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.

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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There are five motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2.

Motions Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee. The remaining motion has been examined and the Chair is satisfied that it meets the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon.

I shall now put Motion No. 2 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague across the way. One thing he said really shocked me. What struck me is when he said that 3% of the population is aboriginal and 20% of them are designated as dangerous offenders.

Would it be right to conclude that the crime rate among aboriginal nations is higher than among other groups? If so, what are the causes of this high crime rate and what can we do about it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud to say that our criminal justice system is as good as any in the world and maybe the best in the world. However, from a number of studies, including a book that was published by one of the professors at the University of Windsor law school, the reality is that discrimination enters into our system. It is systemic. It is not overt. It is subtle but it creeps into the system.

I will not suggest, by any means, that all cases are like this, but what happens is that the police, prosecutors and, yes, the judiciary on some occasions come with a hidden bias and the process starts. Unfortunately, because of the general economic status in which our first nations find themselves, they end up being disproportionately found.

All of the experts, psychologists and psychiatrists with whom I have spoken have absolutely rejected the suggestion that the ratio of serious violent offenders is any greater within the aboriginal population than it is within the general population. We saw that in the Callow case in Toronto. The prosecutors for the province of Ontario in that case should have brought a dangerous offender application against him and they did not.

We can go through any number of cases and ask why they did not. That is really where the solution is to the use of this, not in trying to force individuals with the reverse onus to show why they should not be held. There is that subtle discrimination and so we end up with that kind of a statistic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the member has just said. It is absolutely incredible to me that he is opposed to this so-called reverse onus.

The problem with his argument is that it seems as if, the way it is worded, the accused needs to prove why he should not be deemed a dangerous offender. However, the fact is that the accused has already proven it. The individual was arrested, charged and convicted once and then arrested, charged and convicted twice, and then charged and convicted the third time. The criminal has already proven it.

I do not know why the member feels that it is somehow an unreasonable thing to say that since the individual has proven himself or herself to be dangerous, we will classify him or her as a dangerous offender because the individual has proven that he or she is. What the reverse onus would do is give the accused yet one more chance at that stage. Surely the member would not be against that.

[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.

[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.

[An hon. member]

All Canadians.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

My colleague from St. Catharines says “all Canadians”. No. We heard from the NDP members that they do not support this, so it cannot be all Canadians, but I think most Canadians will say yes to this and will say that we are on the right track in terms of protecting Canadians.

I want to be absolutely clear for those members and all hon. members of this House. We indicated when we introduced the bill that any attempt to sabotage the bill, any attempt to gut it or water it down, would be considered a confidence measure. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding at all in the House. If the NDP amendment to take this out of the bill passes, we will consider that a confidence measure, and we will go to the people of Canada and let them decide if they want to get serious about fighting violent crime in this country, let there be no mistake about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of my comment, we do not have a great relationship with the Senate. I do not know if the Minister of Justice appreciates that. It is rather difficult for us to pick up the phone and call the senators since we do not talk to them. We just want to abolish them.

With regard to the reverse onus section, without exception in committee, except for the minister himself, every witness who came before the committee who had any legal expertise at all made it very clear that the reverse onus section would not survive a charter challenge. We did not have one person tell us otherwise.

I am asking the minister on what basis he is saying this other than his own opinion. I respect his opinion. He and I are graduates of the same law school, the best law school in the country, at the University of Windsor. I respect his opinion, but I think that on this one he is wrong. I am wondering if he has any other opinion from a constitutional or charter of rights expert who says this will survive a constitutional challenge.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member covered a number of different areas. Certainly in regard to that part of his comments about the University of Windsor being the best law school in this country he will get no disagreement from me. I want to say that I do not usually disagree with the NDP. I was thinking of the hon. member for Brant. He knows what I am talking about and we can have a unanimous motion on that.

In any case, the member mentioned that he has no relationship with the Senate, but I think he will admit, because I remember seeing in print comments from him that if we had introduced the other four they would go easily through the system, that it is not that easy. That is what I was saying. If there was any help that we could have had last spring it would have been much appreciated, or if there is any help that we can get this fall in getting these through both houses of Parliament it would be much appreciated.

