That bill concerning criminal organizations was supported by the other parties in this House. We proposed to do the same for the issue under consideration today. Why not reverse the onus for criminals who have been found guilty of offences involving usury, procuring, robbery or fraud? That would cover not criminal organizations, but organized criminals. In cases of fraud exceeding $5,000, these criminals would be required to prove that the goods they acquired were paid for using legitimately earned funds. Failing that, the goods would be seized.

Believe it or not, the other parties rejected the amendments the Bloc Québécois proposed for Bill C-2.

We proposed attacking the street gang problem by giving the police better tools to work with, such as longer warrants for investigations using GPS tracking. As I said earlier, Quebec society is a little farther ahead than the rest of Canada. GPS technology is an integral part of fighting crime in Quebec. Unfortunately, the proposed amendments do not include this suggestion made by the Bloc Québécois.

We proposed a ban on wearing signs, symbols or other indications that identify individuals as belonging to groups recognized by court as criminal organizations.

Once again, we struck at organized criminal groups. Quebec fought a battle. It went very well. We are lucky to have with us in the House the former minister responsible for public security in Quebec, the hon. Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who did an excellent job in that position. He went after organized criminal groups directly, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, by amending the Criminal Code to provide for reverse onus of proof. We did well. We wanted to ban the wearing of insignia by criminal groups, organized gangs of bikers and others, but this amendment to Bill C-2 was rejected.

We wanted to put an end to the rule whereby time spent in detention prior to trial was doubled for sentencing purposes. A sentence would begin at the moment of detention rather than at the time of sentencing, in order to put an end to an abusive practice which did no credit to the administration of justice.

We discovered that, when the rule is applied, that is, when an individual is taken into custody prior to trial, the time involved is doubled in the sentence. This is standard, and criminals have obviously understood it. So they put off their trial as long as possible since, when they are in custody prior to trial, they get a bonus of double time and a reduced sentence.

Quebec society understood it well because of the fight against organized crime and all that. We put these amendments forward, but, unfortunately, none of the ones we put forward was passed, even though some have the unanimous approval of the ministers of public security in Quebec and other provinces.

This exemplifies the Conservative government, which has its blinkers on tight, which conducts polls with very specific focus, and which tells us that no changes will be allowed to a bill and that it will be made a vote of confidence.

So, the Bloc Québécois will support the conclusions of Bill C-2, except we would have liked to improve it. However, once again, the sway of power over these Conservative men and women is such that they are self absorbed. They show no desire to improve bills. They think that they are right, that truth and life are within their power and are in the end opposed to any idea of improvement.

This is what power has done to them. We will see what happens in the next election. As I am the Bloc's chief organizer, I want to reiterate that we will support the bill, not because we are frightened by the possibility of a vote of confidence, but because we think it will further the fight against organized crime, even though this is not the way we would have chosen.

Here is an example. I am getting to the core of Bill C-2. It combines five bills, including one that strengthens the provisions on offences involving firearms. It is perfect. Initially, Bill C-10 was simply being repeated. That bill sought to amend the Criminal Code to increase minimum prison sentences to five, seven or 10 years, depending on whether the crime was a repeat offence, for eight serious offences involving the use of a firearm, if the weapon used was not a hunting rifle. Once again, we see the Conservative vision. It is a weapon, but not a hunting weapon.

For anyone who follows these things, hunting rifles have changed considerably over the past 30 years. First of all, they are no longer made of the same materials and they are very light. This often makes it very difficult for law enforcement. I would like to believe that no hunters will use their weapons, except there is no longer a registry. Indeed, the goal of the Conservatives is to eliminate the gun registry, claiming that only hunters are going to acquire weapons. Yet, given the new technology, more and more criminals are going to use long guns—as they like to call them—precisely because they are lighter, thanks to new technology and so on. The Conservative philosophy wants to protect long guns. Naturally, to do so, there can be no registry. After all, no one who has a long gun is a criminal.

I am sorry, but plenty of cabins get robbed and hunters' weapons make their way into the criminal networks. Yet, this legislative amendment would not apply to those who have firearms. And I repeat, when it comes to these offences involving firearms, for instance, it says “if the weapon used is not a hunting weapon”. Consequently, the bill deals with all weapons except hunting weapons.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding that, but I can understand the Conservative philosophy behind it. To the Conservatives, you can do anything with a hunting weapon. It is as simple as that. That is all there is to it. There is a reason they want to abolish the gun registry.

I would like to digress for a moment. In Quebec, 95% of hunters registered their guns. This is no problem, because there are no longer any fees. We supported the amendment that eliminated the renewal fee. Since people had already registered their guns, no one lost any sleep over this, except in the west, where the situation is reversed, obviously. Westerners were opposed to the registry from the start and decided not to register their guns. Today, to please western Canada, the Conservatives have once again decided to abolish the gun registry, even though hunters in the rest of the country could live with it. This Conservative approach to governing is evident in this bill.

Once again, all we want to say to the people who are watching is that, yes, bills have to evolve. That is true, but we have to be careful. We must not succumb to the sensationalism of the media, which will not hesitate to blow any accident or crime out of proportion to sell newspapers or get people to watch newscasts. Yet statistics prove that Quebec's approach, which consists of rehabilitating criminals by giving them every possible opportunity to work their way back into society, is much more effective at reducing the crime rate than the punitive approach some societies have opted for, as the Conservatives would like to do.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the previous speaker for his speech and his understanding when it comes to dealing with crime and how to actually lower the crime rates.

I dare say that the scope of the bill is problematic. It troubles me, because instead of dealing with legislation one piece at a time, it puts a number of them together, some of which are good, but some of which are very offensive. Certainly that is not the way a minority Parliament should function, nor is it the way the Prime Minister when he was the leader of the official opposition said that a minority Parliament should function.

The member mentioned the study “Unlocking America”. I used to be involved with an organization called, Youth In Conflict With The Law. It was named after the proposed youth in conflict with the law act which ended up being the Young Offenders Act. I started working with that organization in 1976 after I left university. One of the focuses we had was to try to deal with offenders within the context of the community and to do as much as we could at the community level to create a safe and secure community. One of our mottos was that crime and justice is a community responsibility.

For all the reasons mentioned by the previous speaker and documented in “Unlocking America”, getting tough on crime does not work. In “Unlocking America” nine leading U.S. criminologists and sociologists who have spent their careers studying crime and punishment did an exhaustive study. They pointed out that the approach of getting tough on crime, building more jails and incarcerating more people, just does not work. It might make great television and it might make great news in the tabloids, but it is an approach that just does not work. It ends up being very expensive. Beyond being very expensive, it ends up being very destructive.

Bill C-2 is one bill, but another one which will be coming forward is Bill C-25 which deals with young offender legislation. I find it very frightening that under this particular bill, unfortunately, people who go into the system as young offenders can end up in the penitentiary system, not for committing a great deal of crime in the community, but for reasons such as committing a crime within the institution itself.

Numerous people came forward at the committee hearings on this bill. One of them was Dr. Anthony Doob, a criminologist from the University of Toronto, who very clearly showed that the perception of crime in many ways is driven by the media and by politicians who want to exploit the fear of crime and does not truly have that great a basis in reality.

In his studies, Dr. Doob asked the people in one control group for their reaction to headlines from tabloids. Dr. Doob gave another control group transcripts of the trial. Dr. Doob found that in cases where people had the information, they had read the transcripts and understood the judge's reasoning, they either agreed with the judicial sentence, or thought that the judicial sentence was too harsh. This was in total contrast to those in the group that received their reports on crime from the media, from the tabloids, or from television programs.

The media love to tell about the goriest crimes that have occurred in the local community, or in the country. But if there is nothing in Canada, then they will look to the United States, and if there is nothing there, then they will look to any continent on the planet for their special diet of criminal activity. These reports frighten people. Usually they hear these reports just before they go to bed at night.

It has often occurred to me that those folks and politicians who engage in that kind of fearmongering are victimizing a large number of people. People begin to believe that the relatively safe community they live in is much more dangerous than it is. That is not right. Parliamentarians and political parties should not be engaged in that kind of fearmongering.

Another individual who made a presentation was Kim Pate, who is with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. Unfortunately, Kim did not have enough time to talk at committee, but she did talk at length about the challenges faced by inmates who suffer from mental health problems in the federal institutions. She also talked about the over-representation of particular minority groups that are incarcerated. In Canada there is a disproportionate number of aboriginal people incarcerated. This raises some very troubling questions. Miss Pate also talked about the number of institutional charges that will be put on somebody entering the system, to the point that the individual, for whatever he or she has done in the institution, could be declared a dangerous offender.

Today I talked about Ashley Smith, a young woman who was due to be released from prison today. She was sentenced in New Brunswick as a young offender at the age of 15. She took her life on October 19 in an isolated jail cell at the Grand Valley federal institution in Kitchener following an extensive period of solitary confinement. Four correctional staff at Grand Valley were charged with criminal negligence causing death. One correctional staff member at the Saskatoon Regional Psychiatric Centre has also been charged with assault.

Ashley's tragic death has raised a number of troubling questions that must be answered. How did a young girl struggling with mental illness, incarcerated as a young offender, end up, through excessive institutional charges, in federal correctional facilities thousands of kilometres away from home? What can be done to improve the way we deal with offenders so that we minimize the recurrence of such tragedies? When will we learn as a society that it is more feasible to invest in community safety and crime prevention programs than to pursue draconian laws that incarcerate more and more people at the expense of public safety? I underline at the expense of public safety.

The “Unlocking America” report makes the point that over-charging, which has occurred in the United States, has done absolutely nothing to bring down the crime rate. It has done everything to destroy families and communities and to perpetuate discrimination. This has been going on much too long.

In talking about crime prevention, I will come back to my community, the Waterloo region. We have been working on community based crime prevention since 1978. Next year we will be hosting the 30th annual justice dinner. We will bring in speakers on how to improve public safety through social development in our community.

We are not the only community that says this is the way it should be done. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police talks about creating public safety and reducing crime, not through the hiring of more police officers, not through building more jails and not through hiring more jail guards, but through social development that addresses the root causes of crime.

In 1993, following on the excellent work of a Progressive Conservative government, the justice committee, with Mr. Horner as chair, produced what is known as the Horner report. The Horner report called upon the government to fight crime through social development.

My community took up that challenge at that time and we created the Waterloo region's Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council. The very first chair of that council was Larry Gravill, the chief of police.

The membership of the council includes all the social service organizations, local governments, non-governmental organizations involving criminal justice, the crown attorney's office and the police force. We worked collaboratively on how the community could address the root causes of crime.

Over the years many other folks have come forward to chair the council, be they from the school board, local government or the Children's Aid. The last chair we had for the committee was Matt Torigian, and he has been appointed and designated as the new police chief in Baden.

Surely that approach is much more preferable to the approach that is put forward in the bill, particularly on the mandatory minimums and the designation for dangerous offenders.

An interesting thing I did in my questionnaire was to ask whether we should have the traditional Conservative neo-con approach to fighting crime, or whether we should do it through social development. I am happy to say that two to one, the citizens in my community want to fight crime through social development.

I mentioned that the neo-cons like to put out wrong information and try to tell untruths. I will give an example. The member for Kitchener—Conestoga put out a householder where he said, and I will be quite willing to table it--

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to make some comments about the bill that is before us and to thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh who, as we know, was recently voted the most knowledgeable member of Parliament. Therefore, I take his comments on the bill very seriously and I want to congratulate him on that distinct honour.

I notice that the Minister of the Environment is applauding the member and I really appreciate that.

I know the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is one of the hardest working members. If we look at the number of crime bills that have gone through the House since the last election, the number is absolutely phenomenal. It is because of the member's diligence that we have been able to make some of the amendments that have made some of the crime bills palatable to those of us in the NDP caucus.

When I think about the kinds of issues that are raised with me by my constituents, yes, they are concerned about crime but they are not really looking for a law and order response to those. What they are looking for is a response that is based on some fundamental principles of justice.

As the member for Windsor—Tecumseh just said, four out of the five bills that are part of the omnibus bill, after his tremendous work and the amendments that he has brought forward, I was comfortable supporting on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton Mountain.

However, the reverse onus provision is really troubling for me. I think it offends the fundamental sense of justice. It is a law and order approach. It does not really speak to the way that my constituents of Hamilton Mountain would want us to deal with these very serious crime bills.

I am wondering if the member for Windsor—Tecumseh could tell me whether my concerns are right. I am hoping that the reverse onus provision will be struck down by the courts and that it will actually not meet a charter challenge and therefore I can feel just a little better about having supported Bill C-2 yesterday at second reading. I did that because I agreed with four out of the five bills, but the fifth bill is troubling to me. I would like the member's assurances, as the most knowledgeable member, that that provision will be struck down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, the omnibus crime bill.

I would like to start by expressing our grave concern over the delay in getting these parts of this bill passed through the whole process. The government has been blatantly partisan in its agenda with regard to this bill and its parts, using it not in the best interests of the country in advancing some of these bills as rapidly as possible, but actually slowing down the process so that the government could be critical, particularly of the Liberal Party, both in the House and Senate, and so it could attempt to portray the Liberals and I guess all opposition parties and anybody who does not adopt its right-wing radical agenda on crime as being soft on crime.

More than 60% of the bill was in the Senate. There were three different bills in the Senate when we broke for the summer recess. Based on past practice, I would argue that at least one and probably two of those bills would now have cleared the Senate or certainly would have by the time we break at year-end. Probably all three of them would have cleared.

The government's decision both to prorogue and to then bring back all these five bills into the omnibus bill has now delayed the passage of at least those three bills by several months. Also, of course, with a minority government we always sit on that edge as to whether we will have a snap election because of lack of confidence in the government, and there are good reasons to have lack of confidence in the Conservatives.

That could happen at any time. If that happens, we have to start the whole process all over again after the next election when we get back. We could be looking at delays of another year or two years. The government purposely caused that delay in order to play partisan politics with these bills.

Let us look at the bills we had before the Senate. We had the mandatory minimums bill there, which is a big part of the government's agenda. I should say in regard to mandatory minimums that the opposition parties, led by mine, were able to get the mandatory minimum sentences reduced to bring them generally in line with the sentencing policies of our courts across the country, our superior courts in particular, and with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so that this would not be struck down at some point in the future.

That bill is still sitting there. Of the five bills that make up the omnibus bill, it was the first one to get to the Senate. It is still sitting here and again it is going to be literally months before it gets through.

Again, there is absolutely no reason for that other than partisan politics on the part of the Conservative Party and the Conservative government. It is shameful, quite frankly.

In that case, the reason we supported this bill is that we need specific guidelines given to our judiciary with regard to specific violent crimes. That bill did so. Quite frankly, the bill was one we had championed in the last election. Once we brought the bill into line with the charter, we were quite pleased to support it.

Let us look at the other bill that was in the Senate, the age of consent bill. We have fought for a large number of years over the issue of raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. I would say the issue has been before the House at least a half a dozen times over the last 10 years in the form of private members' bills. We attempted to get the issue before the House in a government bill during the Liberal administration in 2005 and were unsuccessful, but there is strong support in the country to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16.

As we see in the opinion polls and as a number of experts tell us, it is running at 70% to 75% support for this to be brought into law, to be brought into the modern age, really, and to bring us into line with a number of other jurisdictions. I will not deny that a number of people are opposed to this, but in fact the vast majority of Canadians want it. Again, we are at serious risk of not seeing this happen should we have a snap election because of the conduct of the government.

Similarly, there was a fairly small bill that dealt with alleged violent crime and people seeking bail who were accused of violent crimes where handguns or guns were used. It got broad support from all of the opposition parties, as well as the government, obviously. It was sitting in the Senate. Now it is at risk of perhaps never becoming law until after the next election.

I want the Canadian public to understand the kinds of politics that the government is prepared to play with on what are very crucial issues. In some cases, they are life and death issues.

In order for the Conservatives to make their agenda work for them, to be tough on crime and to beat their chests, the whole macho thing, they need to be able to attack the Liberals in particular for being soft on crime and for delaying. That is not accurate. None of the opposition parties has delayed these bills at all.

The omnibus bill is made up of five former bills, as I have already mentioned. The three I have mentioned involve mandatory minimums for serious violent crime, the age of consent, and the provision with regard to bail. The other two components deal with impaired driving as the result of drug consumption, for both licit and illicit drugs, as well as a provision in that particular part of the bill for doing away, reasonably and I expect effectively, with what is more commonly known as the two-beer defence.

Quite frankly, in my opinion, it is somewhat of a scandal that this was ever allowed to develop as a defence. Basically, it significantly undermines the use of the breathalyzer and that technology. I believe we have the right wording now to do away with that defence when it is inappropriate and still allow, in those extreme cases where for whatever reason the breathalyzer technology has broken down or has not been applied properly, that people would be able to defend under those circumstances and prove that in fact they were not impaired by the consumption of alcohol.

The final bill and the one, quite frankly, that gave us the greatest problem is the bill that dealt with the dangerous offender provisions. Before I go to that, I want to raise the whole issue. As we saw yesterday in the vote at report stage, the NDP in fact, with one exception, supported the bill. We believe that in spite of the dangerous offender provisions, and I am going to come back to that in a minute, the balance of the bill had provisions in it that either we had ourselves brought forward in the last election in our political platform or were prepared to support the government on because we felt that it was in the best interests of Canada. It actually either protected people or met the requirement of having to make amendments to the Criminal Code where it was long past needing those amendments.

It is interesting that just yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen there was a summary of a report that came out of the United States. It is called, in part, “Unlocking America”. The report was done by a number of well-known criminologists and sociologists. It is a very extensive report. It is consistent with a large number of other bodies of evidence in the United States on the imbalance that has been created by successive governments in the United States, primarily at the state level, in terms of the states' incarceration and criminal law practices.

Always the issue when we are looking at the criminal justice system, at civil liberties and human rights in light of the criminal justice system, and at protecting society, which of course is the absolute first criteria, is that there is this balance. How do we best protect society?

To do so, obviously, we use the criminal justice system. We have crimes and we have punishments, but equally important, and one perhaps could argue much more important, is the whole question of how society prevents crimes from ever happening. It is generally accepted, I think, that there are two ways of doing that.

One is to have preventative programs particularly directed at youth so they never enter into a lifestyle that leads them to committing crimes, both petty and serious, and, second, it is also to have a society that has reasonably strong enforcement to guarantee that the laws are in fact there and are enforced to protect society.

Every time there is a conviction, I like to think that it is in effect is a failure on the part of society for not having proper prevention and enforcement infrastructure in our society. Maybe it is not utopian to believe that we will ever get to that point, but it is utopian to believe that at this time we would be able to prevent all crime, so ultimately we need that system in place whereby incarceration or other penalties can be invoked.

Obviously the ideal to strive for, the perfection that we should all strive for as legislators, is to prevent a crime from ever occurring in the first place so that we do not have victims and also so we fulfill our responsibility of protecting all of our citizens, all of our residents of Canada, to the absolute maximum.

The “Unlocking America” report shows what the Americans have done in a large number of states, although not all of them by any means, because they did some comparisons. They have struck the role for government to play, a role very much on the incarceration and punitive side. The report, which is consistent with any number of other reports that have come out of the U.S., shows the ineffectiveness of that. It is ineffective and very expensive.

It is interesting to see the comparison between some of the states that have followed more closely the Canadian model up to this point over the last 20 or 30 years. The model showed that those states had lower incarceration rates, but with a couple of exceptions the states with the lower incarceration rates also had lower crime rates, and vice versa, so that those states that had particularly high incarceration rates had the highest crime rates.

A good comparison is that between the state of New York and the state of California. The state of California, as we all know, did the three strikes and out policy and all sorts of other very heavy-handed incarceration and sentencing policies. Its crime rate was consistently higher over the last two decades than that of the state of New York, which took many more steps with regard to prevention and enforcement and was much more effective at bringing its crime rates down.

There are a couple of statistics I want to mention. One is that the report looked back more than 30 years ago to what the crime rate was in the United States, to what it went to and to where it is now, and also at what the incarceration rate was at that point and what it is now. The incarceration rate increased eightfold over that period in the United States. Obviously the population during that period would have increased by probably about 30%. The incarceration rate went up 800% and the population growth was perhaps about 35%.

The crime rate is almost identical in the United States today to what it was in 1973. That was the year of comparison used. It is almost identical. It went up and it went down, dramatically in some states, New York state being a good example, but the incarceration rate had absolutely no impact on the crime rate in the United States even though it went up 800%.

The other thing that stood out through that whole period of time, so it had no effect on the crime rate, is that it is now costing the United States $60 billion a year for all the people it has incarcerated. The United States has an incarceration rate that is highest in the world. It is even higher than China's. China has roughly three to four times the population of the United States. The United States has 2.2 million people incarcerated at the present time and China has 1.5 million.

The incarceration rate in the United States compared to Canada is about 7:1. Our crime rate is about one-quarter of what it is in the United States.

The point I am trying to make by bringing forth these facts is that we need to be very careful in Canada as to how we deal with crime. As I have said, the greater majority of this bill is a bill that we looked at and said that, yes, these are good provisions, these are provisions that make sense in terms of building a fair, equitable justice system that protects our society.

We need to be very careful that we do not go down the route of the United States in terms of this excessive use of incarceration and punitive process that produces no effective reduction in the crime rate and, at the same time, is hugely expensive for the taxpayer.

That brings me to the final part of Bill C-2 that gave us the greatest concern. We believe that the part in this bill that deals with the dangerous offender section of the Criminal Code is already in the code and the amendments that the government was making, in particular, the reverse onus that it was bringing in, was offensive to the charter. We had crossed the line. We had not struck that proper balance. We were going the U.S. side. We were going to incarcerate, for the rest of their lives in the vast majority of cases, everybody who was designated a dangerous offender, which would increase our prison population to some significant degree.

The ultimate conclusion is whether we support the entire bill when we have this provision that is so offensive to the charter or, quite frankly, is so offensive to just common sense that it will not work. It is a useless tool because it will be struck down by the courts at some point in the future.

At the same time, if we oppose that, we give up the rest of the bill that has the age of consent. Even the mandatory minimums that are in there and some of the provisions around impaired driving are badly needed in our society.

Faced with that decision, and after much debate in our caucus, we ultimately had to support it and, unfortunately, abdicate our responsibility as legislators to pass proper legislation and expect that at some point down the road the courts will strike down that part of the dangerous offender/reverse onus part that is so offensive. We are not comfortable, quite frankly, with that but we are here to make decisions and that is the decision that our caucus has made.

I want to make one final point with respect to a question I raised with the Bloc. It is a question of how the government has approached this. Some parts of the bill will be delayed even after it gets through the Senate because the provinces, which need to administer parts of this, the impaired driving in particular, are not ready for it. I think that is a mistake on the part of the government. It should have been ready with the provinces to implement that. It is a section of the code that needs to be amended and needs to be implemented as rapidly as possible and we have had no explanation as to why it delayed on that.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are too kind. I get the impression that there are some people who like me. That is very kind. I want to thank my colleagues.

In the Bloc Québécois, we have looked closely at the primary offences and assessed their gravity. We are not taking this lightly and we have asked ourselves questions about the reverse onus of proof. This means that when someone commits two offences on this list and then commits a third offence—which is cause for concern—they will have to explain why they should not be designated a dangerous offender.