With respect to the constitutionality of these, I am sure he heard from the officials at the Department of Justice. I presume he asked that question of them. In my examination of bills, I always watch for two things, and they are very important to me. I want every piece of legislation to satisfy the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and of course I want to make sure that it complies with the Canadian Bill of Rights. Both of those documents are very important. I have satisfied myself on that. Indeed, I would not have introduced the bill into Parliament if I did not believe that it satisfied both of those important documents.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister clarify the following for Canadians? When he talks about the area of the twelve most violent crimes and the three offences, does he mean that the three offences are in that category and that this does not apply to someone who has had one offence in that category and then two lesser infractions since?

I have a second question, if he has time. His expert who gave testimony, Mr. Stanley Cohen, said that the legislation in question was “not manifestly unconstitutional”. Not being a graduate of any law school, I am not sure what that means. I would like the minister to explain it. It sounds to me rather weak and is not like a full-fledged endorsement. Could the minister clarify those comments?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to provide the hon. member with a graph so that he has the exact enumeration of all the designated offences within the dangerous offender section.

More importantly, he asked whether it does not manifestly comply; whatever the wording was, I think I got the gist of it. I can tell him that I believe this complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I believe this complies with Mr. Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights.

Certainly I can say that there is no legislation to which I would lend my name and my office as Minister of Justice, nor on behalf of the government would we introduce any piece of legislation, were we not convinced that it complied with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to stand behind our justice minister and speak in support of the great bill he has put forth. I can tell members that over the last couple of years I have heard from people in my riding and through my surveys and the number one issue has been the tough on crime issue. A recent survey I did just came back and that is no longer on the list. The people of my riding are very happy with what has been put forth here in the House. They know this government is doing good things.

Would the minister explain a little more for our colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh about why someone who has committed three dangerous crimes and has obviously designated himself as a dangerous offender should have to explain to the rest of us in this country why he is no longer a dangerous offender?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all we do is put the onus on those individuals to explain why they are not dangerous offenders. All the protections we might expect in terms of rebutting that are available to those individuals.

I do not want to leave this topic without saying something about the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I have had the honour of knowing the member for 10 years. I knew him as the mayor of Keppel Township. He was the warden of Grey County. He has had a distinguished political career.

I can tell members that in the 10 years I have known him he has been very consistent in his opposition to the proliferation of violent crime in this country. He has been supportive of every measure to make the streets of this country safer. I have to thank him publicly for that support, because it certainly made my job and the job of the government a little easier.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate this bill and amendment introduced by the New Democratic Party.

I think the Conservatives have a weak argument when they say that the Liberals used the Senate to slow down the passage of some bills. On the contrary, throughout the legislative process the House was asked a number of times for unanimous consent. Such a motion was even introduced on one of the opposition days. This motion would have ensured the quick, the immediate passage of the vast majority of these bills. It was voted against by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Conservative Party.

I think they preferred to make it look like the Liberal Party and its members did not support tougher, more enforceable crime legislation, which is completely absurd.

When I look at the motion presented by the New Democrats and at the bill it modifies, the bill it would amend, I note that we as a party have indicated and continue to indicate that we support the bill before the House.

All through the process, three of the five bills contained within this bill have had and have the full support of the Liberal Party. The fourth we had questions on. That is the one about the famous reverse onus question, the question on dangerous offenders.

As for the reasons we had the questions, there are multiple reasons that can vary among members, of course, but one is that the current dangerous offenders legislation process in Canada is working. There is discomfort with it, but it is working. By the number of applications that are made and by the number of people held behind bars by this process, and we could name a lot of them, the system seems to be working.

What this bill does now is go to reverse onus. If we listened to the minister earlier and if we saw the types of offenders being sought by this, I think we would all agree that these people would inherently pose the threat of being dangerous. I do not know that it is unreasonable to say that these people warrant special consideration and special identification. If somebody has had three offences, has been indicted three times on the same offences and has been found guilty in those areas of very dangerous criminal activity, they warrant special consideration. I do not think one would argue that.

We had a consideration of the Charter of Rights and whether this was within the Charter of Rights and whether it would meet constitutional challenge. We are somewhat assured by the presentation at committee by Mr. Stanley Cohen, senior general counsel in the human rights law section of the Department of Justice.

I still have a little bit of a reservation about the question that it is “not manifestly unconstitutional”, but I will not spend too much time on that, not being an expert on the matter. However, that does give support. Therefore, for that reason, we will continue to support the bill and we will find it very difficult to support the amendment now proposed, which would gut the bill.

In the little time remaining, I would like to point out one area in the bill with which I have certain concerns. It is the question of mandatory minimum penalties. If at first we look at the list that is proposed in the bill where we would apply mandatory minimums, I think all Canadians would agree that these are very serious offences and should be taken very seriously by the judicial system. I think they would agree that there should be a message sent out to anybody who is considering that type of offence and also that there should be protection for the public from the type of people who do those types of offences.

However, there is always the case out there that is a little different. Having some leeway, some discretion in the judicial system for the justices in this country to exercise, I think is always warranted. I will bring the attention of members to one of those cases. I will try to remain as vague as I can because I believe some aspects of it may still be before the courts.

A few years ago in an insular community in New Brunswick, not that long ago, there was one house in that community about which there were a lot of allegations of criminality. There were allegations of drug sales and illegal weapons. All sorts of problems were happening there. There was huge frustration in the community that the RCMP or the police system was not able to take care of the problem and not able to provide security to the community.

It came to the point that there was a blow-up in the community. Although I do not believe anyone was shot at, gunshots were fired. A house was burned. A vehicle was burned. Charges were filed by the RCMP. When I look at that case and those people, I cannot condone their actions. I do not believe in vigilante justice. However, I sort of understand the situation they were in. There is some compassion from me in that regard.

I look at the prescriptive list of penalties. Should these people be incarcerated for two or more years because they were part or party to that activity? Will justice be served? Will we provide more security to the communities or will we have an adverse effect on communities by breaking up families?

I am not the judge in that. Nor am I a legal expert. However, I have enough confidence in our judicial system that we could have some leeway for justices to look at situations around cases similar to that and not necessarily have a system that is this prescriptive.

On the question of impaired driving, Liberals offered to move it along as quickly as possible. There was no holdback by us. Another bill on the list was at the committee, but the House leader in the committee would not bring it to the Senate. It was brought forward by an opposition member on the Senate floor. The Conservatives talk a lot about the bills being stalled, but there was a lot of willingness on their part to stall them. It made their lives and arguments a lot easier.

Liberals support the provisions dealing with drug impaired driving. I do not know if a set of laws can be created to solve the whole situation, but we need to have laws and penalties that discourage people from doing this. It has had an effect. As we have made the laws stricter, both federally and provincially, in the areas of driving while drunk, we have seen a great reduction. Also the population understands that it is unacceptable behaviour.

Great credit for that should go not only to the people who created and applied the laws, but organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. It has done a great job of sensitizing the population and getting people to understand that when people get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while impaired, their competency is reduced because of alcohol or drugs. It is not unlike walking around with a loaded gun. People take the chance of causing serious harm.

We all know people in our communities who have been seriously harmed. We also know people who have caused that harm. We know people who have been in accidents because of driving while drunk and themselves have been seriously harmed. My hat is off to all of them who, after having lived through that, have gone to the schools, have talked to young people and have educated them without excuse for what they have done. They show the kids the risks of that type of behaviour.

I am encouraged to see young people in our communities take a very responsible approach, with the designated driver rules, safe graduations, all those other activities that young people live up to and espouse. This is a great advance in our communities.

When we look at the current dangerous offender legislation, my empathy goes to the families of the people who are now behind bars as dangerous offenders. I understand the concerns they have. Every few years dangerous offenders have a right to apply for bail, although they are almost always refused. We know the difficult cases where the families of the victims are again put through the stress, knowing that these people could be freed or they have to relive looking at the evidence again, preparing themselves or being present when the appeal is heard. It is very costly to them emotionally.

However, I thank them because freedom has a huge cost. The right to appeals and hearings of even the worst elements of our society are part of the rights that protect all society. Unfortunately, the cost of freedom is not always borne evenly and a lot is disproportionately toward the victims in the case of criminal justice. We know the cost of the military in the case of our freedoms generally.