The Crown is never required in court to present a dangerous offender designation. It must inform the prosecutor—because this requires the prosecutor's consent—and the court whether or not it intends to present a designation in dangerous cases or not.

The committee was informed that this could require a great deal of work in terms of the evidence and physically assembling the file. We were even given the figure of 300 hours for the Crown and 300 hours for the defence, for a grand total of 600 hours.

I would like to add as well that there are already some provisions in the Criminal Code that involve reverse onus of proof. For example, if someone is sitting in the driver’s seat and an offence is committed, that person is deemed to be the driver and owner of the vehicle, even if it is stopped.

There is also an onus of proof regarding prostitution in the Criminal Code. If one associates with persons involved in offences against sections 210, 211, 212, or 213 of the Criminal Code, one is deemed to be living off the avails of prostitution. There are six or seven examples of reverse onus that have given rise to decisions, such as Downey in regard to prostitution, Smith in regard to firearms and White in regard to the possession and trafficking of narcotics. We obviously do not want reverse onus to become a common practice.

Both the Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers and the Bar were concerned that reverse onus could potentially be prejudicial to one of the rights guaranteed in the Charter, that is, the right to remain silent.

It is only logical. If someone is in a situation where he has committed two offences and then commits a third, there is a declaration to designate him as a dangerous offender. That person necessarily has to defend himself. His lawyer can conduct his defence without having him testify, by having other people testify or calling expert witnesses. However, the people on the committee were concerned that this could be prejudicial to the right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence. There were even some witnesses who worried that it could be contrary to section 7 on liberty and cruel and unusual punishment. Other witnesses said that it could infringe on section 10 of the Charter on arbitrary detention.

It is obvious, therefore, why the Bloc Québécois took Bill C-2 very seriously. We had an excellent discussion in caucus and our colleagues argued their points of view, but we ultimately came to the conclusion that, on the balance of the advantages and disadvantages, it was best to support Bill C-2. However, I want to warn the government against any more attempts to introduce bills with reverse onus of proof.

I would like to congratulate all my colleagues who worked so hard on Bill C-2 in committee.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was sure you would remember.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to finish my speech. I was about to explain that the government lumped together the five justice bills it had introduced previously to produce the new Bill C-2, which the parliamentary committee studied very thoroughly.

As I said, even though the Bloc supports Bill C-2, we wanted to make a few changes. Before I was interrupted by question period, I told the House that the Bloc Québécois has, in the past, expressed significant reservations about imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

Bloc Québécois members have long argued that this is not an effective way to fight poverty. We are convinced that we must instead provide police with the means to conclude investigations. The issue here is more the effectiveness of legislation and the fear it inspires. We believe that some offenders, some people who might find themselves on the wrong side of the law, will be deterred more by the possibility of going to court than by the mandatory minimum sentences they could receive. In fact, the witnesses we heard in committee explained that people do not necessarily read the Criminal Code before they commit an offence. That is why, historically, we have been extremely wary of mandatory minimum sentences.

We also analyzed the whole issue of the age of consent, which has now become the age of protection. My colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant was responsible for this issue. Very early in this debate, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, in cooperation with his caucus, wanted to include a close in age clause to make sure school-aged children engaging in non-exploitative sexual activity would not be liable to be arrested.

We also looked at the whole issue of reverse onus, not at the trial stage, but at the judicial interim release stage, as provided for in section 515 of the Criminal Code. The government was proposing reverse onus, which we were told was already common practice. In fact, according to the experts who came to talk to us in committee, people who committed offences involving firearms were not subject to release at the hearing stage.

Naturally, when we studied Bill C-2 in committee, we examined the whole issue of impaired driving. I am not talking about a particular departmental policy here, but about Bill C-2, which introduces three main innovations.

The bill will make it mandatory to stop and submit to tests. Previously, this was optional under the Criminal Code. There will be two main types of tests. An individual may first undergo standard field sobriety tests at the roadside. Then, he or she may be examined at the police station by a drug recognition expert. We were told that this practice existed in some American states and that some people in Quebec had even received this training.

Of course, we are not minimizing the seriousness of impaired driving. Just this morning, the Bloc Québécois lent its support—enlightened support, I might add—to a motion introduced by the parliamentary secretary to study a number of important issues, because we know our fellow citizens are worried about them.

Indeed, the bill that raised the most questions for us, even though we support Bill C-2, was the bill dealing with reverse onus for dangerous offenders.

As we all know, the Criminal Code has had provisions concerning dangerous offenders since 1947. Our seniors, for instance, sometimes used the expression “habitual criminal”. My mother said that, although never in reference to any of her own children, of course. But she talked about habitual criminals in general terms. I was able to make a link between that expression, which has passed on to the vocabulary of another generation, and a provision in the Criminal Code.

We had some questions. Of course, in matters of law, a reverse onus of proof is always very serious. The main offences are: weapons trafficking, possession of a firearm, unauthorized import and export, discharging a firearm, attempted murder, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault with a weapon, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery committed with violence and a weapon and extortion.

It seems I am out of time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the consent of the House to continue speaking for another five minutes. I would then be able to deliver my conclusion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this third reading stage of Bill C-2. I would like, perhaps, to correct a number of perceptions that the government has done nothing to discourage in recent days concerning the work of the opposition.

First, we know that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2. In fact, if my information is correct, I believe that our support is unanimous. I do not imagine that any of our colleagues will be defecting. However, we know that friendship is a fragile thing that we must always work to preserve.

I said that the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-2. Any kind of offence could make even a man over 40 wish for young offender status.

In a more serious vein, we were presented with a number of bills. Of 12 bills that the government introduced since coming into office, six received royal assent, four made their way to the Senate and the remaining two were to be examined in committee. Naturally we had reservations about the dangerous offenders’ bill, which is a serious bill and I will come back to it. We still have those reservations. There was also Bill C-32 on impaired driving.

When the government suggests that the opposition did not work diligently, some explanation is in order. When a party has been in government for two years—not quite two years even—and you have succeeded in obtaining royal assent for six bills, when half of your legislative agenda has been adopted, I think the government’s criticism is not well founded. The Bloc Québécois has worked very hard in the Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will continue to work hard in the future.

I know that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will be speaking about this in a few minutes, but there is a problem of philosophy. For a democrat—let me put it the way René Lévesque did—the end cannot justify the means. Even if we know that judicial practice in our courts should be changed, my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will agree with me that when a person is held in detention before trial, for example, and they want to subtract two days from any sentence for each day in detention, there is perhaps something that we need to look at.

If the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin were with us today, he would join with me in recognizing that the government should have made tackling the parole system a priority. This is an area where the support of the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue is very firm, very strong, and not negotiable. You can be sure that I take comfort in this.

So I was talking about the question of sentencing, about release after one-sixth of the sentence. If a judge in a court of law, with defence counsel, Crown counsel and a jury as provided under the Criminal Code, has imposed a sentence, it seems that allowing the accused to be released after one-sixth of the sentence is very soon. There are philosophical questions that concern us, that cry out for answers. We are not prepared to accept everything in Bill C-2.

Generally speaking, I think we must remember that crime is dropping. There was an increase in crime in the 1960s and 1970s, both property crime and crimes against the person. This continued until the 1990s, with small variations. After that, crime has fallen. There have been peaks, for example in 1994, 1995 and 1996, when we had the whole phenomenon of organized crime. Some of my colleagues may recall this.

In fact, I owe this to history. To be truthful, I must point out that the Bloc Québécois was the first to call for anti-gang legislation. I recall very clearly having discussions with senior officials who wanted to dismantle the organized crime rings. At that point, there were 38 criminal biker gangs known to law enforcement agencies. The main one was the Hell’s Angels. The obvious face of organized crime in our communities was the Hell’s Angels.

Some senior officials wanted to dismantle the organized crime rings using the conspiracy provisions. The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will recall that this was section 476 of the Criminal Code, if memory serves me.

Obviously, in the Bloc Québécois, we were convinced that this was not possible. Why? Take the example of Maurice “Mom” Boucher. While he gave the orders, he was not the one who carried them out. There was a gap in the chain of command that meant that it was extremely difficult to lay charges against the organized crime kingpins, even though the people responsible for surveillance techniques, even though the law enforcement agencies, the Montreal police service, the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada and the RCMP, were able to identify who the kingpins of those criminal organizations were.

It was the Bloc Québécois, through the wisdom it has always had—wisdom that is perhaps not innate, because it took a lot of work to gain it—speaking in the voice you are listening to now, that took action to deal with this. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles also worked very hard on it, as did the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I think I can bring back fond memories in this House if I mention the name of Michel Bellehumeur. He was appointed to the bench because of his personal talent and his intellectual breadth. The member for Berthier—Montcalm had all the qualifications needed to be appointed to the bench, and today he is a judge of the Court of Québec, Criminal Division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake brings up a good point. I just requested a copy of Bill C-2. The member's remarks are dealing specifically with issues around illegal narcotics. I believe that is a different government bill that has been introduced, so I will just remind the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca to keep his remarks confined to Bill C-2 which is before us.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-2. This is third reading where we should be specifically discussing the points of the bill. The member has just proven that he is filibustering and helping out the opposition parties in trying to delay the passage of Bill C-2. I ask that he gets back on topic and discusses the bill that is before us right now.

[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--

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing forth Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act. My constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country have specifically supported our position with regard to the age of consent to look after the youth in our community.

As a member of city council for nine years prior to being elected in January 2006 to the House, I know our mayor and council had sent several letters to the previous Liberal government, but it did not get the job done.

Why did the opposition not support it in the past and why is it stalled in the Liberal dominated Senate? The fact is the bill has been debated and we need to get it passed. Canadians have asked for it and the time has come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I hope he will listen to me very carefully as well.

I have a problem with the bill. Yes, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. Nonetheless, two things bother me about it. Will the government address them?

My first point is this. Does the government realize that it is not by passing tougher laws with minimum sentences that we are going to reduce crime? Does the government realize that getting out of prison, not going to prison, is the problem? Convicts do not serve their entire sentence. That is the problem. Does this government realize that? Is this heading anywhere?

Since I do not have enough time to ask another question, I will go on to my second point, on former Bill C-32. The parliamentary secretary knows that I sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As a criminal lawyer, I have one question: do we have the tools? In fact, does the department have the tools? Do the police have the tools to detect whether drivers are impaired by drugs? That is the problem with former bill C-32. Now, it is being lumped into Bill C-2. What is going to be done? Is there anything planned? Has anything been implemented or do we have to adopt the bill to see what happens?

I will close by saying that my primary concern is whether this government understands that getting out of prison, not going to prison, is the problem. Criminals are released too quickly. That is what people are complaining about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be keeping my remarks shorter than my allotted time for the simple reason that Canadians have already witnessed what took place in the preceding time.

The bill we are debating passed last night by a vote of over 200 to 1 and yet today the Bloc is delaying passage at third reading. I implore all members of the House to ensure a speedy passage of our government's tackling violent crime act.

There is no greater responsibility for us as parliamentarians and for the Canadian government than to protect the most vulnerable in society. Canadians from coast to coast and probably in all of our ridings have demanded changes to the criminal justice system to better protect victims, to better protect innocent Canadians and to better protect all of us from criminals, those who prey on other individuals, which is why we introduced Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

This bill has been thoroughly reviewed by a committee. It is made up of five different components, most of which were thoroughly considered in the last Parliament and, in this Parliament, the bill was thoroughly considered by a committee and voted on by this House.

The bill tackles the dangerous offender provisions in that it would make our streets safer from those who are the most serious offenders, those who have shown an appetite for repeat violent offences, for recidivism, the very worst of the worst offenders of a violent or a sexual nature.

The bill also addresses gun crimes, bringing in mandatory minimum sentences for those who, in the most serious of cases, use a firearm to commit an offence. I think we should all agree that we need to send a clear message and take seriously gun crimes. Canadians are telling us to do this.

Another component of the bill that we have been hearing from coast to coast in cities across Canada is reverse onus on bail for those who are charged with a gun crime. Too often a serious crime is committed with a firearm and the person is out on the street in a very short period of time awaiting trial. In many cases, the person finds a victim at the local convenience store. Obviously, that shocks the victim and it should shock all of us. We need a reverse onus on bail for gun crimes.

We need to give our police the tools they need to tackle impaired driving, drug impaired driving and to use new technologies to the greatest benefit possible to make our streets safer.

It is also important that we raise the age of protection. It is unbelievable that this was not done over a decade ago. The previous Liberal government always refused to raise the age of protection even though victims' groups and child advocacy groups implored the Liberals to do so in order to protect children. This bill takes action. This bill does so.

Our constituents are asking us to take these measures without delay to make Canadian streets safer. I am asking all parliamentarians to look at the record of what has been done and look at the work that has gone into this bill, the tackling violent crime act. I ask each member to consider the safety of our streets, our communities and our children and to pass this bill as quickly as possible from this place. I also ask the senators to not allow, as we saw in the last Parliament, our criminal justice legislation to be bogged down in the Senate but to allow for a quick study and quick passage of what is a very important bill that is long overdue.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

moved that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Canadian Heritage

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this motion. I suppose that the debate on it will end soon.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when it studied the role of television and especially CBC television in the 21st century, when it debated the Canadian Television and Cable Production Fund, and when we made changes to the name and orientation of the CRTC. I had the pleasure and honour, therefore, of touring around Canada for the hearings that the committee held. Today I would like to tell the House a bit about what happened at these hearings and say that we should show some respect for the committee members by taking their work into account. We should also show some respect by allowing them to present the results of all the consultations they conducted over nearly a year and a half.

I agree with the motion introduced today by my colleague from Ahuntsic. When it comes to the interpretation of Canadian policy on broadcasting and telecommunications, we should be able to submit changes to the House by way of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We cannot simply overlook or disregard all the expertise that the members of this committee accumulated in the course of all their deliberations over a year and a half.

The minister and parliamentary secretary cannot simply ignore everything that was said at these hearings and all the work that the committee did. I might say in passing that throughout the entire tour we made across Canada, there were two members who were always present for all the hearings. They were the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay and me.

The parliamentary secretary did not show up even once, whether in Yellowknife, British Columbia and Toronto. He was never there. So far as I know—and people can check—the Conservative members on the committee at the time seemed to change quite often. It was a crying shame to see their lack of interest in the hearings of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

In nearly all the major cities we visited where we had the opportunity to discuss cable television and telecommunications, we heard from communities seeking our protection, wanting the assurance of continued service and not wanting to be at the mercy of foreign interests. I would remind hon. members that, when we discussed the Canadian Television Fund, Shaw Communications came up. This is a Canadian company that wants to draw heavily on U.S. programming. In committee, Shaw told us that Canadian English programming was boring and that they were in business to make money. According to them, making money requires U.S. programming. The committee records will show this.

At the time of the discussions on the Canadian Television Fund, we knew there had been an agreement in place between Shaw Communications, the CRTC and the minister to the effect that Shaw Communications would continue to make these monthly payments, but there was an agreement that has never been totally revealed.

It is my suspicion, in fact, having sat on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, that the act of deregulation, of opening the door wide to American culture through cable distribution companies such as Shaw Communications, is not totally dissociated from the agreement entered into with that company.

With the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage we toured Canada in order to meet with members of francophone communities outside Quebec, in particular those in Yellowknife, Vancouver and Manitoba, as well as with aboriginal communities. They were all extremely surprised to learn that U.S. culture was coming into Canada freely, via radio and television stations, and that no effort whatsoever was being made to protect this Canadian culture. As a Bloc Québécois member, I called upon them to react, to do something, because they were getting stabbed in the back by their own government's desire for deregulation, which would lead to their losing jobs, though they did not realize this yet. It must not be lost sight of that Canadian culture creates thousands of jobs, especially in television program and dramatic series production, on top of all the others that depend on culture. Thousands of jobs are at stake.

Here in Quebec, we are relatively protected. We have Vidéotron, which findings show has helped us tremendously in disseminating our Quebec culture. However, for people living in the rest of Canada, their culture is based on the culture of the French Canadians. They have so little culture that they had to borrow our woollen sash, our national “Rocket”, our Canadian horse, and even our maple syrup, to create their own culture. They have so little culture or ideas that they are now leaving the door wide open to American culture, with programming that is always shoving crime down our throats. And speaking of crime, to get back to Bill C-2, and I am speaking to the parliamentary secretary here, we might reduce crime if we paid attention to Canadian culture.

This is all just a big show today, for the simple reason that it is not something new. For a year and a half, the attitude of the ministers and members, the government members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, have demonstrated how little importance they place on culture. To them, culture can be bought and sold, and in any event there is no Canadian culture. As for Quebec culture, that is not important and we must not talk about it.

When I have travelled in other Canadian provinces, in other countries, I have told people that Quebec was a nation and that it had to protect its culture. I told them that in Quebec, we were lucky because we long ago joined forces.

I do not understand how Canadians in the other provinces can not have seen what this government is up to, buying American culture or being prepared to let it in. They have made an agreement, that is clear.

I would like to point out to all Canadian citizens that they can look this up in all the debates of the House of Commons and the committee. They will realize that they are being had.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

First of all, why are we introducing it now? Believe me, when I was here back in April before this committee, if you had told me that we still wouldn't have had passed the raising of the age of protection from 14 to 16, I wouldn't have believed you. I would have said, “What's the problem here?”

I appreciate that a lot of time was spent at committees on mandatory sentences for people who commit serious firearms offences. But as to why the Youth Criminal Justice Act comes now, well, guess what, I'm still trying to get those protections for those young people in Bill C-2. It's been a much longer process than I would have liked or have even predicted. Again, if you'd asked me last April whether we would have gotten.... I would have said I'm sure we'll get these things through.

With respect to our timing for the introduction of these, as I say to my colleagues, we're just getting started; get these things passed and we'll get to more criminal justice legislation in this country.

I think those constituents of yours would be very pleased to hear that, because we have a lot to do. We've done a lot in the criminal justice area, but I certainly want to do more.

In terms of—

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

Thank you, Minister. I'm very happy to see you, because it has been some time since we have seen each other at a committee meeting. I would first of all personally like to congratulate you for having tabled Bill C-2, which is finally ready.

On the other hand, when I look at the estimates, I always look to see if there is a balance between "repression" and rehabilitation.

I'm very honoured to be part of this government. I practised law for 34 years, particularly in the area of criminal law. Never, ever in the past has the federal government presented us with what you have done: an ombudsman for victims. We never had that in the past. We neglected victims.

On another point, your budget introduced a very particular idea: support for youth—or at least people who are taking drugs—who could be rehabilitated rather than being put in jail. These people could become "normal" again, if they compare themselves with what they were before. This once again is an issue of help for victims, for people who are really in a sorry situation.

I also noticed that your budget provides for additional funds for the Commission of Inquiry dealing with the investigation following the bomb attack on Air India flight 182. We must not forget that this dates back to 1985. It is the biggest air disaster that Canada has experienced, and there were 395 victims. I am proud that our government is investing in it.

However, I would particularly like to hear you on one specific point, because we are before the television cameras today. Some people have a tendency to say that we are repressive, whereas our government is the only one, up until now, to have created the position of ombudsman for victims and to have provided for rehabilitation when people have a drug problem. I would like you to explain this problem to us in more detail, because I feel that we are taking care of victims, and the proof is there that your budget provides funds for victims' rehabilitation. There never has been an ombudsman in the past. We are the first government to have created that position.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Minister, it was interesting, today the agenda on the order paper in the House started off with Bill C-2, and it was moving on to Bill C-25 and Bill C-26. We were expecting to debate those things in the House today, but unfortunately the Bloc brought in a concurrence motion and is blocking and stymying that debate.

I know it's a frustrating thing for my constituents and for many people who want to see the law and order agenda move forward. It's certainly a disappointment that it's not being moved forward today in the House.

I'll just give you a little bit of context for my questions on aboriginal justice. Hobbema is in my constituency, and of course there are a lot of issues in the Hobbema First Nation, in the four bands there.

I'm just curious about the perspective you brought up about the aboriginal justice and some of the youth crime prevention strategies. I understand that the mandate for the aboriginal justice strategy ended March 31, 2007. I notice from the supplementary estimates that the Department of Justice is requesting $3.69 million for the aboriginal justice strategy, and that's in addition to the $14.5 million over two years from Budget 2007.

I'm wondering if you can explain to me why that amount is needed, where it's going, and what importance and relevance that aboriginal justice strategy has.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was rather telling of that member when she was on her feet a couple of minutes ago, on a slightly different topic but nonetheless related, and said that she and the Bloc Québécois did not have the same way of looking at the world. Those words were singularly prophetic of the fact that those members are debating something that does not require debate. The motion is totally ultra vires. The motion is nothing that the House can actually seize upon and do anything about.

What this debate is about is the Bloc Québécois attempting to shut down the debate on Bill C-2 on tackling violent crime. Those members went through the motions of voting in favour of it. Why are they trying to stop the tackling violent crime debate?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act, as approved by Parliament, sets out the broadcasting policy for Canada. The CRTC's responsibility is to regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system, with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy for Canada as set out in the act.

The CRTC cannot change the act and the government has no intention of providing the CRTC with that power. The CRTC is a regulatory body that operates independently of the government. The member of the committee from the Bloc Québécois is fully aware of that, which is why it is so deeply regrettable that the Bloc members and apparently the NDP members, although we will see what they do with their speeches, but they seem to be absolutely set on the issue of stopping Bill C-2, which is the only reason for this debate.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the NDP member try to justify the fact that he is trying to delay the tackling violent crimes act, which is exactly what this so-called debate is about.

Having been an expert person on the committee, the member knows full well that this motion is absolutely useless. The committee ended up passing a motion that is ultra vires. It is beyond the ability of the committee, the governor in council and beyond the ability of anyone, except to amend the Broadcasting Act. Surely he is not talking about amending the Broadcasting Act.

I say again that Canadians should note that the Bloc Québécois does not care about tackling violent crime. If we hear a long speech from the member who just stood about absolutely nothing, we will also know that the NDP, in spite of the fact that only one of its members stood last night to vote against Bill C-2, when its members stood and made it appear as those they were actually serious about tackling violent crime, it was a hypocritical act for them to stand and make it appear as though they were actually in favour of Bill C-2. I would say to the Liberals exactly the same thing.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite important for Canadians to realize what this debate right now is all about. It is about the Bloc Québécois, that does not want to discuss the tackling violent crime act, just delaying. There is absolutely no reason for this motion to be here.

The member knows full well that according to the Broadcasting Act there could never be a broadcasting policy directive that would not go to the committee for consideration. Therefore, the motion is absolutely useless.

What is very instructive is that last night on Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, members of this House voted in favour of the bill by a vote of 222 to 1. I am not sure whether the member voted in favour of it or whether she was in the House but the fact was that the Bloc Québécois, in putting on a show last night that it was actually serious about crime, stood and made it appear as though it were in favour of the tackling violent crime act.

It will be instructive to see what happens with the NDP and the Liberals as it relates to this motion. If they stand and continue this farce that is presently going on, this debate that is absolutely unnecessary because the motion carries absolutely no value, it will tell Canadians everything they need to know.

Is the NDP serious about tackling violent crime? Are the Liberals serious about tackling violent crime? We know that the Bloc is not, in spite of the fact that it stood and voted for it last night. What are the NDP and the Liberals going to do? This debate should end.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

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

moved that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be concurred in.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group. No. 1.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Don Valley East. We have to deal with a couple of the issues with report stage then the hon. member can continue.

I would like to deliver a revised ruling with respect to the report stage of Bill C-2. It has come to my attention that of the five motions originally received in amendment for the report stage of Bill C-2, Motions Nos. 1 and 5 are in fact consequential to Motion No. 2.

Accordingly I will allow both Motions Nos. 1 and 5 to be selected and moved. However, I note that they will be in the same group as Motion No. 2 and that the vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to these two newly selected motions.

A revised voting pattern is available at the table.

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--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at report stage motion on Motion No. 2, and generally on Bill C-2, which is an omnibus bill consolidating five previously introduced justice bills.

I would encourage members to look back to the last session to the speech of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh in which he gave his, I think, respected views to the House about the problem with introducing 10 or so bills in sequence, all of which would have to go to the justice committee, which could not possibly deal with them all at once.

It would have to deal with them one at a time. By doing that, the government was basically frustrating the process. We should have had an omnibus bill right from the beginning of the last session in order to include some of these items where the same witnesses could have appeared and the same or similar Criminal Code amendments or whatever might have been introduced.

I want to encourage members to look at that speech because what is happening right now with Bill C-2 is exactly what the member said. I think that is why this House honoured that member as the most knowledgeable member of Parliament in a recent survey. I congratulate him on that. It was well-deserved and earned, and I think his record shows it.

I asked the member earlier about whether or not there were certain conditions or criteria or exceptions that would be taken into account with regard to sentencing and penalties as prescribed under the Criminal Code. I specifically mentioned fetal alcohol spectrum disorder not only because it is a matter that I am interested in, and I have tried to do some work on, but because there is clear evidence and testimonials by lawyers and by judges that as much as half of the people who appear before the criminal courts suffer from alcohol-related birth defects.

People who suffer from alcohol-related birth defects, like some form of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, have a problem understanding the difference between right and wrong. They have brain damage. They are in a situation where it is a permanent condition. They are in a situation which cannot be rehabilitated, and yet we have a criminal justice system which says that if people do something wrong, they go to jail. They go there, and what do we do? We put them in a program of rehabilitation

I see a tremendous contradiction in suggesting that somehow all persons in Canada who may run afoul of the laws of Canada and be guilty of a criminal offence have to be subject to the same identical sanctions and criteria for those sanctions. There are certain circumstances for which I believe they should not be.

I wanted to put that on the table because it is not good enough to just have a slogan of “Let's get tough on crime”. It is not good enough for me. I do not think it is good enough for Canadians. We have to be smart on crime. We need to spend as much time on crime prevention as we do on tough penalties and hope that it is a deterrence.

When we talk about mandatory minimums, we are not touching the prescribed maximums. They are still there. They are a discretion, but when we have mandatory minimums, what we do is in fact impinge on the judicial discretion.

Every case is different. I thought that under the laws of Canada, we would have a system which would be responsive to the facts on a case by case basis, taking into account that a crime has occurred, but what were the circumstances?

We do know if there is mental incompetence, there are certain possibilities. We do know if there is coercion or there is some other problem, that it may be taken into account in sentencing, but when we get into the situation of mandatory minimums, it gives the judge no latitude whatsoever to have sentences which would be lower and prescribe, in lieu of that, some other treatment, rehabilitation or appropriate assistance because this person had some extraordinary circumstances.

I wanted to raise that. The previous Liberal government brought in mandatory minimums. There is a level, but we should not raise them to levels in which the mandatory minimums are so high that we in fact impinge on judicial discretion.

I have given this speech before, but I wanted to reiterate that I have no problem with being firm on crime, to strengthen the dangerous offenders provisions for criminals, for bad people, for repeat offenders. Those are important. Canadians expect that. Our legal system must reflect that. We have to deal with those things and we have to have the tools, but what is being created here is somewhat more rigid and maybe not as effective as it otherwise might be.

I raise it for members to be considering as we do this. I am pretty sure that we are going to have support for the omnibus bill, but I think that we are going to always have to be vigilant about what we have done, and what the implications and results are of taking those steps. We have to make sure that we are vigilant enough to make sure that maybe we have gone too far. It is now going to be up to the legislators to be able to monitor what they have done. Hopefully we have not gone too far, but I am still concerned about the issue of judicial discretion.

Bill C-10, which is part of this omnibus bill, deals with the mandatory minimum penalties. It creates two new offences: an indictable offence for breaking and entering to steal a firearm, and an indictable offence of robbery to steal a firearm.

Since there are five bills here, it is impossible for any member to deal with the entire omnibus bill. It is almost impossible for a committee to properly do some of these things when so much is piled on. Where is the prioritization here? There are certainly things that had to be done. There is no disagreement in this place. It could have been fast-tracked through this place.

There is no reason why some of these bills had to be in this omnibus bill. They should have been brought back at the same stage of legislation, and they should have been passed promptly and swiftly, sent to the Senate, returned here, given royal assent and become law in Canada.

I do not know whether there is other work to do in terms of regulations or other matters, but when we have something that is the right thing to do, let us take the most expeditious and the least litigious route to get there. What we have done is taken the longest route and the most convoluted route to get important legislation through, and I do not understand why. What is the motivation of the government to do this?

It piled on 10 bills in the last Parliament. We could not possibly do it, yet the Prime Minister, in the last press conference I saw him give on this, said the Liberals delayed the bill for 1,000 days. We have not been here 1,000 days. I am pretty sure we have not. That also is calendar days and it includes the five months that the House of Commons was not even sitting and could not hear these bills, although a committee could choose to sit outside of the time. It did not take into account the fact that when the justice committee is sitting and dealing with a bill, the other nine bills are waiting to be dealt with. We have to deal with one at a time.

It appears that there is a strategy simply to keep bills in front of this place, to continue to parrot throwaway lines like “I am tough on crime”, but not to deliver effective legislation on a timely basis, which is what we need. That is the issue here.

The Conservatives think Canadians are going to just roll over and say, “Yes, we want to be tough on crime”. They better understand what underlies that because we have some issues here. There are not enough of us, I do not believe, to defeat this omnibus bill, but I think that this approach and what the government has done with regard to these bills has been such that the public interest has not been properly served.

I have a lot more to say and I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to continue on for another 10 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, under our amendments, a convicted criminal must be imprisoned and excluded from a conditional sentence. Of course, it is for theft convictions and other similar offences that these amendments should appear in the legislation. This is why we are calling once again for these six amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois to be included in Bill C-2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As I said in my speech, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-2 in principle.

However, we would have liked to see Bill C-2 incorporate the six amendments we proposed. The Conservative Party put forward its version, its bill, which is similar to the American model and does not take into account our amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty. We posed this question to the member's party last week, but we did not get much of a satisfactory answer.

What is before us today is an amendment which the NDP moved to take out the most onerous provisions of the dangerous offender part of Bill C-2, which is the provision that has a reverse onus. It flies in the face of the historical way we have done criminal law in this country and in England for centuries and centuries. Yet the Bloc has signalled that it is going to vote against that amendment.

I wonder if the member could attempt once again to explain the rationale for his party's voting against what appears to be a very sensible amendment to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by combining five bills into one, that is, Bill C-2, the Conservative minority government is clearly pursing an ideological approach that verges on repression, one that is similar to the American model.

The Conservative Party minority should have taken this much more seriously and taken a democratic approach, that is, it should have considered the Bloc Québécois' six amendments, as well as others, all meant to improve such a bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important area that we have been talking about. The hon. member talked about more than the report stage motion.

A number of bills which were halted on prorogation of the first session of this Parliament had the opportunity to be reinstated at the same stage of the legislative process that they had reached on prorogation. There are five bills which were not reinstated at the relevant stage of the legislative process, and instead, their subject matter has gone into an omnibus bill, Bill C-2, and the process has started all over again.

Would the member care to comment on the apparent rationale of why we should delay these bills from moving forward as swiftly as possible by putting them in a brand new bill? What is the motivation in the member's view?

[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.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, also known as the tackling violent crime act.

I have significant problems with this bill and with the Conservative government's approach to crime in general. The Conservatives are adopting a U.S. style crime agenda that says they are tough on crime but begs the question of what measures are actually effective in reducing crime and making Canadians safer. There is a lot of sloganeering but very little that shows these measures would actually make Canadians safer and give us more effective crime legislation.

The measures in Bill C-2 focus on punishment and incarceration. We know this is the least effective part of an approach to reducing crime in our society. Incarceration does not work to reduce crime and more prisons do not reduce crime. The evidence shows that, at best, there is no relationship between increasing incarceration and reducing crime or, at worst, that these approaches increase crime and become counterproductive.

Many U.S. jurisdictions that went down this tough on crime incarceration road have recognized that these measures do not work and have begun to undo them. As has been mentioned already this morning in debate, a recent report titled “Unlocking America” exposes the fact that incarceration has not worked to reduce crime and, in many cases, has increased the violent crime rate.

What does work? We know that more enforcement, more police on the beat, increasing the possibility of being caught and increasing the possibilities for detection and apprehension do work. Unfortunately, this is one place where the Conservatives are breaking a promise to increase the number of police on the beat in our communities.

We know that community policing, increasing the opportunities for police to develop real relationships with members of the community, also reduces crime. We know that prevention measures work. Working to address issues like drug addiction, family dislocation, poverty and providing parenting support, all those measures go toward reducing crime in our society.

We know that parole and release programs work. I was very lucky to have had the opportunity to sit in on a support group for sex offenders in the Vancouver area. I saw the kind of work that happens in that kind of setting. I was very impressed with the way that session proceeded and the kind of support that was being offered. I was also very concerned to hear from those folks that access to psychiatric and psychological support was very limited in the Vancouver area.

We also know that restorative justice programs work. Those programs seek to help offenders assume responsibility for their crime and restore the relationships that have been broken in the community because of that crime. We need more of those programs.

COSA, Circle of Support and Accountability, is a Canadian pioneered post-release program that matches community members with offenders. It is a support and accountability mechanism. Sadly, this program has not received the kind of support it deserves from the government, especially when other countries have adopted it.

Bill C-2 includes provisions in the old Bill C-10 on mandatory minimum sentences for crimes committed with a gun. We know that mandatory minimum sentences, of themselves, do not reduce crime. They do, however, reduce or eliminate judicial discretion, which is the ability of a judge, having reviewed all the evidence and knowing the person involved, to make a decision based on the facts of the case and of the individual involved. This is an important principle. I do not believe there is one judge sitting on the bench who wants to see serious crime go unpunished.

The cost of keeping someone in prison is $94,000 a year. Evidence shows that programs that support someone on parole or a drug treatment program for an addicted criminal are 15 times more effective than incarceration in ensuring he or she does not reoffend.

In testimony before the committee on Bill C-2, the president of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, said that the government must stop using prisons as a substitute for mental health services, public housing or shelters for women escaping violence.

Bill C-2 also includes a reverse onus on dangerous offenders designation, that it would kick in after a third offence and that there would be a presumption that the person was a dangerous offender. It would be up to the offender to prove he or she was not a dangerous offender. When we are talking about a dangerous offender designation, we are talking about life in prison.

Reverse onus has very serious implications for our criminal justice system. Having reviewed the testimony presented at the standing committee, I am convinced, as were many of the experts who testified, that this section of the bill would not survive a charter challenge.

When the state is seeking to jail someone for life, the burden should be on the state to prove the necessity of that imprisonment. That is the case with the current law. To put this burden on the person who has been convicted is unjust, to put it simply. It would only increase the inequity of our criminal justice system where wealthy people would be able to muster the resources to mount a case and everyone else would be more likely to fail because they would not have the money to do so. Legal aid costs would skyrocket given the huge costs associated with this type of process.

Why does the bill suggest measures of automatic designation of dangerous offenders only after a third conviction? Surely, if someone is a dangerous offender, we should be looking at dealing with them sooner and ensuring the system has the resources to do that sooner.

Reverse onus has other serious problems. Judicial discretion, which I have already spoken about, would be removed. It would eliminate the ability of the accused to remain silent and it would incarcerate people on the basis of what they might do rather than what they have done. Our ability to predict behaviour is notoriously poor. What it boils down to is essentially a measure of preventive detention.

I want to support very strongly the motion put forward by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to delete the provisions of reverse onus that are included in Bill C-2.

I also want to point out that aboriginal people are already overrepresented among those who have been designated as dangerous offenders in Canada. Twenty per cent of the dangerous offenders are aboriginal and this would increase as a result of the bill. Something is seriously wrong with this measure when 20% of those subject to it represent a group that only represents 3% of the total population of Canada. This legislation would only make this problem worse and it would also increase the family dislocation and social costs that aboriginal communities already experience because of incarceration rates.

Bill C-2 also includes measures on the age of consent, and I have already spoken extensively about this. I believe the existing age of consent legislation is excellent and comprehensive legislation. This bill would criminalize sexual activity for young people, especially those 14 or 15 years of age. No matter what we think of young people being sexually active, I do not believe the criminal justice system is the place to deal with that issue when a consensual, non-exploitive relationship is involved.

We must be smart on crime. We know enforcement, parole, community programs, social programs, addressing inequality and a change in our approach to drugs do work. Drugs are a significant factor in both petty crime and serious violent crime. Alcohol prohibition did not work and it caused exactly the same problems that we now face due to drug prohibition. We need more treatment programs for addictions and more harm reduction measures, not more jail time. That does not work.

Bill C-2 goes in exactly the wrong direction. It buys into a model that has been proven to have failed in the United States where many jurisdictions are already seeking to undo the damage done by this exact approach. I have very serious reservations about this legislation.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention in this debate as I know that she has followed these issues carefully at the committees. I believe she was also on the legislative committee that dealt with Bill C-2.

In looking over the testimony of the various experts that appeared before the committee, one of my concerns with regard to the reverse onus on the presumption of a dangerous offender designation after three serious crimes is that one of the witnesses raised the possibility that the courts might interpret that there would have to be three offences before a dangerous offender designation could be successfully obtained.

Is there a possibility that this legislation might lead the courts to believe that this designation should not happen on a first or second crime and that it would take a third crime before the possibility would kick in? If so, that is a very serious change to the kind of legislation we have now. Also, could she comment on why the legislation looks to a third conviction and does not increase resources or the possibilities of obtaining a dangerous offender designation after a serious first or second crime?

[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, I agree almost entirely with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. Of course, these bills have already been discussed in committee. I do not know why the government decided to bring back Bill C-2. Perhaps it is because the Conservatives need another excuse to get in front of a television camera, as part of their repertoire; who knows?

On the other hand, some improvements have been made to these pieces of legislation. My hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River will talk about the improvements in Bill C-27 a little later. Some of the amendments that were initially rejected by the government now have its support. We worked on these proceedings with all the diligence and hard work worthy of this Parliament and I am proud of our work.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup was right when he said that this is almost entirely a political exercise on the part of the Conservatives, who are serving their own interests through television, but it is not a political exercise that serves the interests of the Criminal Code, the justice system or the social equity of this country.

[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?

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the so-called tackling violent crime bill, something which our party has been working on for some time. I am quite proud of the work that we have already done on this very issue. It is critically important that Canada have safe communities and that we do everything possible to ensure that.

Canada has long been and continues to be one of the safest countries in the world. Although firearm homicides decreased between 1975 and 2003, even one death, or one violent episode involving guns, is one too many. When our communities challenge that it is decreasing, I am sure the reason is that statistics do not matter if people feel unsafe in their communities. People in my riding are very concerned about this issue, as are people in other ridings. It is important that we do everything we possibly can to ensure the laws are there to protect Canadians.

The Liberal government implemented a wide variety of measures in order to make our streets safer. We had a very successful crime prevention strategy that involved more than imprisonment. There is much more required than just imprisonment, which is why the former Liberal government took a more proactive role with a wide range of measures to stem gun violence and crack down on organized crime.

Since 2002 our anti-gang legislation has meant new offences and tougher sentences, including life in prison for involvement with criminal organizations. It is currently being used in cities like mine, Toronto, where it has been used numerous times. It is a tool the police are very pleased to have and they use it to its maximum amount.

We also broadened powers to seize the proceeds and property of criminal organizations. As well, we increased funding for the national crime prevention strategy, which is something again, we cared very much about and it was very effective. The decrease in crime clearly is because the Liberal government's crime strategy was effective and it continues to be effective.

Since it was launched in 1998 the national crime prevention strategy has helped numerous communities across Canada by giving them the tools, the knowledge, and the support that they need to deal with the root causes of crime at the local level, which is where it has to start. It has supported more than 5,000 projects nation-wide dealing with serious issues like family violence, school problems, and drug abuse.

These are just some of the measures that my party, while in government, undertook. Our campaign was working, hence, the reason there has been a decrease in crime, especially in violent crime. Whether funding programs to prevent crime or ensuring that violent criminals are brought to justice, the Liberal Party while in government was and now continues to be committed to protecting our communities.

Even though we are now in opposition, we, the Liberals, have been dealing seriously with crime legislation for the past year and a half while the Conservatives have been playing partisan games and doing everything they can to prevent those bills from being passed. We actually put more effort into passing the government's crime bills in the last session than the Conservatives did. So, we will not take any lectures from them on how we should be proceeding. Had they not blocked it, the legislation would have been passed and enacted already.

People will remember that on October 26, 2006 the Liberals made the very first offer to fast track a package of justice bills through this House. In spite of the government saying something different, we made every effort to work with the Conservatives to ensure the passage of anything that would make our country safer. This included Bill C-9, as amended; Bill C-18, on DNA identification; Bill C-19, on street racing; Bill C-22, on the age of consent; Bill C-23, on criminal procedures; and Bill C-26, on payday loans. All were important legislation.

The Conservatives like to claim, as I said earlier, that the Liberals held up their justice bills, but anyone who has been paying any attention knows that simply is not true. We are doing our job as a responsible opposition party. We are certainly not going to play partisan politics with the Criminal Code. I would ask the government to keep that in mind so that we can work together in a positive way to ensure the safety of Canadians and our country.

The Liberal Party, while in government, made great progress on making our communities safer. As I mentioned earlier, we increased funding for the national crime prevention strategy. We took steps to prevent gun violence by cracking down on organized crime in a very concentrated effort across the country. We focused on attacking the root causes of why people get involved in organized crime. We worked together with all of the crime prevention people across the country and with all of the officials in the various policing jurisdictions, because it certainly takes a coordinated effort in order to tackle organized crime.

When we are back in government, and we look forward to and expect to be the government after the next election, we have our own plans.

A new Liberal government would immediately provide additional funds to the provinces so they could hire more police officers. We would give the RCMP money for 400 additional officers to help local police departments deal with guns and gang activity, organized crime and drug trafficking.

We would also ensure that more money was made available to the provinces to hire more crown attorneys, which continues to be a problem and clogs the courts. It is one thing to arrest people but it is another thing to get them through the system.

We would continue to support reverse onus bail hearings for those arrested for gun crimes. We would establish a fund that would help at-risk communities cover the cost of security in their places of worship, which was started by the previous Liberal government, but which unfortunately was abandoned by the Conservatives.

A new Liberal government would make sure that children in vulnerable neighbourhoods got the very best start in life. We hear that all the time. It costs approximately $120,000 a year for each person who is kept in prison. We would reverse that and invest right at the very beginning. We are talking about early learning programs and high risk communities.

I represent a high risk community and I talk to many of the kids and their parents. Those parents are struggling to keep their kids on the straight and narrow. They truly need a variety of programs and help at that point. I realize that the Conservatives understand that as well. It is important to be investing early so that we can keep kids out of the justice system and make sure they know they have options and alternatives in life so that they are not dragged into the drug and gang culture, which is clearly happening now.

Many of the parents I talk to, the single mothers, are frantic with worry. They are looking for other places to live where it will be safer, where their kids will not be drawn into the gang activity that is very prevalent in my own riding.

By ensuring that children get the best possible start in life, we will be encouraging them to become positive contributing members of society and do not fall victims to poverty and crime. From providing resources for young mothers to interact and to learn about nutrition, to supplying early learning opportunities for their precious children, our communities need our support and we must provide it.

We invested in many worthwhile crime prevention initiatives. A few of those programs are the gun violence and gang prevention fund, support for community based youth justice programs and partnerships to promote fair and effective processes, community investments through the youth employment strategy, and the justice department's programming and partnerships to provide hope and opportunities.

We also committed another $2 million to the city of Toronto in support of programming under the Liberal government's youth employment strategy. This was all part of the $122 million that was dedicated to the youth employment strategy programming to help youth across the country.

Conflict Mediation Services of Downsview was a not for profit organization that helped people and families, workplaces, schools and neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, its restorative justice program was not funded because priorities have changed of course with the new government, and that no longer fits into that grouping.

In closing, I would like to say that this legislation is important. We look forward to it getting through the House and being enacted as we all move forward in a joint effort to ensure safety. Our communities will appreciate it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue. When I was interrupted, I was saying that the fight against organized crime had been a Bloc Québécois issue for a long time. I was citing the example of the anti-gang bill that I tabled in 1995. I also recalled the initiatives of the member for Charlesbourg who had worked on taking $1,000 bills out of circulation and who had presented the bill to reverse the onus of proof for proceeds of crime. That bill was passed unanimously in this House.

Bill C-2 before us may be considered a compilation of all the legislative measures initiated by the government since coming to power in February 2006. It contains five measures, including former bill C-10, which caused a great deal of difficulties. In fact, that bill established mandatory minimum sentences for offences involving firearms.

It also contains the former Bill C-22, which invites us to no longer talk about the age of consent, but the age of protection. It increases that age from 14 to 16, and has close in age clauses. The Bloc was worried about this. More specifically, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie clearly expressed our view to the media. We did not want young people who attend the same school and have non-exploitative sexual relations to be subject to charges. That is why a close in age clause, with a five-year age difference was established for 13 and 14 year olds. They may have non-exploitative sexual relations with young people of a similar age, on condition that the age difference does not exceed five years.

Bill C-2 also contains a former bill that also provided for reverse onus of proof at the pre-trial hearing stage. If a person commits an offence involving a firearm, the reverse onus of proof applies and that person, who could of course be released by a justice of the peace, must show that he or she is not a threat to society.

Lastly, Bill C-2 also incorporates the former Bill C-27. I discussed this with the member for Repentigny, and we found that this is the measure we have the most difficulty with. Even so, we will support this bill, but we would have liked this measure to have been reworked. These provisions reverse the burden of proof for individuals who have committed a third offence from a designated list.

Despite all that, we believe that the bill is reasonable and that it merits our support. However, we wanted to see greater discretion for the Crown. What makes us uncomfortable is our belief that the government is addressing the wrong priorities for justice. We wanted to see a plan to fight poverty or to address the bail and parole systems, particularly the accelerated review process. We also wanted to address the issue of individuals wearing colours and logos recognized by the court as representing criminal organizations.

We cannot have a balanced vision of justice without considering the causes of delinquency and the ways to ensure that everyone in our society has a fair chance.

Right now, the Bloc Québécois is especially committed to seniors and to addressing the guaranteed income supplement and the retroactivity issue. I would like to thank the member for Repentigny for his excellent work on this file. I am sure that my colleagues will join me in thanking him for all of his hard work.