It would be difficult for Liberals to accept the amendment proposed by the New Democrats. We will continue our support for the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for West Nova was not on the committee as this went through. I do not know if he knows much of the history of that part of the bill, which deals with the dangerous offender designation. When the bill was originally introduced as Bill C-27, the spokespersons for his party spoke very strongly against it, along the same lines of what our amendment intends to do, which is to ensure it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Then at committee that same spokesperson, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, heard the same evidence I heard from all the experts, all the people with legal backgrounds, with the exception of justice officials and the minister, that this would not pass muster as far as the standard set by the charter.

Is his party's unwillingness to support the amendment motivated entirely by the fact that this is a confidence motion or is there some other reason why it is opposed to it?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we support a lot in the bill and we have all along. We have agreed to the increase in the age of sexual consent. We have agreed with the use of alcohol and driving provisions. We have agreed to most of the bills as brought forward by the government on criminal justice. We even offered to fast track them. We have offered amendments. We have worked with all parties, through committee and through the House, to offer amendments to improve some of the bills, and we see some of those improvements in these bills. That is how a minority Parliament should work.

Members of our party have some concerns about the reverse onus. However, if we look at the question of three offences in a very limited class of the most serious offence, an individual having three offences under that class before this provision applies tempers it somewhat. Then we look at the expertise of Mr. Cohen provided at the committee. While I am no constitutional expert and I do not have the distinction of the member as being one of the most intelligent parliamentarians and not a graduate of a law school, I am concerned about the question of manifestly unconstitutional. I do know how strong this is in giving us confidence that it would meet charter challenges.

However, I also know that it is pretty well impossible for experts in the field of constitutional law to give absolute guarantees on anything because we cannot prejudge the court. The court is an independent body that looks at the laws by itself, and we have seen many instances. I remember one in the fisheries role in the Marshall decision, where the government was not prepared for the Marshall decision that came out of the Supreme Court. All experts had told us that the federal case was strong.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I agree with his comments on driving while drunk and those kinds of crimes. Having been a high school teacher and principal for about 30 years, one thing I have seen increasingly is more young people are committing crimes under the influence of alcohol. The member related to a lot of excellent programs such as safe grads. However, does he realize that a great number of these youth are under the age of 18?

We have heard of tragedies that have happened at house parties or block parties because of underage drinking. I cannot remember the last time an adult was arrested for supplying liquor to a minor. It seems as if we are really getting loose on that. Would the member agree with that?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree it is a serious situation, but youth at the age of 14, 15, or 16 will always experiment and they will be adventurous. Should that happen, it is very important that they be provided with supervision. If we can control it and make it not happen all the better, but I do not think we can guarantee this will happen. I do not think it happened when my hon. colleague was 16 and it did not happen when I was age 16. We sought adventure.

With that, we have to ensure, through our school programs and great work by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, that our youth recognize the danger they put themselves in when their faculties are reduced with drugs and alcohol. They need to be encouraged not to do this at all and to understand the dangers that come from it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate at this stage, and I want to say how disappointed the Bloc Québécois is that the government has opted to make the vote on the amendments proposed by our NDP colleagues a confidence vote. Making room for some discretionary power and giving the Crown more room to manoeuvre and interpret the law is something that we have always supported and that we want to keep supporting.

That being said, the government has decided that the NDP amendment is a matter of confidence in the government, and since we want to support the bill, we will not support our colleagues' amendment.

Since the early days of the Bloc Québécois, our party has been interested in issues surrounding organized crime and violence and safety in our communities. I was the first member of this House to introduce a bill to make gangsterism an offence. Members may also recall that my former colleague from Charlesbourg was the member who worked to fight organized crime by proposing that the $1,000 bill be removed from circulation. My former colleague from Charlesbourg—

[An hon. member]

Mr. Marceau.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

—Richard Marceau, also introduced a bill to reverse onus with respect to proceeds of crime acquired by criminal organizations. That bill was passed unanimously.