In conclusion, we will support Bill C-2, but for the record, we were hoping for some adjustments. Nevertheless, we will support this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When debating Bill C-2, there were five minutes remaining to the hon. member for Hochelaga.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and of Motion No. 2.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at the report stage of Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act. I was honoured that my colleague, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, was good enough to second the motion because of her commitment to tackling violent crime.

I must say that it has been very helpful to me, to the government and, ultimately, to the people of Canada that there has been such tremendous support on this side of the House. I have thanked members privately and I now thank them publicly. My colleagues, the members for St. Catharines, Niagara West—Glanbrook, the chief government whip and my other colleagues have been consistent in pushing this agenda forward. I thank them but, more important, I think the people of Canada thank them for their commitment to fighting violent crime in this country.

The bill is one that has been thoroughly studied, which is one part on which I agree with the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh. However, anyone looking at the records of these particular bills will agree with me that the government was on its own last spring trying to get these things through.

We had five bills that had been kicking around since the beginning of this Parliament. They were thoroughly studied and some of them were in the House of Commons for over a year but none of them were passed.

I can say to the members of the NDP that it would have been real helpful last spring if they had been sending a message down to the Senate. I made the point about the Liberals that if they had picked up the phone or walked down the hall to get some of these things through or helped us to expedite these in the House of Commons, it would have been very helpful, but they were all clear that it was our problem, that if we wanted to tackle violent crime and get our bills through, it was our problem.

Yes, it was a bit of a problem that these five bills, all of which would have helped to make our communities safer, our streets safer and would have stood up for innocent victims of crime, did not get through.

What we did over the course of the summer was put them all together and we have reintroduced them into the House of Commons.

I know the committee has done very good work in terms of calling witnesses before them and listening to what they had to say. Some of those witnesses were representatives of the police forces in this country. There was the prosecutorial perspective, the bar associations and legal academics. I, of course, was pleased to appear with representatives of the Department of Justice.

I think it was good. We reintroduced our proposal to have minimum prison sentences for serious and repeat firearms offenders. It would be five years for a first offence and, if the offender does not get the message, it would be seven years the second time around. I think it sends the correct message that guns are a problem when they are used in the commission of a crime.

In addition, we introduced a bill regarding a reverse onus on bail, which is also in this bill. We propose to strengthen the bail system so that those charged with serious firearms offences are kept in custody before trial, unless they can prove they do not pose a threat to the public. I have had people from coast to coast in this country tell me that sends out the right message to victims, to neighbourhoods and to witnesses.

We have dealt with impaired driving and getting rid of the two beer defence that was so problematic to people trying to prosecute impaired driving. There is no question about that.

There are good provisions in there. One of my favourites is raising the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age, to protect 14 and 15 year olds from adult sexual predators. Somebody said that we were trying to get laws into the 21st century. That is something that was left from the 19th century. This should have been changed a long time ago. It did not get changed in the spring but we are absolutely committed and determined that it will get passed as part of this bill.

The other part of the bill relates to dangerous offenders, and what we have done, I believe, is very reasonable. We have asked for a declaration to be made by the crown attorney advising the court whether he or she will be bringing a dangerous offender application. This declaration is intended to ensure a more consistent use of dangerous offender sentences by crown attorneys in all jurisdictions. I think that is reasonable and it is a step forward in the right direction.

What we have said, and again I think most Canadians would agree with us, is that for an offender convicted of a third designated offence, a third serious offence, in a narrow and proportionate list of the 12 most violent and sexual offences, it will trigger a dangerous offender designation. Those offenders will be presumed to be dangerous offenders unless they can prove otherwise.

These are individuals who have been convicted three times. All we are saying is that the onus is on them to show why they should not be presumed to be dangerous offenders. I believe most Canadians would say that is very reasonable.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is just too simplistic. I do know the member is from Sherwood Park, as my son is living in his riding. I have a great deal of respect for him but his analysis is too simplistic. Our courts have made it clear that this section is to be used rarely because of its consequences.

I want to give one example of the deficit in this bill. A provision in the bill says that a person must have been convicted of three offences for which the person must have received more than two years in prison. One of the offences that is included in the list in Bill C-2 is assault causing bodily harm. That can be a fairly minor assault. I do not want to take away from it because any assault, obviously, is extremely offensive to the individual victim, and I recognize that, but we get situations where people get into bar room fights or disputes with their neighbours and there is an injury. It may be a fairly minor one such as a black eye or bruising to the face and that kind of thing.

Usually, because the person has an alcohol or drug problem, they will have a series of these assault charges and, ultimately, the judge will send the person to prison for more than two years, then a second time and then a third time, but these people are not dangerous offenders. They are really petty criminals. There is a real exposure within these amendments being proposed in Bill C-2 that will result in a large number of people ending up going through these designations and having to prove why they should not go in. That is not the way the system works and it is not the way the system should work.

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported without amendment from the committee.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-2

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee on Bill C-2.

I am speaking from this side, but I certainly want to comment that while there were some tight constraints put around the delivery of this report back to the House, every once in a while, even though it may not be recognized, all members from all parties of the House do work together on good legislation to move it forward.

We have delivered this back to the House a day in advance. My compliments to all members of the committee.

[Catherine Kane]

I could add that the various coming into force dates of the previous bills were the subject of ongoing discussion, because provincial and territorial attorneys general always remind the government that they need a reasonable time to prepare, and because of the uncertainty of when a bill will get royal assent, they sometimes don't put all their efforts into the preparation until they have a better idea of when that will occur.

In the context of Bill C-2, because so many of the bills were merged together, they have reiterated that concern that they want some reasonable period of time, usually three to six months, and the minister has indicated that he will consider reasonable submissions from them. However, he did also note that because the bills were out in the public domain for a while and they have had time to turn their minds to how to implement, he wants to move ahead as quickly as possible. So we would expect that provincial attorneys general would be providing some advice or some suggestions to him within the next month or so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

The ruling I have for amendment BQ-5 is that it seeks to amend subsection 93(3.1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Since subsection 93(3.1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment; therefore the amendment is inadmissible, and I will use that same ruling to apply to amendments BQ-6 to BQ-13 . So they are inadmissible.

Mr. Ménard.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Marleau, Ms. Stoddart and Ms. Dawson. I am very pleased to see you here this morning. I have a number of questions for you, but I'm sure you will understand that this may not be the right time to ask all of them.

However, I would like to comment on the Access to Information Act. In the last 15 years, Parliament, the Senate and the Bryden Committee have all reviewed the legislation in depth. The previous commissioner even put forward a new bill. In addition, our committee unanimously passed a motion in December 2005 calling on the House of Commons to accept the strengthened and modernized Access to Information Act that had been drafted by the commissioner of the day. The year 2005 is not that long ago. During the election campaign, the Conservatives actually promised to include a new, strengthened and modernized Access to Information Act in the future accountability act, Bill C-2.

And what did they do? They included a few minor points, but that was all. They did not keep the promise they made during the election campaign. But I did remind them of the commitment they made in February 2006. I came back to this committee. Some motions were passed to have the new legislation strengthened and modernized. In addition, when the Justice Minister, Vic Toews, appeared before the committee in June 2006, he took the initiative of speaking to us about the act. He told us to take our time, to look into it as a committee, to do some analysis and study. We told him that the bill had already been drafted and that he had it before him.

In the end, we repeated our request. We even gave him a deadline—December 15, 2006. We heard nothing more about it until he was replaced by the leader, Stephen Harper. On several occasions, we asked the new minister, Rob Nicholson, to appear before the committee. Of course, Mr. Wallace will remember this. Never ever did Mr. Nicholson agree to appear before us to talk about the Access to Information Act.

Last June, our committee asked all the senior officials to appear, because the minister would not come. Finally, he changed his mind and agreed to come. He was supposed to appear before us in October, but the session was prorogued.

For all these reasons, I would really like to ask Mr. Marleau to speak on this matter and to tell us whether in his opinion, the minister should appear before the committee to present a new Access to Information Act as he promised...

[Catherine Kane]

As you know, in the Criminal Code there is a definition of “victim”, but it's for the purpose of victim impact statements, and it's quite an expansive definition. It indicates that it's not just the primary victim—that is, the dead, ill, or otherwise incapacitated victim; it can be the representative of the victim, a dependant, or a family member. Although that's only for the victim impact statements, the courts have often given a fairly liberal interpretation to “victim” in other contexts. To an extent that's been an evolution in the law: you're recognized as a primary victim if one of your loved ones has been murdered or can't be there on their own.

We would expect that the provision now in Bill C-2 that provides that the victims' evidence be deemed to be adduced would be interpreted in the same liberal way, but there isn't a provision in the Criminal Code that makes that crystal clear; it's only with respect to victim impact statements.

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

Both NDP-11 and the ones I've just withdrawn were recommendations from Mr. Cooper to deal with the very practical aspects of problems of prosecuting these cases to a successful conclusion. I think it was the best evidence we've had with regard to the difficulties of prosecuting these cases. It was interesting. He said twice—once when he was giving his original testimony and then in response to a question—that he really wasn't intending to change his practice if the dangerous offender part of C-2 went through. I thought that was pretty telling about the usefulness of the amendments we brought forward. But he was saying that we could help him and the prosecutors across this country by getting them access to better evidence so the judge can make better informed and higher-quality decisions, because all of the evidence with regard to the person's history, behaviour, conduct, and criminal activity would be before the court.

I am disappointed that the government was not prepared to support those amendments. I would hope they would at least support proposed section 753.02. As it is written now, the only evidence that is recorded and kept for the purpose of these applications, and then applied to the applications subsequently, is the evidence of the victim of the crime. The effect of the amendment would be to expand that so any evidence under these provisions, whether it's from expert witnesses, eyewitnesses, family members of the victim, or family members and friends of the offender, could be used in the subsequent applications under paragraph 753(5)(a) or subsections 753.01(5) or (6).

It's a practical, fairly straightforward amendment. We're moving the evidence, not just the victim's evidence but all of the evidence that has been put before a court and has been found admissible in those court proceedings. It's a wise, practical, simple solution to the problems the prosecutors have across the country. I'd urge all committee members to support it.

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

Mr. Chair, NDP-11, 12, 13, and 14 are all amendments that were recommended by Mr. Cooper. He is the crown attorney who is responsible for the dangerous offender applications for the Ottawa region.

I had a discussion with Mr. Moore at the end of last week indicating that I was bringing these motions in response to the request from Mr. Cooper. I recognize that with the exception of NDP-11, the other three would be inadmissible, unless there was unanimous support that they be allowed. The last three address sections that are not part of C-2. NDP-11 does deal with proposed section 753.02, which is part of C-2.

I suggested to Mr. Moore that if we couldn't get unanimous consent, I would not proceed. I do not have that unanimous consent from the government, so subject to the consent of the committee I will be withdrawing, NDP-12, 13, and 14. I would like to proceed with NDP-11, though.

[Douglas Hoover]

We meet regularly with the Canadian Bar Association, which provides us with feedback, and did so on former Bill C-27, which is again, as you are aware, replicated in Bill C-2. There are also perhaps more informal consultations.

I attempt to familiarize myself with case law, points of view of both defence and crown. The mandate of Justice Canada is not restricted to the position of crown; it is also to ensure that all aspects of the justice system work fairly and evenly for both sides. We're not necessarily an adversary in development of legislation. I think we've had this in mind in developing these procedures. We're confident that the current procedures in regard to disclosure are adequately safeguarded in these provisions.

Again, I would reiterate one final time that the suggestion by members of the committee regarding additional disclosure is something that, by raising it in this committee, we will take a more serious look at in the time we have in the future to do so.

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

I will simply conclude by saying that Mr. Lee's amendment is clearly not on the fly. And nothing Mr. Hoover has said—I mean, he's here to provide advice to this committee and to answer questions--would lead me to conclude that the Justice officials believe Mr. Lee's amendment was on the fly.

I understood Mr. Hoover to say that given that Justice has not been able to consult with the stakeholders, he is not in a position to say whether this would be agreeable or create any difficulties to the stakeholders—the provinces—in the prosecution of dangerous offender applications. That's number one.

Second, Mr. Hoover also stated that the objective Mr. Lee is attempting to achieve would be better achieved under subsection 754(1), which is already captured in Bill C-2 under clause 48. But at the same time, he also said that given that there has been no consultation—

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

So you're not able to say whether an amendment such as Mr. Lee is proposing, which would be an amendment to clause 48 of Bill C-2, would in any way reverse or come into conflict with the provisions of Bill C-2 that create the reverse presumption. You're not in a position to answer that question.

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

I'm not asking for departmental support. I'm just asking whether, if any member wished to go forward with the objective of Mr. Lee's amendment, the most appropriate section wherein that objective would be met would be an amended subsection 754(1) of the Criminal Code. If I'm not mistaken, it is already being amended by clause 48 of Bill C-2, and therefore a proposed amendment to section 48 would be in order.

I'm not asking for a ruling; I'm just making a statement, so the chair is saved by that.

My other question is whether, should an attempt be made for a friendly amendment from the floor—which the rules of this legislative committee permit—to section 48 in order to ensure that the criteria found under subsection 753(1) would be provided as part of outlining the basis, etc., it would not impede or diminish in any way the amendments the government is bringing to the Criminal Code that create the reverse presumption. This is the case where, once there has been a third conviction for a serious personal injury offence that is also a designated offence and for which the offender received a minimum of two years on each of the prior convictions, should the prosecutor in his or her wisdom decide to use discretionary authority and actually file an application, the reverse presumption that the offender is indeed a dangerous offender would obtain, unless the offender can rebut it through balance of probability. My question is whether this doesn't diminish and doesn't in any way attack the government's desire to create the reverse presumption that an offender is indeed a dangerous offender, which is rebuttable.

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

I just want to make sure I am clearly understanding you. Clause 41 of C-2, as it now stands, replaces section 752.1 of the Criminal Code by a new section, which is section 752.01. That new provision is the provision that will now make it mandatory for the crown, upon a third conviction of a serious personal injury offence that is also a designated offence—a third conviction with at least two years' imprisonment—for the prosecutor, to advise the court as to whether or not he or she, on behalf of the crown, will be seeking an application for remand and assessment. It has absolutely nothing to do with the section of C-2 that creates the reverse presumption once that application is made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Mr. Ménard, your success, I'm sure, in the constituency is due very much to your very capable means of speaking. Unfortunately, we are at a legislative committee here and the amendment does seek to amend subsection 719(3) of the Criminal Code. Since the section actually is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is therefore inadmissible, and the amendment is inadmissible in itself.

Thank you. It's as close as we have to always being friends.

(Clause 39 agreed to on division)

(On clause 40)

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

Yes, and secondly, had it not gone against the actual principle of the bill, by virtue of the fact it was seeking to amend a section of the Criminal Code that was not being amended by Bill C-2, it was also out of order on that basis.

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

This is not really a point of order but a point of clarification. It's not at all calling into doubt the vote that just took place. It's just a clarification on your actual ruling.

Why did you not rule that it was out of order because it was touching on a section of the Criminal Code that Bill C-2 was not amending? Your rulings on the previous amendments that had been presented were on the basis that they dealt with a section that Bill C-2 did not amend, and therefore were beyond the scope. That was not the wording you used in ruling this particular amendment out of order.

I'm just confused on that, and I'd like some clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Basically, my ruling on this is that Bill C-2 amends the Criminal Code to provide for escalating minimum penalties for offences involving the use of a firearm. This amendment proposes to allow for the court to exercise its discretion and select a lesser punishment than the minimum provided for by the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In my opinion, the introduction of the concept of discretion is actually contrary to the principle of Bill C-2, and is therefore inadmissible.

On the ruling, Mr. Murphy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

All right, let me do this. Going forward, technically speaking, they are actually new clauses, but with the permission of the committee, I will refer to them as amendments, with the understanding that we're talking about them as new clauses.

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

I'm not going to get into reading exactly the same thing on each of these rulings, but I will, just for the record, note that the amendment seeks to amend section 467.14 of the Criminal Code, and based on the fact that that section is not being amended by Bill C-2, it's inadmissible, and therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

That is BQ-2.

We now have clauses 35 and 36.

(Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Monsieur Ménard, but the ruling on this actually is that the amendment seeks to amend section 462.37 of the Criminal Code, and based on House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 654:

an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Section 462.37 of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-2; therefore it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment, and the amendment is ruled inadmissible.

So new clause 34.2, Monsieur Ménard. I obviously have comments on this with respect to procedure as well.

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

Could I suggest that the way we conduct the clause-by-clause is that we look at Bill C-2 in light of the prior bills, that we move on four of the five sections of Bill C-2 that have already been through a standing committee or special legislative committee, that we deal with them in the same manner, and that we move all of them, since they already have been passed. I have one amendment involving that, but it would be included in that section.

I don't know if it's possible to do that, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at the officials and the parliamentary secretary to see if it would be possible to break Bill C-2 into those kinds of sections, get through the ones that have already been passed as quickly as possible, and move to the old Bill C-27, the dangerous offender section, and spend our time on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

I know Mr. Comartin is not here yet, but he has been sighted in the building, so we will endeavour to get started.

We've given all of us about 10 minutes. Before I actually call the meeting to order, I just want to note that there's coffee, juice, fruit, muffins in the back, so no one needs to go hungry this morning. I want to make sure everybody is feeling good, it's a positive meeting, and we get everything started off correctly.

Pursuant to the order of reference of October 26, the legislative committee will now resume its study of Bill C-2.

I just want to make a few brief remarks and outline a couple of things for this morning—and I guess potentially for this afternoon—in terms of where we are at. Obviously, we have finished with our witnesses. We have the ministry folks here this morning to respond to any specifics from our bill, to see what questions, if any, arise during clause-by-clause. So they are available for us to question and receive comment from.

I know I joked a bit about the fact that we do have some coffee and juice here this morning. I'd just make a very simple request of everyone. I think we've done a very good job at staying professional, staying focused on what we're trying to accomplish here. I would just ask the members of the committee to indulge for at least another day to do the same and keep everything as professional as we possibly can.

In terms of a couple of things with respect to clause-by-clause, before we proceed to take up this bill, I need to share some information with the members in regard to tie votes. As most of you are aware, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains the casting of votes. Basically, the chairman does not participate in debate and votes—only in cases of equality of voices. In such an eventuality, the chairman is responsible for breaking the tie by casting a vote. So I did want to just briefly mention that. I certainly don't want to anticipate any results in clause-by-clause, but I do want to inform members that if there are tied votes on clauses of the bill, I will vote in the affirmative to leave the bill in its existing form. If there are tied votes on amendments or subamendments, the chair will vote in the negative, in order to maintain the status quo and to keep the question open to further amendment, either here in committee or in the House at report stage. I obviously will notify the Speaker of any casting votes delivered on amendments.

There are a couple of other things with respect to debate on clause-by-clause. Obviously, the preamble and the short title I'll postpone until—welcome, Mr. Comartin—we've completed this specific clause-by-clause review. I'd like to point out that any member may ask questions about provisions in the clause or may debate any part of a clause, even if he or she has no amendments to propose.

Second, any member wishing to move an amendment should keep a number of rules in mind. One is obvious. Only members of the committee may propose amendments. I should say at this stage too—in fairness to everyone—a legislative committee works a little differently from a standing committee. We have a couple of subs this morning, so keep in mind that if and when your committee replacement comes back, you need to make sure that the individual subs back in to be able to vote this morning on any of the clauses. If you're not subbed in, obviously your vote will not actually be counted by the clerk.

No seconders are required to move amendments in committee, and obviously amendments may be proposed in either official language.

I'll just note that the committee will consider only one amendment at a time, so I'll try to keep us as tight as possible on that. Likewise, subamendments are obviously amendments to amendments, and the committee can have only one subamendment before it at one time. And when a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it's voted on first.

So I think that basically covers our procedures for this morning. I guess we can jump right into this. I'll just read for the record that the preamble shall be postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1) and also that clause 1, the short title, shall be postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1) as well.

Just before we get started, there are a number of clauses in this bill. I know it's been our past practice, at least at the justice committee, if there are no questions on specific clauses, to move a number of clauses at one time. I'll leave that open to the committee's jurisdiction, or at least your decision on that. Obviously, we need unanimous approval to do that, but I'd like to think if there are no amendments we could potentially shorten our timeframe by doing that.

Mr. Harris.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians it is our job to create legislation that protects all Canadian citizens, so I rise in the House today to discuss the hypocrisy of some of the hon. members opposite.

As proven by the legislative committee on Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, my fellow colleagues and I are astonished by the continual flip-flopping of the Liberal Party. During the last election, the Liberals campaigned for stiffer penalties, yet now they have gone completely soft on crime.

Ten years ago, the former government imposed 20 minimum mandatory terms for gun related crimes, yet those members filibustered the former bill on minimum mandatory sentencing both in committee and in the House for a total of 414 calendar days.

When will the opposition parties learn that Canadians do not want to play games with their families' safety? Clearly, the opposition has a complete disregard for those who pay the highest cost in gun related crimes: the victims.

While the Liberals are simply not up to the job, we are getting on with the responsibility of keeping Canadians safe from violent crime.

Project Red Ribbon

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

Mr. Speaker, impaired driving is a crime that is 100% preventable. That is why on November 13 volunteers for Mothers Against Drunk Driving from my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings launched their 2007 red ribbon campaign.

Last year this Conservative government introduced Bill C-32, which provided police with the tools to detect drug impaired driving. This bill, now part of Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, whose legislative committee I am proud to be a part of, authorizes police officers to conduct a series of tests to determine if a driver is impaired by a drug or a combination of alcohol and drugs.

There is general agreement in this House and in this country that drug impaired driving represents a serious criminal justice, health and traffic safety issue in Canada. Drug users are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents and impaired driving is still the number one criminal cause of death in Canada.

This Christmas season and throughout the year, I urge all Canadians to display a red ribbon in an effort to stop impaired driving.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Hoover.

I want to thank both of you, gentlemen. I'm sorry about the time constraints. I'm sure we could have spent another hour or so at this, but I want to thank both of you for presenting this morning and for being at committee.

Just to close this up as the witnesses are moving from the table, we've concluded our witness schedule, so we are going to move into clause-by-clause consideration next week.

Concerning amendments, the motion the committee adopted was that amendments to Bill C-2 be submitted to the clerk 24 hours before the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration, without precluding the tabling of additional amendments from the floor. In order for the office of the clerk to receive a copy of the amendments package submitted by the members for three o'clock on Monday afternoon—in both languages, I would add—the amendments need to be submitted to the clerk by no later than noon. So I'm asking for agreement that we can assume that all members agree to send their amendments to the clerk by noon on Monday to facilitate the clause-by-clause process.

Very good. Thank you.

We are adjourned.

[Douglas Hoover]

I think strong desire was expressed, both publicly and during meetings of senior officials, for reforms that specifically respond to the Johnson problem, as the minister stated on June 5 in his testimony and most recently again. Johnson created some conundrums in interpretation in each jurisdiction, and great concern was expressed that we address those. For the most part, provinces are very supportive of the legislation as it currently stands--maybe not all provinces 100%, but at this point we have not received, regarding C-2....

You're asking about Quebec? Again, I am uncomfortable speaking for any particular province. I would say overall there's a strong consensus that this bill is necessary.

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

I simply have one question, and then I'll hand over the rest of my time to my colleague Mr. Murphy.

Is it your expert opinion that the provisions of Bill C-2 that are directly related to the dangerous offender system would pass a constitutional challenge? If so, why?

The rest of my time is for Mr. Murphy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, would you be able to tell us the annual number of individuals convicted for the first time of a crime found on the list in part 27 of Bill C-2?

Secondly, do you know the annual number of people convicted for a second time?

Thirdly, do you know the annual number of people convicted for a third time?

If you have access to these figures, could you tell us the percentage of these individuals who belong to visible minorities, or who are members of a first nation, who are women or people with an intellectual or physical handicap? In brief, I am referring to the four groups contained in our charter.

Do you have these numbers? If not, do you know how the committee could obtain them? Up until now, it appears the government has been unable to provide us with this data.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

As for you, Mr. Chairman, you are not authoritarian.

Mr. Landreville, I was in the process of paying tribute to your learnedness. What really pleased me was the link that you very clearly identified. You compared American society, which has relied on incarceration and has crime rates that have not declined as a result, and Canada. You did not provide statistics per 100,000 inhabitants for Canada, but we have heard that it ranges from 115 to 123.

I would like you to explain yourself very clearly. If I understand correctly, you are inviting us to reject Bill C-2. Based on my understanding, you say that it is not effective in terms of its objectives. I would like you to tell us more clearly why it is not effective and what legislative measures you would like to see adopted so that we can meet those objectives, in other words, making communities safer, while keeping in mind that the violent crime rate is not on the rise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Mr. Ménard, there's a lot of latitude here for discussion, but let's try to stay focused on Bill C-2 versus your opinions on the government. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The committee first observed that:

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

They concluded on this point that:

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

The committee also stated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I was not finished. Calm down! I have the floor.

Mr. Chairman, if we do not have the information by Tuesday morning, I say to the government that we will table motions for adjournment. That is what we will do. We have the right to have that information. If you do not want to give it to us, we will table a motion to extend our deliberations so that the government can invite constitutionalists to come and meet with us. If we do not have the information we require, we will not vote on the bill.

When the Conservatives were the opposition, there was never enough information available. Today, they are trying to make us vote whereas we know that the bill is potentially unconstitutional. May I point out to you that yesterday, we were ready to extend the debate in order to move to the vote but it was the Conservatives who got up to leave.

Therefore, there is a limit to making a travesty of democracy, to being pharisees and philistines. There is no point on voting on bills like C-2 if we cannot give the information to parliamentarians. I regret, but we are not faced with a privileged relationship involving private practice, the minister, and cabinet. I expect officials who have knowledge of constitutional law, who provided opinions to the minister, who are not from the private sector, who are paid with public funds, to give us that information.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by stating that if we do not have something in writing guaranteeing the constitutionality of the bill by Tuesday, we will table motion for adjournment after motion for adjournment.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I think what we are seeing here this morning is rather hypocritical. I remember very well that when the Conservatives were in opposition, they invoked the fact that we were elected, that we were parliamentarians, in order to have a right to all the information before voting.

What are we asking for? First of all, the minister is not a client. He is an elected official and is responsible for a department. Before voting on a bill, we have the responsibility of ensuring that we have all the information. Nine witnesses told us that this bill was not constitutional. I feel I am doing my job as a member of Parliament when I ask for information. If the minister appeared before us and said so, he should give it to us in writing.

Why do we not have faith in the word of members of Parliament? Ms. Jennings tabled an amendment saying that we would keep this information confidential. Is this not paid for with public funds? What is the point of voting on a bill like C-2 on accountability, on access to information, on transparency if you are not even able to give parliamentarians all the information they need? Is it unreasonable, as an elected official, to vote on a bill nine witnesses said was unconstitutional? Is it unreasonable to ask if this was investigated? If the minister said so, that is not enough. We need more information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Pursuant to the House of Commons order of reference of October 26, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2 will now resume its study of the bill.

Good morning, everybody. Welcome back for our final session of this week.

Mr. Landreville, perhaps I could just let you know we do have a little bit of committee business to take care of before we turn the floor over to you. If you could bear with us for a few minutes, we'll get through that and then we'll certainly get started with respect to your presentation and questions to follow. So thank you.

When we finished off yesterday, Monsieur Ménard, you had the floor.

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

Thank you.

I did not have a chance to speak to my own amendment when I moved it, so I appreciate the chair's providing me with that opportunity.

The issue of client-attorney privilege is well-known. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is quite correct when he says that previous governments formed by both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada—I don't believe another party in Canada ever formed the Government of Canada—have not waived the client-attorney privilege.

However, that privilege can be waived. The committee does have a right to call for the tabling of documents. Because of our concern that the confidentiality of the information continue to be protected, the Liberals have brought this amendment.

In the same way, when a committee hears testimony in camera or receives in camera documentary evidence, that evidence is not public. Every single person who assists in an in camera meeting and has access to the information is bound to keep it confidential. If there's a transcript, there is one transcript that remains in the office of the clerk, and members have to go to a specific office, sign in, and are only able to consult there.

If this committee determines that it supports this amendment, those would be the conditions under which the minister would be required to table all legal opinions on the constitutionality of Bill C-2, which he has received in the course of his responsibilities as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and that information would be kept confidential.

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

Yes.

Further to discussions with our colleague Mr. Ménard, the Liberals will be proposing the following amendment:

That the Department of Justice be asked to

—and then we add on—

provide on a confidential/in camera basis, which protects advice to the minister, opinions in its possession relating to the constitutionality of Bill C-2 by 3:00 p.m., Friday, November 16, 2007.

[Craig Jones]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Comartin.

The society is driven by very high-quality evidence, most of which you're probably aware is produced here in Canada, on how to reduce recidivism and reoffending. And from our standpoint, the more emphasis we put on security or building prisons or—with respect to my friends here—law enforcement, the less resources are put into exactly the kinds of treatment programs that produce results.

I will direct a comment to Mr. Harris, who has absented himself for a moment. Bill C-2 does not stand in isolation. Bill C-2 stands in the context of the new national anti-drug strategy, and these things have a tendency to combine.

With respect to Mr. Harris' observation, from our standpoint, when I looked at the text of the national anti-drug strategy, I looked in vain for the words “evidence-based” or “harm reduction”. Here are two concepts that are endorsed by every expert body, from the World Health Organization to the Canadian Medical Association, and they were nowhere to be found, and that signals something to Canadians. I think the message is we're not interested in the evidence; we're interested in ideology.

Now I'm going to defer to the legal experts on the evidence base for the case you're referring to, but our persistent complaint is that we don't fund treatment programs adequately, given what the evidence says about their success in creating safer communities.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

If we have a reverse onus system that works in the parole system for parole applications today, why are you so afraid of it as Bill C-2 would extend it to another part of the justice system?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you for that.

I think this bill is dealing with the most exceptional situations. Bill C-2, with respect to dangerous offenders, is dealing with what could be termed the worst of the worst offenders in Canada. There was some reference made to someone who may have had what's termed “less serious” crimes. That's not what this bill is going to target.

I think we're all aware, at the end of the day, that there is still a tremendous threshold and there are tremendous safeguards, including our Constitution, that will protect all Canadians from this being too broad in scope. But at the end of the day, we have a situation where there are individuals who have shown, unfortunately, no desire whatsoever, and no ability, to be rehabilitated even though they've had maybe dozens of contacts with the justice system. These are people who commit very serious offences like the ones set out in this bill—the primary designated offences, for example, which are perhaps the worst imaginable offences. What we've said is that we have to act to protect Canadians from those who have shown no desire to be rehabilitated and are committing the worst offences.

To the Association of Chiefs of Police, in a way these are rare individuals, fortunately, and the dangerous offender provisions would apply to the very worst offenders. From your experience or through your representation, I'm wondering if you could tell me what are some of the challenges in dealing with the most high-risk offenders, the most dangerous offenders in Canada, as opposed to those who, although they have committed serious crimes, don't fit into this category. I'm speaking specifically of the recidivist nature.

[Isabel Schurman]

I'd like to thank you all for the opportunity to come back and speak with you again.

I will limit the comments I'm making now to what was Bill C-27, given that the invitation I received indicated that this is of particular interest to you. Should anyone have questions on other parts of Bill C-2, I will try to address them.

The most troubling part of Bill C-27, which is now part of Bill C-2—Actually, there are two most troubling parts. First, it's not necessary. It doesn't cover any situation of dangerousness that the present law does not already cover. The second very troubling aspect is twofold. The removal of judicial discretion is disturbing, and it's a disturbing theme reoccurring in numerous criminal law bills. A second part of that is the reverse onus provisions contained in Bill C-27. These provisions will not survive a constitutional challenge if we rely on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence over the last 20 years.

The bill resembles a kind of U.S. three strikes legislation. Although there are clear differences, copying the U.S. model, even a loose copy of it, is neither necessary nor workable.

As the present law stands, the crown “may” apply for an assessment to have someone declared a dangerous offender and the judge “may” order the assessment. The trigger is the conviction for a serious personal injury offence. The present law in that category includes all indictable offences with sex or violent components, all conduct that endangers individuals, even including psychological violence. It's vast coverage that we already have. Once the report comes back in the present law, the judge must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a serious personal injury offence, threats to others based on certain evidence—repetitive behaviour, aggressive behaviour—or evidence that the incident was of such a brutal nature.

Constitutionally, the deprivation of liberty will require proof beyond a reasonable doubt when that deprivation is to be for an indeterminate period of time. In fact, the burden at this stage is one element that saved the present articles from being declared unconstitutional in the past. Currently an application can be made at the time of sentencing, or even six months after sentencing, or even after that if new evidence comes to light. With the present law the way it is, we don't have to be letting dangerous offenders escape the claws of the law, if you will.

Currently, if the evidence is not enough to meet the dangerousness category, the individual may fall into the subcategory of long-term offender where there's substantial risk but a reasonable possibility of eventual control. This allows us to recuperate those we can when there's a real chance that we may do so.

A key sentencing principle in Canada is the use of less restrictive sanctions, when possible, to meet the goals of sentencing. That's why the case of Johnson in 2003 decided that when a judge is facing a dangerous offender hearing, he or she must look at whether the person could actually be a long-term offender, whether the long-term offender designation is enough. The present law gives us everything we need.

Part two of my representation is that the issues of the removal of judicial discretion and reversal of burdens are very troubling. Presently if a judge is convinced, by evidence, of dangerous offender status or long-term offender status, the code mandates that the judge “shall” give a certain sentence—indeterminate in the case of dangerous offender, others in the case of long-term. So there is no discretion to the sentence once the judge decides that you are a dangerous offender. But there is discretion; the judge does retain discretion in ordering a report to make an assessment, and the crown must prove the allegations they are making. In the new system, the judge will have to order the report, and the crown will have nothing to prove when the presumption applies.

Even though the crown has a burden to prove a certain number of things—the crown must prove, yes, the conviction and the elements of dangerousness as put out in the code—it should be noted that the crown has not been held to a burden of proving absolute hopelessness before someone is declared a dangerous offender. In some cases treatment was shown to be possible, but the person was still declared a dangerous offender. I'm referring to Pedden in British Columbia in 2005.

The crown right now can prove behaviour that would constitute dangerous offender behaviour without having to show the person had prior convictions. You can have someone determined a dangerous offender today based on the one incident he or she was convicted for.

The existing likelihood of future behaviour through the accused's failure to control his or her impulses is what the crown must prove. Brutal conduct can be one incident, and we saw that in the Ontario Court of Appeal in Langevin. Conduct has been interpreted to mean things such as sexually sadistic writings. Even writings could be considered conduct under the present law in some circumstances.

It is worth noting that removing judicial discretion and removing the burden on the crown would remove two important protections for individuals before the courts. Such a system is not likely to pass constitutional muster. The case of Lyons in 1987 upheld the present system because there was room for crown discretion and because the burdens were adequate to protect the rights of the person before the courts.

Speaking of judicial discretion, it's important for you, I think, as a group to realize that judges are not heard here. They don't come and speak to you because of their obligation of discretion

—obligation of discretion—

The application of sentencing principles requires proper weighing of a lot of different elements. Mandatory minimums in removing discretion, as we see here, tie the hands of judges and will keep them from coming to very just results.

My colleague spoke about the U.S. experience with mandatory minimums and sentences. They have in fact targeted the economically disadvantaged, the minorities, not to mention those with learning disabilities and lower education. We've already seen a disproportionate incarceration of first nations people in this country. Will this law exacerbate that situation?

I'll skip over speaking about the U.S. situation, but should anyone have questions, I have some comments on it.

Taking away the judicial discretion leaves a situation in which the threat of the dangerous offender application with an impossible burden for the accused person is going to put huge power into the hands of some crown prosecutors. Will it be used to force guilty pleas: “If you plead guilty, I won't make the application”? Is this a coercion that we want to see in our criminal justice system?

Those who are trapped will be the economically disadvantaged, minorities, and native offenders. How many times will the threat result in a plea to something else to avoid the application, and how good is that for us? We won't know what crime was actually committed. Before we even get to the dangerous offender application, lawyers will be trying to avoid the two-year mandatory minimum sentences on earlier offences, because every time you chalk up another two-year mandatory minimum, you're running the risk that the next time around your guy is going to be a dangerous offender. Will this just skew the entire system? It's a question that has to be asked.

Under the new system, there are 25 designated offences. They include assault, pointing a firearm, and what have you. Mandatory minimums may mean that many of these designated offences are going to become two-year offences, regardless of the objective seriousness of them. Is the youth with a drug problem who goes out with friends and commits two separate robberies really a dangerous offender because the two were committed in the six months of his life when he had a drug problem? Prior convictions for two designated offences with two two-year prison terms will trigger the crown's request for dangerous offender status.

Of the 12 primary designated offences—take a look at them--sexual assault was everything from a touch to something very serious. Discharging a firearm with intent has a mandatory minimum. We're looking at going back to old articles in the primary designated offences. You have all the old articles. How far back are we going to go? A conviction with two years twenty years ago is going to be conviction number one and a mandatory minimum a year ago is going to be number two, and then you're a dangerous offender. How real a portrait is that of the dangerousness of that person? The crown request will be triggered in these cases, and in these cases, for the primary designated offences, there is the reverse onus.

The new law includes that the reverse onus for primary designated offences and, arguably, that list of offences will be seen as arbitrary. Sexual assault is a broad category. Hostage-taking seems pretty dangerous, but hostage-taking is only a designated offence. Will that pass a constitutional test for arbitrariness? The arbitrariness will be key to the constitutional challenge.

Those in the primary designated category are the only ones to whom the first reverse onus is going to apply. There is a manifest unfairness that at the same dangerous offender hearing some people will benefit from the ordinary rules because the first reverse onus doesn't apply, no matter how violent and how disgusting their crime was, because they have no record. Yet other people will have a reverse onus and a burden that they can't possibly hope to meet in some circumstances. So under the operation of the presumption for the list of 12 selected offences, for no particular reason, because they're not even selected according to the fact that they're all punishable by the same maximum, this limited group of people, or offenders, if you will, would lose the benefit of the ordinary rules. The inequality will be key to the constitutional debate.

Mr. Chair, I will go rapidly now.

The justification and jurisprudence showing the need for reverse onus is exceptional. I have a number of comments to do with reverse onus and with what would pass constitutional muster, and I will keep them for questions from people here.

At the dangerous offender hearing, the reverse onus will raise other questions. The accused will attempt to prove he's not a danger. He'll bring experts. The experts will have interviewed him. The crown can't compel him. How is the crown going to contest that evidence? These are practical problems that no one has really properly considered.

Likewise, when there's a second reverse onus, and that is when the court finds that the accused is a dangerous offender, the court must decide in favour of indeterminate detention unless satisfied that something lesser would protect the public. This second reverse onus is also unnecessary, and we don't seem to have compelling evidence to show that dangerous offenders with priors are not being picked up by the system.

[Craig Jones]

Bill C-2 is sufficiently complex and has enormous implications for, among other things, the rate of incarceration; the overcrowding of existing prisons, including detention centres; the issue of double bunking for the safe management of inmate populations, including the consequences of an increase of inmates with mental disorders and substance abuse problems; the issue of overcrowding as it affects the working conditions of CSC staff; the accelerated transmission of blood-borne diseases among inmates and the spectre of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; the already under-resourced range of treatment options, which are demonstrated to reduce recidivism; the expected termination of statutory release and its implications for the effective reintegration of offenders; the economic costs that will accrue from Bill C-2 combined with the national anti-drug strategy and the evidence-based opportunities thereby foregone; the asymmetric distribution of pain and suffering that will accompany implementation of Bill C-2 combined with the national anti-drug strategy, that is, more offenders from lower socio-economic circumstances, more aboriginal offenders, offenders with greater needs, including already overtaxed needs for mental health treatment, substance abuse, etc.; and finally, the implications of this punitive turn for the penal ecology of Canada’s criminal justice system, which has, until now, largely resisted the drift toward a meaner and more retributive Americanization of our correctional system.

Point number three is mandatory minimum sentences. It is no small irony that Bill C-2 seeks to extend the use of mandatory minimum sentences at precisely the same time as jurisdictions in the United States, notably Florida and California, are trying to extricate themselves from them. Mandatory minimums are sold to Canadians as part of a larger strategy to reduce crime. But as Professor Anthony Doob testified on December 6: “The best research on this is quite consistent. Mandatory minimum sentences will not reduce crime.”

Furthermore, Bill C-2 adds injury to insult by ignoring evidence-based approaches that do actually reduce crime and make communities safer.

Bill C-2, particularly in combination with the national anti-drug strategy, signals that the Government of Canada is prepared to tolerate even greater inequalities in the distribution of pain, denunciation, and punishment. It is as good as certain that mandatory minimum sentences will occasion disproportionate sentences for at least some offenders, likely those most marginalized and vulnerable to having their rights trampled. Canadians ought to be consulted on whether our current model of proportional sentencing should be reformed in this hasty and undemocratic manner, particularly if the reform offends against fundamental principles of distributive justice and targets those already most vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination.

I sense I'm running out of time, so I'm going to skip over the health consequences of greater incarceration and go directly to my conclusion.

In summation, I wish to reiterate what has long been known among criminologists, penologists, and historians of incarceration: prison is an expensive way to make people, most of whom come from disadvantaged and deprived social circumstances, worse than they already are. The evidence on this is by now so conclusive that it is no longer a point of contention. We ought not pretend that the last 200 years of research into prisons and their effects is irrelevant or ideologically inconvenient. Community-based programs are more effective and cost less. Community-based programs are not incubators of disease, cynicism, and despair as prisons are. They do not harden anti-social attitudes and behaviours as prisons do. Evidence-based community-based programs do not break apart families and poison the minds of young persons as prisons do. Prisons are the solution that is worse, in many cases, than the disease they are meant to treat. They ought to be the very last resort of a policy that aspires to democratic ideals of self-governance. If the government defies its own experts and the evidence base on prisons and proceeds down the path of growing Canada’s incarceration rate, it will bequeath to your children and grandchildren a curse that will be hundreds of years in the undoing.

Thank you.

[Clayton Pecknold, Co-Chair, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, honourable members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Many of you will know that the CACP appears before your committee and before the Senate on a wide range of bills. In fact, members of our association have appeared before this committee on several of the bills that now find themselves part of Bill C-2.

Before we comment on Bill C-2, we would reiterate a general comment that we have made before you on a previous occasion with respect to the complexity of criminal law and the public's general faith in the justice system. As with many aspects of the Criminal Code, the CACP believes quick fixes and band-aids are no longer sufficient.

We offer two quick points. First, we believe criminal law, including the law of sentencing, is in need of a sustained and comprehensive overhaul if the criminal justice system is to regain the eroding confidence of the public. Second, we believe much more could be done to give police the tools they need to detect and apprehend violent offenders. I will elaborate in a few moments.

As you know, the short title of Bill C-2 is the Tackling Violent Crime Act. We at the CACP join Parliament in saying that we must put an end to the violent crime we are seeing in our communities.

Before appearing here today, I had occasion to speak to my colleagues at the Vancouver police department, who are struggling with a wave of gun violence in their city. They, like all of us in the policing community, recognize that no one piece of legislation is going to solve what is a complex social problem underlying gang activity and the culture of violence it instills in our young people. A comprehensive, nationally focused, and locally resourced strategy is required. Much is being done, but much more can be done.

In terms of Bill C-2, the CACP supports the bill as one step of an overall crime reduction strategy. We believe Canadians are very concerned with the areas addressed in the bill. Gun violence, drugs, and the exploitation of our children rate high on the public's list of public safety concerns for very good reason.

We are also pleased to see Parliament help the courts keep those persons who pose a danger to our society in jail and away from the public. Examples of offenders reoffending while on judicial interim release, or escaping justice by fleeing to other jurisdictions in Canada, go far to erode the public's confidence and faith in the ability of the criminal justice system to protect them.

My colleague and I will be pleased to answer specific questions on Bill C-2, but before we do, permit us to elaborate on what we mean when we say that it is but one step in an overall strategy.

The CACP has several legislative priorities, and has, as one example, for some years now been advocating for modern tools to deal with modern crimes. Bill C-2 is directed in part to three important dangers to society: guns and gangs, child exploitation, and drugs. Your police struggle every day to stop the violence, disrupt the gangs, apprehend child sexual predators, and interdict drug dealers. These investigations are often made more difficult by the offender's success at exploiting the new technologies, such as digital communications and the Internet, to further their interests.

The CACP has been asking and pleading with government to modernize our investigative abilities for many years in this area, under the auspices of the lawful access initiative. As you know, the previous government introduced the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, which did not get passed before Parliament dissolved. We were pleased to see a private member's bill come forth reintroducing MITA and take that as a sign that all parliamentarians are concerned, as we are, with the eroding interception capabilities of your police.

With due respect to all, the time has come—it is past due—for action on this front. We ask you to act decisively on this matter, and act soon.

You need not be reminded, I'm sure, that it is your police who must find their way through an increasingly complex society using only those tools you allow them to keep the streets safe. For our part, the CACP will continue to offer you the voice of Canadian police leadership as you move forward with your work on this bill and hopefully the many others to come.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[Pierre-Paul Pichette, Co-Chair, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, honourable members of the committee, allow me to introduce myself: my name is Pierre-Paul Pichette and I am the assistant-director, chief of corporate services for the Montreal Urban Community Police. With me today is my colleague, Mr. Clayton Pecknold, who is the deputy chief for the Saanich police service in British Columbia. We are appearing before you today as representatives for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, since we are the two co-chairs of the Law Amendments Committee for the organization. I would also like to take this opportunity to greet you on behalf of our president, Mr. Steven Chabot, deputy director general of the Sûreté du Québec.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police represents the administrative arm of Canada's police forces. Ninety per cent of its members are directors, deputy directors or other senior managers from various Canadian police forces at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. The mandate of our mission is to effectively enforce provincial and federal laws and regulations to protect the Canadian public. We are therefore regularly called upon to give our position on legislative reform, and we always take part with enthusiasm in consultations with governments on the reform of the Criminal Code, much as we are doing today.

I will now ask my colleague Mr. Pecknold to comment on Bill C-2. Mr. Pecknold will speak in English, and I will then conclude in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Mr. Lee has given me a pretty stern look, and a fair one, to say that we should get started.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, October 26, 2007, Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, I want to welcome everyone back to committee.