We have a history of being concerned about fighting organized crime. A series of events began in 1995 when a car bomb took the life of young Daniel Desrochers and ended in 1997 when Allan Rock, the justice minister at the time, introduced an anti-gang bill. During that time, our party carried out a media campaign with our partners—police services and other law enforcement agencies—to bring in new legislation.

I remember that in 1995, a number of senior officials believed that the Hells Angels, the Rockers and the Bandidos were going to be brought down using the conspiracy provisions of the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois said that there was no way to stop major criminal organizations. There were 38 such organizations across Canada at the time. We said there was no way to stop them on the basis of conspiracy alone. We knew full well that the people giving orders at the head of these criminal organizations were not the people carrying them out. We also knew that, when it came to evidence or charges of conspiracy, these objectives could not be met using section 465 of the Criminal Code. I will have the opportunity to talk about this after question period.

In June, the Bloc Québécois made public 20 extremely progressive measures. If they became law, they would be much more effective than many other measures the Conservatives have introduced. After question period, I will have the opportunity to explain each of these measures in detail.

If my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin were here, for example, he would agree with me that we have never understood why the government did not focus first on accelerated parole review, a procedure under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act whereby an offender can be released after serving one-sixth of his or her sentence. We also do not understand why, with the parole system, people do not take part in programs and why the concept of merit and rehabilitation is not being looked at as an absolute priority.

These are some amendments and bills that we would have liked to see adopted and that we believe are far more effective than the whole philosophy of imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

I understand that it is time for oral question period. The stars have favoured me this morning, because I will be asking a question myself. Therefore, I will be quiet for now.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I regret to inform the hon. member for Hochelaga, but, it being 11 a.m., we will now proceed to statements by members.

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.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When debating Bill C-2, there were five minutes remaining to the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by my Bloc Québécois colleague. Hon. members know full well that the NDP tried to improve this bill in committee. Now we are introducing an amendment in this House that will improve the bill.

Is the Bloc Québécois supporting this bill without really trying to improve it, as the NDP is proposing to do today, because this government is imposing a motion of non-confidence in connection with the bill?

My colleague is well aware that we can improve this bill, which has many flaws. When the Conservatives look at justice issues, they do so with a lack of thoroughness and a real lack of professionalism. We can try to improve this bill. The NDP is trying to make it better. If I have understood correctly, the Bloc does not seem to be in favour of doing so.

Is it because of the non-confidence motion that goes with the bill?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Let me make something clear. Our problem with this bill has to do with mandatory minimum sentences. We have always been uncomfortable with such sentences.

The NDP members, our neo-Bolshevik friends, are introducing an amendment today when they and we defeated all the amendments to Bill C-10 in committee and kept only two provisions of that bill.

Which party was it that, in an act of complicity approaching intellectual treason, resurrected the bill?

I could not believe my ears. I asked Annie Desnoyers to pinch me. I could not understand why this party, which had defeated all the amendments to Bill C-10 in committee, was resurrecting the bill in the House of Commons.

The moral of this story is that I give my colleague A+ for courtesy, but D- for his party's consistency.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of inconsistencies, one example is the softwood lumber agreement, which caused the loss of thousands of jobs for Quebeckers, and was supported by the Bloc Québécois. That makes absolutely no sense. There is an inconsistency the Bloc Québécois needs to deal with.

Let me get back to the question, which he did not answer. He knows very well that the provisions of this bill are actually unconstitutional. He knows very well that the NDP is introducing an amendment here today that will make it possible to prevent certain people being labelled as dangerous and subjected to an evaluation later on, when they are serving their sentence. The NDP is promoting this amendment precisely because the bill and this aspect of the bill do not work. He knows this very well. I would therefore like to repeat my question.

Is it because the Conservative government is calling this a non-confidence motion that the Bloc Québécois seems to want to support this bill, without thinking about the repercussions, knowing that there are some aspects of the bill that are unconstitutional?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hochelaga has one minute to reply.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House what happened. We fought Bill C-10 in committee. The NDP, with its inflated egos and puffed up chests, says it is against mandatory minimum sentences. The Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois fought the government and defeated those provisions of Bill C-10, a bill that would have imposed mandatory minimum sentences.