We will spend our time this afternoon dealing with witnesses from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the John Howard Society, and, as an individual, Isabel Schurman from the Faculty of Law.

I want to welcome all of our witnesses this afternoon. Just as a brief overview—I think most of you have actually been here before, so you know the rules, but let me just review them for everyone's sake—each of you has 10 minutes to make your presentation. We have a small timer up here, so once you get a little bit close to the end, I'll just give you an indication to wrap things up. We will then begin rounds of questioning. The first round will be seven minutes in length, and it will start with the Liberals, then go to the Bloc, then the NDP, then the Conservatives. Then we'll go to five-minute rounds from each of the parties.

I would like to indicate that we try to keep things as concise as possible to get in as many questions as possible, so if that's something that all members of the committee can do, and also witnesses, it would be much appreciated, and I think we'll have a solid afternoon.

With that, I would ask Mr. Pichette to begin.

Violent Crime Legislation

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have told us they want to see our Conservative government's violent crime act move swiftly through the legislative process and finally become law.

Canadians elected us to move quickly and decisively to tackle crime and make our communities safer. They are fed up with a justice system that puts the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Bill C-2, the violent crime act, would impose mandatory jail time for serious gun crime; create tougher bail rules when a gun is used to commit a crime; protect our youth by increasing the age of protection for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years; crack down on drug impaired driving; and ensure that high risk and dangerous offenders face tougher consequences and are monitored more closely after release to prevent them from offending again and again.

All the measures included in the legislation were studied in depth by Parliament in the last session and some were held up for over a year. Canadians believe this is unacceptable and expect prompt passage of these crucial measures.

Criminal Code

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a former breathalyzer technician and police officer, I am particularly interested in this most serious matter.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-376 which proposes to create a new Criminal Code offence of driving a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol content level in excess of 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

It does not propose simply to amend the Criminal Code to lower the blood alcohol content from the current 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, or .08 as it is commonly referred to.

The bill was debated for one hour in the first session of this Parliament. Every member who spoke to the bill and I am sure every member of the House agreed with the goal to reduce the death toll and injury on our highways caused by impaired drivers.

However, serious concerns regarding the mechanics of the bill, particularly its proposal to create a Criminal Code ticket and whether it would be used by police, were expressed by members.

For many years, law enforcement and prosecutors have complained about the complexities of the current impaired driving laws, the time needed to process the charge, the length of trials and the number of cases that are lost on technicalities. They have not asked for a lower blood alcohol content.

I am pleased that the government has responded to those concerns. Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, would simplify procedures and restrict defences to over .08 charges to those that have scientific validity. However, Bill C-2 is not a substitute for a complete review of the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code.

As members know, the Criminal Code has two separate and distinct drinking and driving criminal offences. Under section 253(a), it is a crime to drive while one's ability to drive is impaired by alcohol or a drug. Under section 253(b), it is an offence to drive while one's blood alcohol content exceeds .08. The over .08 offence was enacted in 1969, based on a seminal scientific study in Michigan showing that at that level the risk of collision increases exponentially for all drivers, regardless of age, driving experience and drinking experience. The Michigan study has been validated repeatedly.

Recent studies have concentrated on impairment at .05. I believe there is a scientific consensus that indicates a degradation in driving skills and increased risk of accident at that level.

One study concluded that compared with a driver at zero blood alcohol content, a driver at .05 had a 38% greater chance of being involved in a collision. A driver at .06 had a 63% higher risk and a driver at .07 had a 109% higher risk.

To date, Canada has chosen to address the problem of the driver who is over .05 but less than .08 through administrative measures imposed by provinces pursuant to their legislative authority to address licensing matters and matters of the Highway Traffic Act.

All provinces and territories except Quebec already have a roadside suspension for being over .05. I am pleased to say that Quebec has announced that it will soon be introducing a suspension at that level. These suspensions occur without any criminal charge being laid and, therefore, without a trial. They are an immediate and certain road safety measure.

The issue for the House, I submit, therefore, is whether to lower the permissible blood alcohol content to .05 or leave the low blood alcohol content driver to be dealt with by the province, at least until there has been a comprehensive review of impaired driving countermeasures.

The provinces work together through the Canadian Council of Motor Vehicle Transport Administrators or CCMTA, which has a subcommittee on impaired driving. The CCMTA reports to federal, provincial and territorial transport ministers. The CCMTA has endorsed a model of sanctions for driving while being over .05 that would include the recording of violations, longer roadside suspensions, a licence reinstatement fee of $150 to $300 and recording the violation for 10 years so that repeat violators can attract higher sanctions.

If the provinces enact increased sanctions at over .05 level for all drivers as recommended by the CCMTA, Criminal Code sanctions may not be needed. Certainly the provincial administrative sanctions will always be easier to process than a criminal charge. I seriously question whether a police officer faced with—

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for bringing this matter before the House of Commons.

All Canadians and all members of the House are concerned about the damage and the havoc that can be created with drinking and driving irresponsibly.

My own view is the bill does not really address the real core issues. It does not address the incidence of the types of accidents caused by chronic drinkers and drivers, those people who drink well in excess of .08. They put their lives and the lives of others in jeopardy by getting behind the wheel of a car. It creates havoc on our roads. These are the people, the repeat offenders, who we should address.

We already have some very good sanctions in place at the provincial and territory level. In nine out of ten provinces it is an offence to drive with a blood alcohol content level of .05 or over. The tenth province, the province of Quebec, announced its intention to introduce similar legislation this fall. The law allows for the immediate roadside suspension for anyone caught with a blood alcohol content level over .05. In Saskatchewan is .04.

The benefit of this approach is the sanctions can be handed out by police immediately without all the time and cost of a court proceeding. To criminalize these offences at the .08 or .05 level is unduly harsh. It will clog up our courts and prosecution. We already know about the dangers and the problems we have with Crown prosecutors plea bargaining because our courts are already filled with people who are committing particularly heinous crimes.

If it were justified, I would support it. However, in my view it is not supportable, given that the real problem is the chronic drinkers, those who reoffend, those who continuously take their lives and the lives of others in their hands.

How many times have we read in the paper about someone who has been charged with drinking and driving and may have been fined extensively. They get back on the road, drink and drive again and are given a slightly harsher penalty. Maybe their driver's licence is suspended. Then they drink and drive again, repeatedly. We need to deal with those people, not the casual drinker.

Every now and then people make a mistake. They might have two or three beers and suddenly find themselves with a criminal charge, which will be with them forever. This may impair their ability to advance in life and become a contributing member of society. I do not think that is warranted in this circumstance.

I am not arguing that drinking and driving irresponsibly is not a very serious matter; it is. That is why the provinces, rightly, have imposed pretty serious restrictions and sanctions at the provincial level.

I should also add that Bill C-2, which is currently before the House, also brings in tougher sanctions for repeat and chronic drinkers who drive. That is the way to deal with it. People who are chronic offenders could be put away for up to 10 years. Those who drink and drive while their licence is suspended should be treated particularly harshly, and Bill C-2 does that.

Bill C-2 also deals with the question of drug impaired driving. This is a reality we are facing as well. Many people today know police can pull people aside and do a breathalyzer test. They have the technology to detect if someone is over .05 or .08.

The reality is the technologies are not there to put in place a regime that recognizes people are taking drugs and driving. In fact, I think we are finding that people of all ages are saying they can beat the rap by having drugs or maybe a mixture of drugs and alcohol.

When the police pull them over, it is easy to tell what their alcohol content is through a breathalyzer, but it is very difficult to determine whether someone has ingested drugs. In fact, they might have had prescription drugs for some illness and given the technologies we have today, it is very difficult to determine whether someone has a prescribed drug or even an over the counter drug, or whether it is a mix of that plus marijuana, some cocaine, crack, heroin or whatever.

Bill C-2 attempts, and I think rightly, to put in a regime that deals with drug impaired drivers, but the reality is it is not a simple matter. We should also focus equal attention on drug impaired driving.

Some in this debate have said that by introducing the legislation before us, Bill C-376, we would be in line with other jurisdictions. With respect to those who said that, the facts say otherwise. A study was done of international drinking and driving laws in 77 comparable jurisdictions, sponsored by the Canada Safety Council, by an independent, respected organization. It found that only eight jurisdictions treat a .05 driving offence as a crime.

The study also has found that in most international jurisdictions a .05 driving is an administrative offence, not a criminal offence. I think the reason for that is for the reasons I outlined. We cannot slap people with criminal records for every crime that is committed otherwise we would be creating a lot havoc within our society.

The member who introduced the bill has the right intention and is motivated for the right reasons. However, I would draw him to the fact that the Canada Safety Council does not support the bill. It says that there is insufficient proof that the bill will have a positive impact on the number of serious accidents. This is a very serious negative evaluation of the bill from an organization that is well qualified and should know what would work and what would not.

While I think the intentions of the bill are good, and we are all concerned about this problem, Bill C-376 takes us in the wrong direction. What we need to focus on is the hard core drinkers, those who continually get in their cars, drink and drive or take drugs and drive. At the provincial level, we have seen a lot of activity with road checks, bringing people over and checking their blood level content. Now with this new regime for drug impaired driving there would be a similar approach.

The way I understand that would work, under Bill C-2, and I know we studied this at the Standing Committee on Justice, is there would be sort of a three-legged test. First, if people are driving in ways that looks like they are driving dangerously, police officers will pull them aside. They will ask them to do a simple test like walk a straight line. If they cannot do that, they will take a sample on-site of their breath or some other sample from their body and that will be checked by a technician. If that proves to be a problem, the sample will be put through a full laboratory test. If those three tests are there, if the person fails those three tests, they will be then charged with drug impaired driving.

That is a positive development in Bill C-2. It is the direction we should go. Our party supports that and also the tougher sanctions for chronic repeat offenders, those who drink and drive repeatedly. Those are the people we need to address.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks also to all the witnesses who agreed to appear at such short notice, and, in spite of that, made presentations dealing with several very important matters.

Ms. Pate, I made a careful note of your request for the committee to go to the prisons where those designated dangerous offenders, both male and female, are incarcerated.

My next question is for the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. Given your presentation and your analysis of the provisions in Bill C-2 that deal with the dangerous offender system, I would like to know if your association considers the provisions to be constitutional, that is in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Jean Charbonneau, Expert witness, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense]

First, thank you for hearing us today. Our apologies for being late. Unfortunately, we were directed to another building; that is why we were late.

I am not a lawyer, but I am an expert witness. I am called upon to testify in impairment cases all the time. So I am well aware of BillC-2.

The problem I see with this bill is that we must first understand that when breathalyzers began to be used at the end of the 1960s, they were a compromise. A breathalyzer does not show alcohol levels directly. It uses statistics to establish a credible level of blood ethanol.

There are a number of problems linked to the use of a breathalyzer. Even under our present legislation, there are people who, at levels close to the legal limit, are not guilty. Because their physiology does not match the calibration of the machine, they would be found guilty without question if they were not able to present evidence to the contrary.

Even at present, generally speaking, defence counsel and expert witnesses are fighting to ensure that police forces are subject to checks and balances. Determining blood alcohol levels indirectly already creates prejudices in the minds of the public. Not only are we fighting that, but you will also notice that, in the Criminal Code, while it is a crime to drive with more than 80 mg of alcohol in the blood, there is nothing that requires police forces to maintain and check the reliability of the machines they use. The Alcohol Test Committee and the Canadian Society of Forensic Science have made recommendations, but we have realized that in a number of cases—we have just gone through one with the Montreal police—people did not care in the slightest.

If a bill like C-2 is passed, with no requirements and no mechanism to force police to make checks, because of a desire to put teeth into the bill, you have to realize that it will be just about impossible to contest. Scientifically, in my opinion, it will be impossible, for all practical purposes, for people who fail a breathalyzer test when they are arrested to show that the machine was not working. At most, you could show that its reliability was in question, but it is almost impossible. A blood test should be taken at the same time as the breath sample. This is very important to understand because we are not talking about a direct measurement. It does not measure the blood directly, it calculates.

I will stop there, because I am being told that the time is almost up. When breathalyzers were introduced, the Criminal Code even provided for keeping the sample, as is done with blood, so that the accused would be able to have objective evidence to the contrary. That was never put into effect, and it is certainly not provided for in Bill C-2.

[Richard Prihoda, Lawyer, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense]

I would like to thank the committee on behalf of the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense, and to express my own thanks, for giving us the opportunity to offer our point of view on certain parts of BillC-2.

Our association believes in the supremacy of the Constitution, in the rule of law, and in the separation of executive, legislative and judiciary powers. It believes in our justice system that is based on the presumption of innocence and that requires the state to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, after a fair and equitable trial, before an independent and impartial judge who is knowledgeable of the law and of the realities of his community.

We do not have a great deal of time today to cover all the significant changes that Bill C-2 would bring about and that we would like to comment on. We have therefore prepared a short document that highlights some of our concerns. This document will be distributed in due course.

I now refer to the amendments that deal with mandatory minimum prison sentences. In a word, we are suggesting that you amend the Criminal Code to list the aggravating factors that would result in more severe punishments, and that you not deal with mandatory minimum sentences.

With regard to the amendments dealing with the age of consent to sexual activity, there seems to be a contradiction between, on the one hand, the Young Offenders' Act that requires everyone to be accountable for his or her actions from the age of 14, and, on the other, the fact that a person of the same age is not able to consent to a non-exploitative sexual act.

I would like to take some more time today to speak to you about the amendments dealing with conduct when a person is impaired by alcohol or drugs. Bill C-2 makes significant changes in this area. Presently, section 254 of the Criminal Code allows peace officers who have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence to require that person to provide a breath sample in an approved instrument. Furthermore, under section 258, the Crown can make certain legal presumptions to facilitate the prosecution's work. Persons arrested under section 254 must comply and must provide the required breath samples if the samples are collected in an approved instrument.

The Alcohol Test Committee recommends approved instruments to Parliament. This committee—and I will shortly provide you with documentation—also conducts exhaustive tests before recommending to Parliament that an instrument be approved. After these rigorous tests and as the result of the committee's recommendation, Parliament accepts an instrument. This same committee makes recommendations to police services and to provinces, who are responsible for maintaining the devices and for all the programs that have to do with breathalyzers such as training, the courses given to qualified technicians, and so on.

In Canada, laboratories of three kinds are responsible for advising provinces and police services on matters of forensic science. These are the RCMP laboratories that serve eight provinces, the laboratory in Ontario, and the forensic laboratory in Quebec. It is important to understand that programs are not uniform across Canada. Maintaining these devices remains the responsibility of police services.

In one recent case, we found that there was no maintenance program for the Intoxilyzer 5000C devices used by police in Montreal. They were purchased in 1996. They are repaired if they malfunction, but, if they do not, their performance is not checked.

That goes against the recommendations of the Alcohol Test Committee that advises Parliament. So, the Montreal police is not following the recommendations of the Alcohol Test Committee, nor those of the manufacturer, concerning the maintenance of the devices.

After my remarks, Mr. Jean Charbonneau will provide you with more explanation of the legal and technical considerations. Though the case is not over, the legal community in Montreal has concerns for natural justice when these devices are used.

If BillC-2is passed in its present form, the situation will be even worse, because it removes our ability to present evidence to the contrary, as we can today. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that, given that it is possible to present evidence to the contrary, the presumptions of the Criminal Code are reasonable.

Our position is that if the bill is passed in its present form, it will no longer be possible to present evidence to the contrary, and the presumptions will be almost impossible to contest. It is almost impossible for an accused to show that the device was not working properly on the day when he provided samples. We will then be in a situation where thousands of people will provide samples, because they have no other choice. There will be a presumption of guilt and it will be almost impossible to present evidence to the contrary if the bill is passed in its present form.

We may present evidence showing that the device was possibly not reliable, or that there were perhaps errors on the day when our client provided samples. But the Supreme Court of Canada's 2005 decision in the Boucher case defines evidence to the contrary. The definition does not include speculative evidence. We can show that the device is not reliable and that its results cannot be relied on today. But since this is not sufficient evidence to the contrary, we cannot present it, and we certainly will not be able to after Bill C-2 is passed.

Furthermore, the present situation...

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, October 26, 2007, we are dealing with Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I first want to welcome all of our MPs back from a week in their ridings, and to a reinvigorated committee to continue our work on Bill C-2.

I welcome our witnesses who are here this morning. We certainly appreciate the efforts that you all have made. I know that this committee was formed in fairly short order, and we certainly appreciate the fact that you've been able to put time into your schedules to be able to join us here and present your perspective on the bill. We obviously have something to learn from that this morning.

I know that we've only been away for a week, but let me make a couple of gentle reminders in terms of timeframes. Each group has ten minutes to make their presentation, whether an individual or a group. It's up to you to divide your time. If you are dividing your time with your colleague, certainly that is your decision to make. It's your time to do so. I would just respectfully ask that if you keep an eye on me, I'll try to give you a warning when there's about a minute left in your presentation, so you know that you can work towards wrap-up.

The way the questions will move is the first round of questioning will begin with the Liberal Party for seven minutes. Each party will have a seven-minute allocation. Once we get into subsequent rounds, they'll be five-minute time-allocated question and answer sessions.

I again would ask if you could just keep a bit of an eye on me in terms of being able to make sure that we get as many questions in as possible and that we stay as close to our timeframes as we can.

With that, I would like to ask the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Mr. Rady and Mr. Roitenberg, to please start.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Muise, for joining us.

Mr. Cooper, this is the first opportunity I have had to hear you testify about a proposed piece of federal legislation. Thank you.

I quite liked the comparison that you drew. You stated that since leaving the police force, your income has declined. There's a saying in Quebec that if you want to demote a police officer, from a salary standpoint, you give him a job as a Crown attorney.

Mr. Cooper, I'd like to hear your views on something that's very important to me. Like Mr. Muise, you said that you read the bill yesterday. In your opinion, will Bill C-2, as tabled by the government, resolve—and I use the word cautiously—the problem of violence against women?

In Quebec, as in your home province and elsewhere in Canada, there have been many reported cases of repeated violence against women. In the past, there was no possibility of declaring the perpetrator a dangerous offender or some such thing, and after a while, he would end up killing his spouse. Two or three famous cases come to mind, including one in your province. Can this bill help us to resolve this very real problem in both of our provinces?

Elsewhere, Mr. Cooper, do you also believe that this bill will help to address the problem of child abuse? I'm thinking here about abuse of a sexual nature, among other things. Sexual predators manage to slip through the cracks and at some point, they must be caught.

Since you have read the bill and since you may be required to work within its parameters, do you believe that it will help to address these two major problems, namely violence against women and child abuse?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Something you said kind of struck home.

Is that what we're talking about here--someone who has met the criteria for dangerous offender but who, it's been decided, is going to be handled as a long-term offender? Time goes by, and they reoffend. That, in effect, is the difference this change is making under Bill C-2. It will mean not having to wait until this person commits another violent sexual offence before having a rehearing of the dangerous offender.

Is that what we're talking about here, the difference in our justice system's being able to have that here where it's obvious tougher controls are needed because the person has breached some pretty stringent controls, without having to wait for that person to victimize somebody? Is that the difference?

[Carole Morency, Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice]

As you've said in the question, the reforms proposed by Bill C-2 reintroduce what was in Bill C-22, basically increasing the age of protection from 14 to 16 and maintaining the age of protection at 18 for acts related to the sex trade or prostitution. The Criminal Code already prohibits, since 1997, child sex tourism. In other words, if a Canadian resident or citizen goes abroad and engages in one of the enumerated child sex offences--any of the offences that would apply under the new age of protection--they could be convicted here in Canada for committing that offence abroad, as if the offence had been committed here in Canada.

Right now the way the law works is that if the offence is committed against a person under the age of 14, the existing child sex tourism provision would enable a Canadian prosecution here for that offence, provided that the offender wasn't convicted for that same incident abroad in the country where the offence was alleged to have been committed. Raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 will protect youths here, 14- and 15-year-olds, against sexual exploitation by adults. Similarly, it will raise the age at which the child sex tourism provisions will apply. So for whatever the offence would have been here in Canada, if the new age of protection is 16, for the child-specific offence, the child sex tourism offence would apply to that.

Certainly the justice committee heard testimony from some of the police witnesses about the sophistication of some adult predators, particularly in terms of using the Internet to try to lure young persons for the purposes of committing a sexual offence against them or exploiting them. Again, raising the age of protection will better protect youth against that kind of conduct on the Internet.

Some of those witnesses did say that they have seen, through some of the exchanges the undercover police have seen, references to Canada's age of protection being lower. Perhaps that is an attraction for some predators from outside of the country. Certainly there have been reported cases where somebody has been coming from, say, the United States to meet up with someone they've met on the Internet to follow through on the Internet luring, and they've been caught at the border. That evidence has been provided to the justice committee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all of the witnesses for being here today and for the different areas of expertise you bring forward. We appreciate that. It definitely adds value to our discussion.

I wouldn't want anyone to come here, sit here for two hours, and not get to say anything, so I'll ask Ms. Morency a question.

There have been a number of high-profile issues—I certainly don't ask you to comment on any case that's ongoing—regarding people who are travelling to different jurisdictions to basically prey on young people. I guess you'd call them child sex tourists or something to that effect. I'm wondering if you could comment a bit on the changes that were in Bill C-22 on raising the age of protection that are now incorporated in Bill C-2 and on the impact that might have on people. Maybe you can comment on whether or not people in the past did see Canada as somewhat of a destination, and on what impact this would have.

I do recall some testimony from the last Parliament that dealt with the sophistication of groups of older individuals who were seeking out young people for these types of relationships, and how they used the Internet to further their exploitation. Could you comment a bit on whether that message is going to be getting out there to those groups, and also on Canada being a destination in that regard?

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

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

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

Okay.

With regard to the amendment you've made in Bill C-2 from the previous Bill C-27, just quickly, with regard to being able to treat the breach of the long-term offender conditions, are we going to be able to do that at any time? That is, once the breach occurs, how long do we have before we have to apply? Are there time limits, and if so, what are they?

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

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

Firstly, I am happy that you were able to group all of the bills into Bill C-2. I want to share with you testimonials from the province of Quebec in particular.

Mr. Boisvenu, whose daughter was killed, read a part of the bill. He was very happy about it because he is a member of an association many members of which have seen their children killed by recidivists using firearms.

Another person thanks you, in a way. That is Mr. Livernoche, the father of the young boy who was strangled following the release of a sexual offender. Perhaps in future, that sort of thing will no longer happen.

A third group from the city of Montreal might also want to thank you. I don't live there, but I know that my colleague Mr. Ménard does. There are 36 extremely violent street gangs. Ms. Mourani has written a book on the topic. These street gangs can decide to kill you just because they don't like the colour of the clothes you are wearing. In some cases, it is that extreme.

Another group with which I have often dealt in my personal practice would thank you also. This concerns impaired driving. The MADD group is very well aware of everything concerning deaths due to impaired driving. You know that in Quebec several people have literally been killed by people who were driving in an impaired state due to alcohol or drugs.

The question I would like to put to you, Minister, is important. Even though this has been said and repeated, I would like you to explain, because this must be well understood, why you decided, at this time, to group into Bill C-2 all of these laws that were dispersed all over the place, in the House of Commons or at the Senate. Can a Canadian citizen listening to you today expect that things will proceed quickly? What message would you like to give him?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member on his appointment as chair of the legislative committee on Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime legislation. I know he will do an excellent job.