We are witnessing a contradiction on a scale I have never before seen in this House, since I arrived in 1993, and there is nothing we can do. The neo-Bolsheviks are resuscitating Bill C-10 with such a complete lack of consistency that I will never forget.

In closing, on the topic of softwood lumber, the Bloc Québécois aligned itself with the FTQ, the CSN and all those who defend the workers. This is why we are the strongest political party in Quebec, while the NDP remains at only 13% in the polls.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about priorities and the truth.

Is it not the truth that when Bill C-9, the bill that would limit conditional or house arrest, was before Parliament, it was the Liberal Party that gutted it and made it possible for arsonists who burn down people's houses to still be eligible to go back to their own houses after sentencing? Those members made sure that clause was in there. Was that not part of it?

Is it not the truth that when the Conservatives brought in a bill for mandatory jail terms for people who commit serious firearms offences and the Liberal Party voted against it in the House of Commons, five Liberals could not stomach the official Liberal position on it and voted against their own party?

Is it not also the truth that when Liberals came forward with their so-called fast tracking they knew it needed the unanimous consent of the House, they already knew that the NDP and the Bloc did not support it, and they also knew that it was procedurally out of order, which was confirmed by the Speaker on two different occasions? Is that not the truth?

Finally, I would like to know from the hon. member how surprised she is that every single time the Leader of the Opposition has been asked about his priorities since June, he has never once mentioned criminal justice, fighting crime in this country or making our streets safer. When he put out his pseudo speech from the throne, there was not one single word about fighting crime. How surprised was she about that?

I bet none of those members were surprised, because it is not a priority for the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. minister that keeping our country and communities safe has always been a priority. It does not have to be something new. We do not have to bring it up as if we have never talked about it before.

Social justice, investing in our communities,and investing in our children and providing opportunities to ensure they get an education are the things that we ought to be focusing on. We have always focused on them so we are not going to have to make it a huge priority because it is an ongoing priority that we are going to continue to have.

It takes all of us in the House to work together. We tried. We made a legitimate offer to fast track this several times. The fact was that the government refused because it was playing games, nothing else. The Conservatives can stand there and accuse us of all kinds of things, but let me assure the House and any Canadians watching today that community safety is critically important to this party, as I would expect it to be for everybody in the House.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the debate we are having right now is on the NDP amendment, which would essentially allow for sentencing provisions later in sentences for dangerous offenders.

When the Conservatives came at this bill, the reason why the former justice minister was essentially fired was that a lot of the bills they put forward were not bills that would actually hold water. They were sort of done on the back of a napkin. They would not stand up to a charter challenge. As a result, it is the members in the other three corners of the House who have had to work to try to improve legislation that in so many cases was very poorly drafted. They just did not do their homework.

The NDP amendment would actually correct a big mistake that was made by the Conservatives in the drafting of this bill. Is the member supporting the NDP amendment? If not, why not?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say on that particular issue that it is our intention to support the things that are in the best interests of our country. We always have to make sure they are constitutionally sound.

However, I certainly share the comments he made in regard to legislation that was being put forward being written on the back of an envelope. Thank goodness we can send these bills off to committee where there can be some serious work done.

It is one thing to get a lot of great press because a party introduces tough on crime bills and all the rest of it. We did the process of being tough on crime and we did it in a way that still had a compassionate side to all of it.

As for suggesting that everything the Conservatives put forward was perfect, heaven help us if they had passed some of what they originally put forward. I am sure it would have been struck down by the courts at the very first opportunity.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to second the amendment to this legislation made by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. Essentially what the NDP amendment is doing is looking to provide provision for sentencing of dangerous offenders later in their sentence. There is no doubt that this is an improvement to the bill.

I mentioned earlier that a lot of the Conservative justice legislation was written very hastily and very poorly. That is why the former justice minister was fired. Then, in a number of cases when legislation was in a more advanced state and actually was going through the House and the Senate, the Conservatives pulled all that legislation back. They have been playing a lot of political games with legislation around crime and justice issues.

This is a case where clearly they are playing games. The NDP amendment would allow for provision of “dangerous offender” later in the sentence. The Conservatives' approach will surely not withstand a charter challenge, so their provisions for dangerous offender legislation simply will not hold water. It seems to be more of a cosmetic operation than anything that is going to have a practical application.