I do not comment on specific cases, but in the last election we made reforming the credit system for pretrial custody one of our commitments to Canadians. We have been busy fighting crime in this country with our tackling violent crime bill. We will introduce legislation reforming the Youth Criminal Justice Act and changing Canada's drug laws. We want to get it all done, but as I always say, when it comes to fighting crime in this country, we are just getting started.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Moore's logic would be impeccable if it did not overlook the fact that we make amendments. I do not think that it is reasonable. The bills that we have studied up to now were much less complex than Bill C-2 and we have never done the work with less than four to six hours at our disposal. The bill is 50 pages long, and we do not know all the amendments. How do we propose to get through this bill in four hours when we do not even know what all the amendments are going to be about?

The merit of Ms. Jennings' motion is that it foresees the possibility of amendments and of our needing more than four hours. That said, no one wants to sit in committee for the sake of sitting in committee. If we have finished on Tuesday, if we are all ready to pass it and to authorize the Chair to table the report, good for us! But let us face the possibility that there may be amendments, Mr. Chair. If so, the Prime Minister will just have to chill out a little and show some respect for the opposition.

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

That still doesn't answer my question, which is that should Mr. Moore's amendment to this motion for notice of motion be adopted, and then the motion itself, the main motion as amended, be adopted, then if at any point in the future this committee is dealing with business, is considering certain business obviously directly related to Bill C-2--that's the business and main mandate of this committee--and someone attempts to table a motion without the hours' notice, whether we decide that's going to be 48 hours', 24 hours', 36 hours', 35 hours', 23 hours' notice, or whatever--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I would just like to understand why it is important for a minister who does not have an economic portfolio to be present for an economic update. Is the government not claiming that C-2 Bill is the priority? Should we not start at 3:30 p.m? I am not opposed to starting at 4:30 p.m., but I confess to being a little surprised that the minister, who does not have an economic portfolio, wants to be present for an economic update. I am not against starting an hour later, but I would prefer to start at 3:30 p.m. I would just like someone to explain what contribution the Minister of Justice will make, since industry or finance are not matters that concern him at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Pursuant to Standing Order 113(3), I would like to call the meeting to order. This is the first meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I feel like the genie in Aladdin, because there are a few quid pro quos that we need to go through first. According to practice, in my role as the chair of this committee, I will act as a neutral arbitrator of the proceedings, ensuring orderly conduct of debate and, obviously, careful attention to the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I first would like to thank the committee and respective parties for their support in allowing me to chair this legislative committee. Because of the short time this committee has been given to study the bill, I shall do my best to ensure that we do this in as efficient a manner as we possibly can. We'll have our work cut out for us if we are going to complete our study by November 22, but I think we'll be able to meet that part of the motion and certainly move forward. I give you my assurances that I will act as a neutral arbitrator and chair this as effectively and efficiently as I possibly can.

There are two people I would like to introduce before we get into housekeeping matters. The first is the clerk of our committee, Christine Lafrance. She'll be responsible for the administrative and procedural aspects of the committee's work. Our legislative clerk, from whose work we will benefit, is Mr. Mike Macpherson. Mr. Macpherson will be an advisor to the committee regarding the admissibility of amendments.

Before we begin the consideration of routine motions, I would like to confirm the fact that the committee is ready to hear from the justice minister this afternoon in a televised meeting. Obviously all of our proceedings will be televised. If I could see agreement and general concurrence that the minister could drop by and present, that would be appreciated.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between all the parties and we certainly appreciate their efforts in moving this legislation forward. Therefore, I would like to move the following motion and I think you will find unanimous consent for it. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be proceeded with as follows:

The bill be deemed read a second time, referred to a legislative committee;

the membership of this legislative committee be Dick Harris, Daryl Kramp, Daniel Petit, Gerald Keddy, Rob Moore, Marlene Jennings, Derek Lee, Brian Murphy, Larry Bagnell, Réal Ménard, Carole Freeman, Joe Comartin and that the Chairman be Rick Dykstra; and

proceedings in the committee on the Bill shall be concluded as follows: if not previously concluded by midnight on November 22, 2007, at midnight on November 22, 2007 any proceedings before the Legislative Committee shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the committee stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate, at the conclusion of the committee stage the Chairman shall be instructed to report the bill back to the House on November 23, 2007, and shall be authorized to table the report with the Clerk at any time, including when the House is not sitting, if the Bill is not reported back by midnight on November 23, 2007, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Committee without amendment.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park for his comment. I know the member has had a long and distinguished career in Parliament and has had a keen interest in criminal justice issues over that time. I have had occasion to review remarks that he has made and I have heard him speak at the justice committee from time to time.

I am a bit perplexed. I have indeed great respect for his comments. In fact, when he comments that prorogation is a privilege, that it is up to a government leader to take such a decision and that this has been used in the past by Liberal prime ministers, I take it that perhaps he approves of it and feels that the current Prime Minister was certainly within his rights and did the right thing by proroguing Parliament.

The comment in my speech, if it was misconstrued by the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, was that by proroguing Parliament, these bills were killed in their tracks. To bring them back under the guise that somehow the previous Parliament and the committee, and the Senate for that matter, had unduly delayed them, is misleading.

To say that prorogation is a right of a prime minister is absolutely true and that it has been used before is also absolutely true. If the member is endorsing, then, what previous Liberal governments have done in prorogation, I am okay with this comments and I understand them perfectly. If the member is saying that by abstaining with respect to the Speech from the Throne Liberals have done something that previous Conservative oppositions have not done, then that would not be the truth either. In fact, the Conservative opposition abstained as recently as May of 2005.

If I threw the member off with my comments with respect to parliamentary procedure and government prerogative, I apologize. I am new in the House. All I know is that I and many members in the House worked for a year and a half on justice bills that were killed by the prorogation. Bill C-2 attempts to correct that. Let us move the justice agenda forward and make our society a safer place.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-2 and justice issues in general, I heard just recently in the House the term “a revolving door”. The only revolving door is the justice minister and officials in the Conservative Party going in and out of press conferences announcing and reannouncing the same bills on which they pulled the plug.

With respect to Bill C-2, I have reviewed all the material. I sat in on all the committee hearings. What I have recently discovered, through obtaining a bill briefing, is a note from the Prime Minister about Bill C-2, in that it regurgitates all the bills we dealt with in the last Parliament. The message from the Prime Minister is that he is sorry that he pulled the plug on Parliament and flushed all the good work of the justice committee down the drain.

That is what happened. All these bills were well on their way. They were going through the due process of Parliament, which followed the rules of parliaments before, and they were on the way to being in effect.

The reason we are here today is that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament and those bills were killed in their tracks. It is not true that perhaps that is why the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament but I think it is. In fact, I think that is why we have a new session.

I may be new and I may be in the back row but I read the papers and I know what is going on. Parliament was prorogued and all legislation was stopped in its tracks.

What is important to remind ourselves, and the Canadian public will want to know, is that there were 13 bills in the justice dossier and 7 of them were passed and are now the law of Canada.

As a member of the justice committee, I would expect all parties to tell all members of the justice committee that it was a job well done, that seven out of thirteen justice bills that affect the citizens of Canada are now law. Five of those bills are currently the subject of Bill C-2, which I will turn to, and one, mysteriously, of the thirteen bills, the criminal procedure act, which all parties agreed to unanimously, was a creature of a previous Parliament and which all prosecutors are waiting intently for. These prosecutors are the people who are on the front lines, as well as the police officers, in the criminal justice system. I suppose they are wondering why, despite the offer to fast track the bill by this party and despite the unanimous support by the justice committee, Bill C-23 has not been moved up. Perhaps in the government's haste and the revolving door of the press circle and the press club, it forgot to bring along an important bill.

Overall, the 13 bills, the 7 passed and the 1 dropped by an incompetent justice minister and the parliamentary secretary for forgetting that, and the 5 we are about to discuss, all of these bills need to be enforced. Each police officer, prosecutor, probation officer and corrections official, all those people in the system need to know that if there are 13 new laws, 12 because 1 was dropped by the incompetent ministry, but if there are 12 new bills we need to know we have the resources to put them into effect.

It is urgent for the public to know that despite a promise by the government, the law and order government, the tough on crime government, it is toothless without following up on the promise of 2,500 new police officers and the false promise in the Speech from the Throne for 1,000 new RCMP officers when the RCMP cannot recruit 1,000 officers. It is behind in its recruitment. It is a meaningless, toothless promise to the people of Canada but, even worse, it takes away the hope of the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, the prosecutors and the probation officers, all the people who must put into effect, on a daily basis, the laws of the justice system.

I want to emphasize that the party on this side of the House is not so fickle. We support our justice system. We support our judges, our prosecutors, and all of the police officers who are responsible for protecting Canadians.

Over the past 18 months, the Liberal Party has undertaken a thorough review of the legislation pertaining to crime while the Conservatives have been busy playing political games. The Prime Minister put an end to this Parliament's activities and committee work, thereby throwing out the amendments that this bill sought to make to five acts. It is his fault that these five acts have not yet been amended.

We on this side of the House have faith in our justice system and are convinced that it will keep the peace in our communities.

I say that because it should be a non-partisan issue that we all believe in a safe community. We are all here as parliamentarians, surely, to ensure that we have a safe community. We may differ on the avenue to get there, but how much did we, the Liberal Party of Canada and its members on the justice committee, really differ from the plan of the Conservative Party in general and, more importantly, in the organic process which is called the development of criminal law through amendments to the Criminal Code?

I say to the House and to the public: not much.

There were 13 bills proposed. Seven passed and there are five in Bill C-2 that we are substantially in agreement on because they would have been law by now had Parliament not been prorogued, and I must say for the record that there is one that has been dropped by the government and that we are also in favour of.

So how is it that we, in trying to keep the community safe, are against the elements in Bill C-2 and the elements in these bills? I will repeat them: Bill C-9, on conditional sentences; Bill C-18, on DNA identification; Bill C-19, on street racing; Bill C-25, on proceeds of crime; Bill C-26, on criminal rate of interest; and just to add two others that were not part of Bill C-2, Bill C-48, on the implementation of a UN convention against corruption, and Bill C-59, on the unauthorized recording of a movie. These have all been supported.

But there is more. I hear members on the opposite side talk about 13 years of inaction with respect to criminal justice and I think the Canadian public would be interested to know that these laws, while continuing on the evolution of our criminal law and making our community safer, are but part of the Criminal Code of Canada.

On the Criminal Code of Canada, I might say this in a moment of non-partisanship and to congratulate a Conservative politician, albeit a dead one.When Prime Minister John Thompson, a Conservative prime minister, was minister of justice he essentially created and adapted the criminal law of Canada into a code that we would follow in this country. I want to get credit for giving plaudits to a Conservative in this place.

A principal part of the Criminal Code of Canada, which we have been talking about since I have been in Parliament, is sentencing. What is sentencing? The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in section 718. I hear very often in this place and at the revolving door of the press conference centre for the Conservative Party of Canada that there is but one principle in sentencing, that is, to put the bad guys away.

I know this is a novel concept for those who are directing the Conservative justice agenda, but why do we not refer to what the law says about the purpose and principles of sentencing? They are set out in section 718. I am not going to read this word for word because it tends to be bogged down in particularness and assuredness and literal things that, again, the Conservative justice team really knows nothing about, having adopted and written such sloppy legislation that it had to be sent to committee to be fixed.

However, in general, there are six important factors or principles in sentencing. It is the reason we have sentences for people who have committed crimes. One principle is to denounce unlawful conduct. That is the one I hear about most often from the Conservative justice team. That is a valid principle, but it is one of six.

What are the others? One is to deter the offender from doing it again. That is another one I hear a lot about. The point over here is that those two of the six are very important. We are not shirking the importance of those. The law does not say that any one is more important than the other. It is a guidepost to judges who make our law pursuant to what they read here. It is a guidepost to say that we will denounce unlawful conduct. Yes, we will, by bringing in this sentence. We will deter the person or any person in the public from doing it again. They are two very important objectives.

However, that is where the Conservative justice team stops most of the time. The Conservatives forget that they must separate offenders from society when necessary and that they must assist in rehabilitating offenders. This is not to mean that the criminal gets more justice than the victim. What it means is that if there is a chance to rehabilitate an offender before that offender is reintegrated into society, or after, we ought to take that chance. Society is not safer, and let us remember that this safety is the principal goal of all parliamentarians here, by sending a more dangerous person back into the community after his or her sentence is served. It is a very important principle, as important as deterrence and as important as denouncing unlawful conduct.

The fifth aspect is to provide reparations for harm done to victims. That is very key. I will get into speaking about Bill C-9, which was a failed bill and flawed until it was amended at committee by all parties. One of the key aspects of Bill C-9 was to amend it to allow some white collar criminals, for lack of a better term, who had done a very denunciatory offence, which should be deterred, such as acts of stealing money through a breach of trust from someone, say, the option of a conditional sentence. It was to allow them to make reparations and restitution during the term of their sentence when it might mean the difference between an aged person with a stolen RRSP account getting that money back or not.

It gave back discretion to the judge, which he or she had in the first place, and it was a very necessary amendment to a flawed and hasty bill to make sure that this principle of sentencing, that is, to provide reparation for harm done to victims, was put in place. It was made better law by the intervention of the committee.

The final principle is to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. What that is about is making sure that these offenders are not so divorced from the community in which they live, so that they know when they have done wrong that they have a responsibility to that community to be remorseful, to make amends and, I think very importantly, to reintegrate into that community if possible. We should never forget that.

The overall principle, and it is written as the fundamental principle in section 718.1 of the code, is that of the proportionality, of the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This is a very important principle, which judges rely on all the time.

I hear members speak about 13 years of Liberal inactivity. Actually I was not here for any of those 13 years. I was on the outside looking at all of the criminal justice bills that had been brought in during that time. I remember that it was a Liberal minister of justice who brought in the whole concept of mandatory minimums, which at the revolving door of the Conservatives' press circle was as if it was invented by them. I wonder if they invented the laws of gravity and found the North American continent. I suspect not, Mr. Speaker, and I do not suppose you could answer objectively if they say they have somewhere else, but I am not sure that they would not stand here and say that they have.

They did not invent mandatory minimums. The other sentencing principles in section 718.2 were brought in, in successive Liberal governments, by amendments in 1995, 1997, 2000, 2001 and 2005. All of those amendments in section 718.2 were brought in to recognize the changing nature of our society and to allow judges for the first time in the history of the Criminal Code to take into account these factors when sentencing, either in increasing or in decreasing the sentences, and I am very proud of that.

These factors include evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. It is the first time that it was codified that a judge should take into account hate crimes when sentencing. For any crimes committed based on someone's ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation and other factors, is it not correct, right and fair in this society that those sentences were brought in and that judges should be told to take into account those factors in section 718.2, or whether the violence was against a spouse or common law partner?

Is it not important, for instance, that a judge be given that discretion to increase a sentence if the crime was against a spouse or a common law partner, or if the crime was done to a person of tender years under the age of 18? Is it not important that this be taken into account?

Is it not important, as it says in subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii), whether or not the person who committed the crime “abused a position of trust or authority”, or also whether the person was a member of a criminal organization, or that the offence was a terrorism offence?

All of these factors were in judges' hands before 2005. These were not invented by the Newtons over there in the last 18 months. They were there, it was Liberal legislation, and I presume it had all party support because it makes such sense.

Finally, in the principles of sentencing categories, paragraph 718.2(e) has the all important factor of recognizing that if an offender is of aboriginal origin or from a first nations community special circumstances should be put in place. We found during much of the deliberation at committee that this sentencing principle was often ignored.

I look at the amendments in place with respect to Bill C-10 and Bill C-9. It is a particular affront to this established sentencing principle, and it seems to have been completely forgotten by the Conservative government, that these two important sections of the code had existed before the Conservative government took place and certainly will exist when it moves on into the sunset.

About the laws in Bill C-2 and why it is so easy on this side for us to say we support the bill, it is important to remember that we on this side, and the members of the justice committee from the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois will vouch for this, and the members of the justice committee had made Bill C-10 and the mandatory minimum aspect a better bill when it left committee. Arrogantly, and without respect for the work of the all party committee, the Conservative justice team, coming yet again from the revolving door of the press club, suggested that it would put in at report stage the entire bill as it was before.

However, over the summer I think the Conservatives had blueberry festivals and strawberry festivals and must have eaten some humble pie at some festival, as they decided that they would accept the amendments as they came from the committee, reintroducing Bill C-2 with the Bill C-10 amendments to make our community a better place and enlarge upon the mandatory minimums that were already in place under the Liberal justice program before the Conservatives took office.

The other bill that needs clarification on why it is an acceptable bill now, and why it was never acceptable when the amateur Conservative justice team brought the topic up before, is Bill C-22, the age of consent bill.

I have heard well-meaning, honest and forthright members of the House, such as the member for Wild Rose, say that he and his colleagues could never get an age of consent or age of protection bill through the Commons. I was disturbed by that. I asked why we would not protect our young persons. Why would we not get in line with many of the communities around the world which recognize that consent may not be freely given by a 14 year old when the world has become smaller and the age of the predator is upon us?

I looked into it. There were two very fundamental flaws with all bills that were presented as part of a justice package by an opposition entitled the Conservative opposition. They are as follows.

There was absolutely no close in age exemption. This bill, Bill C-22, contains a close in age exemption, making it flexible enough to recognize that not every relationship that is separated by a number of years is a relationship between an innocent young child and a sexual predator.

Finally, as I wrap up, age of consent as presented previously would have criminalized normal adolescent sexual activity which, whether the Conservatives like it or not, is out there, and 14 year olds and 15 year olds having relations are protected by this. It does prevent sexual predators from preying on the young. It is good legislation.

In summary, the five bills in Bill C-2 are good law because the committee made them so. I encourage the Conservative justice team, the Prime Minister and all Conservatives out there to watch what they write, to watch what they present to Parliament, and to not keep going through that revolving door called the press circle to give press releases without having done their homework to ensure that they are passing good laws which will make Canada safer.

[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.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Speech from the Throne

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

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne sets our government's directions for the new session and reflects the concerns of the Quebec nation, including the desire to put a stop to crime and make communities safer.

Bill C-2, which tackles violent crime, includes measures that were examined in depth during the last session: minimum sentences for offences involving firearms; raising the age of consent from 14 to 16; declaration of dangerous offenders; reverse onus in cases of firearm-related offences; and drug-impaired driving.

Why is the Bloc planning to vote against these measures? Luckily, the Bloc does nothing but talk and cannot come to power. It would seem the Bloc would protect criminals rather than honest people.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what has come across only too well is my hon. colleague's understanding.

I will therefore try to be very clear. First of all, the American states that tried this system of reverse onus later reversed their decision.

Why? Because in matters of justice, when we set out to imprison someone indefinitely—I hope the interpreter will translate this clearly: the result of being declared a dangerous offender is indefinite incarceration—this is not seen as automatic sentencing.

We agree that the Criminal Code should contain provisions for declaring someone a dangerous offender. Now, maybe after just one offence, an individual might have to be declared a dangerous offender. Perhaps three offences are not needed. It is possible, at this time, for a psychiatrist to be called by the Crown in order to testify, after one offence, that the individual should be declared a dangerous offender.

The problem is that, when his colleague, the Minister of Justice, appeared before the parliamentary committee, he was unable to explain to us why the system is not working, why we should modify the system and resort to automatic sentencing after three offences.

We will have the opportunity to listen to the minister again during our work on Bill C-2 and I hope his explanations will be clearer this time than when he first appeared.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my young colleague. If I am not mistaken, he is the youngest member of Parliament from Quebec. The bill he is referring to concerns dangerous offenders.

For 50 years, the Criminal Code has contained provisions we have not challenged. We agree that some people are extremely violent and present such a high risk of reoffending that they must be declared dangerous offenders. People who are declared dangerous offenders can receive indeterminate prison sentences and are not eligible for parole for seven years.

The problem with the new Bill C-2, has to do with the list of 22 offences. Some of them, such as incest or attempted murder, are very serious, but others such as assault need some explanation. For instance, if my dear colleague and I were to have a fight—it would not last very long—that would constitute assault.

We are not downplaying assault, but we want to know why it is on the list of 22 offences. After an offender has committed three offences on the list, automatic sentencing applies. We question whether this is the right way to assess how dangerous an offender is.

This does not mean that we will vote against the bill, no more than it means we will vote in favour of the bill. What it means is that we have some serious work ahead of us, in committee.

[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.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that approximately four minutes from now, we will be breaking to let the bells ring for a recorded division. I will not be able to get through all of my comments, but I do want to make a few comments, if I may, in the short period of time that I do have.

I am very pleased to stand here in response to the Speech from the Throne and say how excited I was when I heard the speech that was delivered so eloquently by the Governor General.

One of the other things I want to say is that for the first time we had an opportunity to let the majority of Canadians really get engaged in listening to the speech, because for the first time the speech was actually primarily delivered in prime time in terms of television. Certainly in eastern Canada it was viewed in prime time. I know that from my own standpoint, we received several calls in my constituency office from people who actually had a chance to view the Speech from the Throne and they viewed it as a great opportunity. This is something about which we should all be excited, because it is actually getting more citizens engaged in the democratic process.

Of course, not everyone was in favour of it. Members collectively from the opposition parties seemed to criticize it. They called it Americanization. Let us face it: If the collective opposition cannot make a couple of references to George W. Bush on a daily basis, life just is not worth living for them.

That fact notwithstanding, it was a very positive move, because it allowed Canadians to see firsthand how this government intends to conduct itself over the course of the next months and we hope the next few years.

It spoke specifically of five priorities, what this government intends to do in strengthening the federation, strengthening our sovereignty, strengthening our economy, strengthening our environmental practices and, of course, with Bill C-2, strengthening the ability for all of our citizens at home to feel more secure in their daily lives. One of the things we wanted to make sure with our tackling violent crime bill is that we enacted some measures that have been long overdue to protect our citizens, whether they be children, adults or seniors. We wanted to make sure that we took positive action to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. That is why we have introduced Bill C-2, a comprehensive bill to deal with some very important pieces of legislation that had been stalled for far too long both in this House during committee and in the Senate.

I also want to touch very briefly on some of the points that my colleague was mentioning about Senate reform. One of the things we do have the ability to do in this House and in the upper chamber is to take some positive action in reforming the Senate.

For too many years, well over 100 years, we have had an unelected, patronage appointed Senate. What we are attempting to do is take the patronage appointments away from how we conduct our Senate.

By allowing citizens through a consultation process to voice their opinions on who they wish to represent them regionally, as senators, has got to be viewed as a positive thing. However, I do not see much acceptance of that initiative by members opposite and members of the upper chamber. That is clearly unfortunate.

Also, what we need to do very seriously is, this House, as an assembly, should send a direct message to the Senate that when we send a piece of legislation from this place to the other place, the Senate must deal with it expeditiously with no delay.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is tight and I thank you for the brief opportunity I have had to give these remarks.

Religious Freedom

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would ask at this time that you seek unanimous consent for this House to adopt a motion to approve Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, at all stages so it may move forward to the Senate.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this should take long.

In order for the House to make at least some progress on anti-crime legislation today in a responsible way, I wonder if you could see if there is unanimous consent in the House for the following motion, that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open the debate on today's theme from the throne speech: strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions.

We have a great, united country whose foundation is a solid federation and a living democracy. In fact, federalism and democracy have gone hand and hand throughout Canada's history.

Our country's history is one of people joining together to achieve great dreams thought impossible by the pessimists, but it is also a history of people who, through accommodation and respect, build practical, workable approaches allowing remarkable progress to unfold.

The project of Confederation was about bringing together the different regions into a strong and united country based on democratic practices and the rule of law. Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the Fathers of Confederation, through strong leadership united Canadians in a federal union which would deliver a future of security and prosperity for the country as a whole. Their vision was strong and enduring, a firm foundation on which successive generations have built.

Our government is continuing this nation building project today with our commitments for strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions. Strong leadership and a better Canada: that is our objective.

I would like to spend my time today discussing the progress we have already made in this area and highlighting our plans for this new session of Parliament.

Our government made a commitment to practise open federalism, and it is taking steps to ensure that our country is prosperous and united.

Our approach is not new, but it is based on the very principles underlying Confederation.

The union was based on a simple concept: the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. The objective was not to have a weak, passive federal government, but a government that would respect the provinces' areas of jurisdiction.

Provincial governments are closer to their citizens and are well positioned to determine local needs and aspirations. In contrast, the federal government is well placed to protect the national interest in pursuit of the common good of the country as a whole. As the project of our Confederation first became committed to paper in the Quebec Resolutions of 1864, this approach was clear:

In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a general Government, charged with matters of a common interest to the whole country; and Local Governments...charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections.

The steps we have taken recently and the measures we plan to take to create a federalism of openness will produce unprecedented efficiency, harmony and stability in the union, as the Fathers of Confederation envisioned many years ago.

Our federalism of openness means respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction, and that, in turn, means two things. First, a federal government that shows leadership in its areas of jurisdiction. Second, a federal government that unites the country by introducing fair, respectful intergovernmental policies.

We have shown strong leadership in areas of federal jurisdiction, such as strengthening our economy by cutting taxes and helping families, in the process paying down billions on the debt and achieving the lowest national unemployment rate since I was a child; in international trade with the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute; in defence with our leadership in international aid efforts in Afghanistan; and in public safety and security with our agenda for making communities safer by tackling crime.

In the new session this leadership will continue with measures to strengthen Canada's economic union through internal free trade among the provinces; a commitment to action in protecting Canada's sovereignty, particularly in the Arctic; continued pursuit of a safer Canada beginning with the comprehensive criminal justice reforms in our Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

We have treated the provincial and territorial governments with respect, which has strengthened national unity. To restore the fiscal balance within the Canadian federation, we have increased the main federal transfers and introduced a new stable, reliable, fair funding formula. We have helped build a better Canada with our historic recognition that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.

Our 2007 budget contained an unprecedented long term commitment to rebuild Canada's infrastructure, amounting to a total of $33 billion over the next seven years, the largest federal investment in Canadian infrastructure in over half a century.

During this session, we will introduce a bill to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This bill will formalize the commitments our government made in the 2006 and 2007 budgets, because it will specify the limits on federal power.

In keeping with how we see open federalism, our bill will also allow the provinces and territories to opt out of new shared-cost programs with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs. In addition to recognizing the provinces' and territories' ability to provide programs in their specific areas of responsibility, our bill will enable Canadians, wherever they live, to receive services comparable to those available under national programs.

Our diversity as a country serves as a source both of strength and innovation. Through our actions in open federalism, including equitable and predictable funding and clarified roles and responsibilities in our federation, we are offering a principles based approach on which all orders of government can continue to work into the future.

The vision of Macdonald and Cartier of a country united from east to west, of new Canadians and old, French and English, country and city, together dreaming great dreams and building a brighter future is alive and well and has a place deep in the heart of our government in 2007.

However, our Confederation must be more than the sum of its parts. The federal government must act as a leader in keeping the country strong and united and as a model for democratic values. To perform this leadership role, the democratic underpinnings of our government must be solid in order to continue to meet the expectations of the Canadians we serve. Our initiatives in the area of democratic reform demonstrate our government's leadership in this area. Nowhere is this more evident than our efforts to modernize our central democratic institution, a federal Parliament where the representation of both popular and provincial interests are united within the federal legislative process.

Since Confederation, Canada's Parliament has served the democratic interests of Canadians well, but the government must take action to ensure that this institution, which is the cornerstone of our representative democracy, remains strong, vibrant and adapted to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.

Our bicameral Parliament includes two houses, the lower house here which is comprised of elected representatives of the citizens of this great country originally founded on the fundamental principle of representation by population, and the upper house which was designed to represent the regions of the country to act as a chamber of sober second thought.

However, in the contemporary era, the Senate has been unable to credibly fulfill its role as an effective representative of the regions in the federal legislative process due to fundamental concerns with legitimacy and effectiveness of that appointed and unaccountable chamber. As for the other chamber, this one, the distribution of seats in the House of Commons has shifted too far away from the principle of representation by population, resulting in the unfair under-representation of the fast growing provinces.

Our government has already taken measures to address this situation as we promised during the last election with BillC-56 introduced in the last session to enhance the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons and give fast growing provinces the representation that their population merits, and by Bills S-4 and C-43 introduced in the last session to begin the long overdue project of Senate reform.

I would like to spend a few moments discussing Senate reform. It is a priority of our government that is urgently needed to modernize our federal Parliament. We put forward an agenda for the Senate reforms that is practical and achievable. As stated in the Speech from the Throne, we will continue to pursue this agenda with the reintroduction of two important bills.

The Senate tenure bill proposed a uniform fixed term for senators of eight years. Rather than leave the length of tenure as long as 45 years, as it is currently, our bill proposed that senators be appointed to a fixed term of eight years. This is a change that would bring renewal and relevance to the Senate. This change would improve the effectiveness of the Senate. It would ensure that senators' terms were long enough for them to gain the expertise and independence necessary to act as a chamber of sober second thought, but at the same time it would ensure that the terms would not be so long as to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the Senate as a modern institution in what we seek to declare to be a democratic country.

Unfortunately, the current unelected unaccountable Liberal senators spent over a year delaying this legislation before they finally took a decision to not take a decision. This action alone, or inaction more accurately, demonstrates clearly that the Senate must change. Its current form does not function well on this issue, or at all.

As I stated, our government intends to reintroduce the Senate term limits bill this session. I hope that the summer recess gave opposition senators some time for that sober second thought in relation to their position of inaction on this bill where they have refused to exercise their constitutional obligation to vote on the bill.

Our second Senate reform, Bill C-43, offered a means for democratizing the Senate by providing Canadians an opportunity to choose and advise who they want representing them in the Senate. It would provide for the first time an opportunity for voters across this country to have a democratic say in who sits in their Senate. This should hardly be a difficult principle to embrace in a 21st century western democracy. It would provide greater legitimacy and credibility to the work of the Senate as a democratic institution.

I was extremely pleased to attend the swearing in of Senator Bert Brown last week. He of course was popularly elected by the people of his province. I hope that we can look forward to the day when the Senate appointment consultations bill becomes law and all senators arrive in Ottawa with a democratic mandate.

As the Prime Minister has indicated, when the Senate consultations bill is reintroduced, we will be sending it to committee before second reading so that collaboration can begin on this important step toward a democratic Senate.

There are some who have suggested that governing parties of the past could maintain the status quo in the Senate out of self-interest, that we could benefit from the patronage appointments to be made and stack the chamber with partisans who would serve for decades. Our government believes that the Senate should be a democratically elected body that represents Canadians. So far, we have taken concrete steps toward that vision and they are steps that are achievable in the short term. What is more, surveys show that our agenda for term limits in a democratized Senate is strongly supported by Canadians. Surely in a democracy this above all should be a key indicator of what constitutes a good democratic reform.

The Senate must change. If it cannot be changed, it should be abolished. In its current illegitimate form the Senate does nothing to enhance our democracy, even as we aim at the same time to promote democratic values abroad.

I would now like to address a second element of the democratic reform program that we will continue to implement during this new session of Parliament: strengthening the electoral system.

A strong democracy requires both modern democratic institutions and an electoral process with integrity that inspires confidence among voters.

We have already introduced a number of measures that were passed in the last session to improve elections, which were broadly supported.

For example, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act—the first legislative measure we introduced—fulfilled our campaign commitment to clean up political funding. We levelled the playing field by banning donations from companies and unions, as well as large and secret donations, so that ordinary Canadians can contribute to the political process knowing that their donations will really count.

Bill C-4 was the first bill passed in the last session. We acted quickly to ensure that the party registration rules would not sunset and that those registration rules would remain in effect at all times.

With Bill C-16, setting dates for elections, we have established a four year electoral cycle, preventing snap elections from being called solely for the partisan advantage of the governing party.

As a result, after this House provides a mandate to govern when it approves the throne speech on Wednesday, we can look forward to the next election, now set in law to take place October 19, 2009.

In Bill C-31, we implemented wide-ranging recommendations of the procedure and House affairs committee for improving the electoral process, including important measures for reducing the opportunity for voter fraud, such as a voter identification procedure for federal elections.

In addition to these bills, which are now law, we introduced additional election reforms that did not have an opportunity to pass before we prorogued.

Building on our political financing reforms in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-54, our new bill to clean up campaign financing, proposed bringing accountability to political loans by eliminating loans as a means for circumventing contribution limits and establishing a transparent reporting regime for campaign finance.

Building on a number of measures for improving voter accessibility, Bill C-55, our expanded voting opportunities bill, proposed additional advanced polling days to enhance opportunities and encourage higher voter turnout.

During the second session of Parliament, our government will continue to strengthen the electoral process.

As stated in the Speech from the Throne, we will introduce measures that will enable us to confirm the identity of voters by requiring them to uncover their faces before voting. Like our other reforms, this concrete measure will improve the electoral process for all Canadians.

Public concerns raised about this issue during the September 17 byelections made it clear that we must act.

During meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in September, all parties approved the decision to prioritize resolving this issue.

Our government will act quickly to resolve this issue, and I hope that I can count on the support of all members of Parliament to give Canadians the strong, fair electoral process they expect.

There is so much that makes Canada great. We are mindful of the valuable legacy bestowed upon us by the visionary leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the Fathers of Confederation when they rendered the blueprint for what has proven to be the best country in the world. But it is our strong foundations that enable us to continue building a better Canada that is a leader in the world.

Those foundations are our federal state and our democratic spirit, but we also know, as did those Fathers of Confederation, that as the world modernizes, so must Canada. That is in fact the spirit of Confederation. It is that spirit that leads us to seek ways to strengthen our democracy and improve accountability to Canadians. We must be a democracy worthy of that name in a 21st century world.

Our government has already put forward a full agenda to fortify and modernize our federation and democracy, and we will continue to do so this session. We invite all parties in the House to join us as we build a stronger Canada with a brighter future for the generations that will follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There remains a lot of work to be done.

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

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

Because they left us so much work to be done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to mention a few statistics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing is a greater responsibility for any parliamentarian than to provide for the health and safety of our citizens. Sadly, under the former Liberal policy of denial, delay and tough talk but no action, today's crime problems fly in the face of our own constitutional promises of peace, order and good government.

Residents in my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, and I believe all Canadians, want a government that is tough on crime and reliable on national security.

Clearly, it is past time to protect victims and to focus on criminals. I am proud to be part of a government that stands behind our police officers and our prosecutors as they stand at the front line of Canadian justice every day.

So I say to my opposition colleagues in this House that if they are truly serious about cracking down on crime, then show it by swiftly and unanimously passing Bill C-2, our much-needed, comprehensive violent crime act.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address issues related to the Speech from the Throne.

I would like to start by thanking my constituents in the Okanagan and Nicola valleys, some of the most beautiful territory in all of Canada, I might add. Some of the ideas for the very elements that are in the Speech from the Throne germinated from constituents around the Okanagan and Nicola valleys in the constituency of Okanagan—Coquihalla who, over the past number of years, have brought to me concerns related to some of the elements I want to address today in the Speech from the Throne, notably areas related to safety and security.

It is a priority for each level of government to have a country and communities with safe and secure roads, countryside and schools. That is very important. It is a priority.

It should be the priority of every government that the safety and security of its citizens is paramount. I want to touch on some of the ways in which we have demonstrated that in the last year and half or so. I would then like to reflect on what we heard in the Speech from the Throne yesterday that is specifically related to some of the initiatives on criminal justice reform which will enhance not just safety and security in the country but the sense of safety and security that we have in our country or that we need to have.

We can look at statistics and we can also look at this in an anecdotal way. Today I want to do both. I have an uncle who lives in the Okanagan Valley. Obviously he is a senior citizen, being my uncle, and not that long ago in the middle of the afternoon as he was walking in his residential area to the grocery store he was approached by two males. They did not appear to be armed, but they told him, and he is a frail gentleman, that they wanted his wallet or they were going to beat him senseless right on the sidewalk.

This is a not uncommon occurrence across our country. There are people who do not have a fear of repercussions or an understanding of the consequences of their actions. I can apply that anecdote statistically. Across the country from Vancouver to Halifax and from our southern borders to our northern borders, this adds up to a sense of apprehension Canadians have that communities are not as safe as they could be.

I believe that if we were to ask Canadians if they feel that streets are safer now than they were two years ago with regard to some of the things we have been doing, most Canadians would say yes, but in fact there is more to do. We have committed to 1,000 more RCMP officers on our streets from coast to coast. We know that the visibility of peace officers, just their presence, has the effect of lowering crime in any particular area in which their presence is obvious.

We have committed to that. That is fully and federally funded. Also, the $37 million required to expand the training facilities at depot is already in play. Not long ago I was out at depot in Regina, the training facility for the RCMP, and I saw that some of the new facilities are already online. I met with many of the young cadets and spoke to a graduating class. I can tell members that I am very encouraged. I have a real sense of security and a sense of pride at the type of people the RCMP continues to attract and to graduate to serve us in our communities around the country.

Further to the 1,000 officers at the RCMP level, we have also made a commitment to work with provinces and municipalities so that we will have 2,500 more municipal officers across the country. I have been in discussions with my counterparts at the provincial and territorial level, the solicitors general and attorneys general, to discuss the funding formula. This is not 100% funded by the federal government. It is going to be cost shared.

At our borders we have begun the process of hiring 400 additional border officers to put an end to what we call work alone situations, in which border officers often are required to work in remote locations and to work there alone, which really is not conducive to a sense of safety or security, either for the people living along the border or for the border officers themselves.

We also have followed through on our commitment that our border officers, after decades of asking for this, finally will be trained and equipped to have side arms so they can handle dangerous situations when they get alerted that dangerous and armed individuals are approaching the border. As we know, that has not been in place for decades, the result of which has been that border officers have felt they actually have to vacate their posts because they receive an indication that armed and dangerous individuals are approaching them. They have to close down the border at that point, alert the police of the jurisdiction, be it the RCMP or municipal police, and wait for them to arrive.

All of the incumbent difficulties with this, not the least of which are long lineups that result, especially at busy border points, have been counterproductive, both on business and trade and certainly for travellers back and forth across the border. We have moved in a number of areas on this. I made an announcement last January for a commitment of $430 million strictly on the technological side to improve our borders and our capability of moving people efficiently across the border, but also to make it very difficult for dangerous individuals or in fact dangerous cargo to be moving across the border.

It is a challenge to keep our borders open to travellers who are not a threat but to close the borders to those who represent a threat to our country.

We need to have that balance at our borders.

Therefore, on the resource side we have been there and we continue to be there. We have increased resources for the RCMP, resources that were eroded over a number of years by the previous regime, something that did not result in beneficial headway being made in terms of providing safety and security. When we take away the resources of the very people who are providing that safety and security, it does not lead to a positive conclusion.

We have increased the resources for our DNA centres and for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. I would like to acknowledge today those individuals for the breakthroughs they have been involved in internationally in working with Interpol and other agencies in terms of bringing child predators to justice, including very recently a case that has been in the media whereby an individual allegedly involved in the exploitation of children is still being looked for. Once again, we and exploitation coordination centre experts are at the front and centre of this type of pursuit. We have also increased our resources in a number of other investigative areas.

Up to now I have been talking about enforcement. I have been talking about what I refer to as the long arm of the law. We also have to recognize that there are the open arms of the community. This is not all about enforcement. We have funded in a very significant way the groups at the local level who have the expertise, the know-how and the sense of what is happening on their own streets to have the types of programs that would prevent young people from even getting into a life of crime.

Many young people today are being attracted to gang activity, to illegal activities such as drug activities and others, which leads to the most tragic incidents we have seen in some time, with shootings on our streets and some of the most violent things that are taking place. Therefore, we fund with federal funds at a local level those groups and agencies that have proven they have a program that works. Those are the two words I use as criteria.

There are other more detailed criteria that flow from it, but we want to know what works in Canadians' communities. That is what we are saying to Canadians. We are asking them to show us what works in terms of identifying youth at risk, vulnerable families, progress toward reducing recidivism and programs projected to our aboriginal community. We are asking them to show us those programs, to show us what works, and we will fund it.

Along with that on the prevention side is the $64 million the Prime Minister announced about three weeks ago for our anti-drug strategy, in which two-thirds of the resources are dedicated to awareness, prevention and actual treatment centres, which means literally more beds for treatment across the country, especially in dealing with drug and substance abuse and the addictions that go with it. We are very keen about and very focused on the prevention side.

Going back to the other side of that ledger, the enforcement side, our Minister of Justice announced today, and the Prime Minister announced yesterday in his comments responding to the Speech from the Throne, that there are some areas where we have to get tougher, if I can use those words, when it comes to the enforcement side and serious, repeat violent crime. That is what we are talking about.

Our police officers across the country and our various security agencies have told us for some time, for instance, that we need legislation to more capably and more effectively designate people as dangerous offenders. There are individuals out there who, it would appear, are impervious to attempts at rehabilitation, not that we would ever give up on an individual. I believe in rehabilitation and I believe a person's heart can change, but there are individuals whose actions are so violent and repetitive that these individuals literally should not be allowed on our streets. It would be extremely helpful to be able to designate people as dangerous offenders in a more effective way.

Opposition parties have resisted our ability to do that. We are not talking about thousands of people here. We are talking about a relatively small handful of people and about designating them as dangerous offenders and taking them off our streets. That is part of what we are proposing. It is part of what my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has proposed.

We are also proposing that when it comes to gun crime and people who commit crimes with firearms, especially in a repeated way, there should be mandatory jail terms. I am astonished that opposition members have resisted this. I am astonished that when the bill in its previous form went to committee, they watered it down. I am astonished that the majority of Liberals, when it came to a vote, voted against mandatory jail terms for the use of firearms in the commission of a crime. Why would the Liberals vote against that? Why would they not support it? It defies imagination. I have no idea, but our police officers tell us that we and they need that type of legislative tool to get some of the worst criminals off the street.

We have seen many situations whereby serious repeat violent offenders are arrested and it always falls upon the Crown to prove why they should be held in jail for their court times and not have bail. This is what we are talking about when it comes to repeat serious offenders. I have just read a docket on an individual with over 100 offences, almost two dozen of those being violent assaults, who is out on the streets again, with the impetus and the responsibility on the Crown to try to prove he should not be getting bail. That person should prove why he should have the right to be out on bail.

That is why we have this term: the reverse onus on bail. It is requiring these individuals, and again, we are talking about serious repeat offenders, to prove why they should have the right to be out there threatening our citizens on the street.

When it comes to protecting our children, I can remember sitting as an opposition member, a memory which I hope I will never have to relive as a member of Parliament. I hope the good people of Canada will continue to support what we are doing and I will not have to go through the situation of being in opposition, but there we were as an opposition caucus about four years ago getting a presentation from the Toronto police related to this very serious area of the exploitation of children, especially on the Internet. The officer who was presenting this talked about the fact that in Toronto alone in one year they seized over two million exhibits of children being exploited on the Internet and through other means.

The police begged. They said, “Please, continue to put pressure on the government of the day to raise the age of consent between a minor and an adult to at least 16 years”. We are not talking about between teenagers here.

We asked the government of the day to do that. For years we asked the government to do that and the Liberals never did it. They never stood up to protect our kids in that way. I remember saying in those days that any government of the land that does not stand up to protect the children of the land really forfeits the right to govern the land. That Liberal government is not governing any longer and yet the Liberals continue to resist, now in a Liberal-dominated Senate, this simple request to raise the age of protection for children from 14 to 16.

My constituents ask me what would motivate a group of individuals in the Senate to not want to protect children by raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. I do not know. I cannot explain it. I cannot explain why for years the Liberals opposite, right here in this assembly, resisted doing that, but they did. I do not understand it. I know most of my Liberal colleagues. I think they are decent people, but somewhere their thinking is wired in the wrong direction on this.

On Bill C-2, we are talking about a bill that addresses the area of serious, repeat violent crime. That is what we are asking for. It has been debated. It has been watered down by the opposition members. It has been out there for too long. The people of Canada deserve better. The people of Canada deserve to have a sense that the people who say they represent them are indeed doing that.

I believe this bill is going to accomplish something else. Often when opposition members leave this place at the end of the week, they go home and talk tough on these issues at home. But when they get back here, where they think they are in the safety of this chamber, they vote against the very measures they told their constituents they were going to be tough about.

Those days are over. The opposition is going to vote against dealing with serious repeat criminals. It will be obvious. The opposition will have to stand here and have to vote, and their constituents are going to see where they really stand. It is time to stand up for safety and security in our country.

We want a country that is more safe and secure. Naturally, we now have a safe country, but we must focus our attention on this matter particularly with Bill C-2.

I will close with a comment on national security. Canada is not immune to threats of terror. About four years ago Canada was listed with several other countries on a list by Osama bin Laden. Canada was on that list as a target country. Canada is the only one that was on that particular list and has not been hit. We want to keep it that way. It is our intention to keep it that way.

Our police officers need certain legislative provisions to help them in their job. To protect the national security of our country there are some provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act and a provision in our security certificate process. People from coast to coast have commented on this, from Vancouver to Halifax, from the north to the south and all points in between, that one thing that we have resolved is these provisions that will help us in dealing with the risk of terror incidents here in Canada.

Many of these provisions were put in place by the Liberals. They had a sunset clause on them, which is a good thing to have. It meant that after five years we evaluate those provisions to see if they have been abused in any way.

The provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act and the provisions of the security certificates were seen not to have been abused. That will be coming back.

I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to listen to the many Liberals and former Liberals, including the former deputy prime minister, the former public safety minister, my predecessor, and others. They are saying to the leader of the Liberal opposition, “please allow these protections to go through. Please allow our agencies to be equipped with the legislative tools they need to effectively protect us from acts of terror and people who are planning acts of terror”.

Strangely and shockingly, the Leader of the Opposition has flip-flopped on that issue. At least his last intention was not to support it. I believe that time here in this Chamber has allowed him to reconsider, just as it allowed him to reconsider not voting against the Speech from the Throne. He had some thought. He thought about the ramifications of that and he decided to support us in a meagre way.

I am asking that when it comes to safety and security, I am appealing to all colleagues in this House, that we would set aside partisan differences and vote together for a country that will be safe and a country that will be secure.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)