This amendment resolves that. It is not cosmetic. It has a very practical effect. I will explain why.

I live in a riding that was one of the residences of the balcony rapist, Mr. Paul Callow, who was released in the spring of 2007. A number of constituents approached me about this issue and asked why he was not designated a dangerous offender during the course of his incarceration.

As we know, the Criminal Code does not allow for that. The provision of dangerous offender can only take place in the first six months of a sentence. In Mr. Callow's case, even though he was sentenced for a number of horrendous crimes, it was not until later in his sentence that it turned out he had not gone through the appropriate treatment programs and that he had allegedly committed another offence while in prison.

As a result, he was kept for the entire duration of his sentence and then was unceremoniously dumped into New Westminster, British Columbia. No programs and no supports were provided to him. He was put into a homeless shelter that simply pushed him out every day, so he was walking the streets of New Westminster.

Does any of that make any sense? Of course not, but that is how the Conservatives approach these justice issues. They simply do not do the fundamental things that actually will make a difference in reducing the crime rate.

That is why the NDP amendment is here. In Mr. Callow's case, given the NDP amendment that is before the House, a judge would be able to, later in his sentence, look at the evidence, at the fact that he had not successfully gone through the treatment programs and at the fact of the alleged offence in prison, and would be able to designate that individual as a dangerous offender. It withstands a charter challenge.

The NDP amendment simply makes sense. It actually accomplishes the end that the Conservatives say they want to accomplish. Their proposed legislation, because it was hastily and poorly drafted, as are so many of the justice bills that have come from the government, simply will not withstand a charter challenge, which leaves us with the status quo. It leaves us with the same situation. If an individual like Mr. Callow is going through the same situation in the next couple of years, there is no legislation that will actually deal with that individual.

This cannot be a surprise to any of us. The Republican approach in the United States has been very similar. Rather than the Republicans doing the concrete fundamentals and getting things right in the justice system, many have accused the Republicans of actually trying to provoke an increased crime rate because somehow in the end that allows them to campaign politically on justice issues. They are not trying to get the substance done. They are trying to do political spin.

As for this government, we know that the Conservatives have gutted the same crime prevention programs that actually reduce the crime rate. As we know, one dollar invested in crime prevention programs saves six dollars in policing costs, justice costs and penal costs later on, and it means there are no victims.

If the government were really serious about justice issues, it would be investing heavily in crime prevention. Why? Because there are no victims as the crime never occurs. Why? Because it actually reduces the crime rate. Why? Because it is extremely cost effective. A buck there saves six dollars later on, so from the taxpayers' point of view as well it makes more sense.

Instead of investing heavily in crime prevention, the Conservatives have cut back in crime prevention. Instead of investing in alcohol and drug treatment programs, they have cut back. Instead of investing in youth at risk programs to reduce those youths at risk and turn them away from a potential life of crime, they have cut back. Instead of investing in building safer communities programs and providing safety audits for buildings and communities, they have cut back. Instead of investing in community policing, they have cut back.

Where have the Conservatives put their money? Into billions and billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts. We saw $16 billion in corporate tax cuts in the autumn financial statement. They are essentially shovelling money at the corporate sector when these fundamentals of community policing and crime prevention are simply not being taken care of.

We have to ask why the Conservatives are refusing the NDP amendment, which effectively would make absolutely certain that there are no future cases like that of the balcony rapist, Mr. Paul Callow. Why would the Conservatives resist putting in place a common sense solution that actually can be in place as soon as we adopt the legislation? Why would they rather go with a poorly drafted version of the bill that simply will be thrown out? It simply will not resist charter scrutiny.

We have to ask these questions about to what degree the Conservatives are serious. I raised the issue around the Republican style of actually provoking a higher crime rate because I have seen how quickly the Conservatives react on issues such as that. We have seen them use political spin. We have certainly not seen them approach this with the type of seriousness and responsibility that is required by these issues.

We have seen the government of Manitoba, for example, an NDP government, taking very effective measures on crime prevention. We do not see this from the Conservative government.

I implore my colleagues in the Conservative Party to not just blindly vote the party line, but rather, since they know there are problems with this bill, I urge them to support and vote for the NDP amendment that will allow for the provision of dangerous offender later in sentencing, thus making sure that these kinds of cases never occur again. I ask them to vote for Canada. I ask them to not just vote blindly the way the Conservative whip tells them to vote.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about a subject that is very important to Canadians.

First of all, I am happy to congratulate the member for having some convictions. Although I disagree with his convictions, at least he has some. That is in stark contrast to our Liberal colleagues, who oppose this bill 100% but are pretending to support it in order to avoid the electoral wrath that would go along with standing in the way of the tackling violent crime act.

The Liberal Party voted against mandatory jail time for gun criminals. The Liberal Senate blocked passage of the bill to raise the age of sexual protection. I am working hard to raise the age of sexual consent in this country because it is necessary to protect our youngsters against the threats that Internet predators pose. The Liberals opposed such a move in the Senate.

The Liberals are opposed to this bill, but they are flip-flopping because their constituents are forcing them to pass this bill, and that is a good thing. We need the tackling violent crime act in order to keep our streets safe. That is why I am a proud supporter of this bill and proud to stand four-square with our justice minister and our Prime Minister to tackle violent crime.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was no question there, of course. Unfortunately, that seemed to be the just the platitudes that we get from the Conservative government. I am just astounded by the Conservatives' inability to deal fundamentally with issues of crime and justice in a serious and responsible way.

It now has been seven months since the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, the member for Surrey North and I called on the government to allow for sentencing provisions later in sentence for dangerous offenders to avoid the kind of case that we have seen with the balcony rapist, to stop it from ever occurring again, and also to allow that safety measure for a judge to then judge, based on the evidence, whether or not someone should be designated as a dangerous offender later in sentence. At that time, the Conservatives refused.

We had the member for Windsor—Tecumseh present motions at the justice committee. The Conservatives refused again.

Now we have the NDP amendment and it seems that the Conservatives are resisting again. It just does not make sense. When they know their bill does not work, why do they not accept the NDP improvement?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an excellent overview of this legislation, including the amendment that my colleague from Windsor put forward. I want to thank my colleague from Windsor for the excellent work he has done. He has provided common sense and insight to this because that is what has been lacking in the debate.

When I hear those who say that we will tackle violent crime and get tough on crime, that is fine, but when we are talking about legislation, we have to be smart on crime and what we are doing. If we do not think through what we are doing and how we write legislation, then we waste a lot of time and we are not as effective as we can be.

If this is to be a charter challenge, it requires some reflection. I did not hear from the Minister of Justice today a clear answer on what other opinions he has as a minister on whether or not this will be charter proof.

I have a question for my colleague. Was he aware that one of the most eminent experts, who is a prosecutor on this dangerous offenders designation, Mr. Cooper, had tried to provide the Minister of Justice with some common sense solutions? Was he aware of the fact that the committee did not hear from him, the minister obviously did not hear from him, but that our colleague from Windsor had heard from him and that Mr. Cooper provided some common sense solutions like our friend from Windsor.

What does he think of this lack of oversight, lack of analysis and lack of common sense?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre ignored the signals I was giving him that he was running out of time. There is now 30 seconds left for the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question so I am glad additional time was given.

The hon. member is absolutely right. Not just Mr. Cooper, but a wide variety of experts have said very clearly that this legislation will be thrown out under a charter challenge, which is why the NDP brought forward this amendment. We are simply saying that we have to be smart on crime. We see the Conservatives taking the republican playbook, which is simply--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Paul's.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please.

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

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to focus though--

[An hon. member]

I think she was the minister.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Beaches—East York has 20 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said with respect to prevention and all of the programs, it is true that is the way to go in this country. As far as I am concerned, what happens--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

[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--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Vancouver East. When we next return to the study of Bill C-2 there will be five and a half minutes left in her allotted time.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

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.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to my colleague's speech on this bill. I personally looked over the bill and we discussed it in caucus. This bill is obviously more of a political move by the Conservatives. The majority of its components were contained in bills presented in the previous session, before the House prorogued.

Several of the bills had even reached the final stage, the Senate. They have now been rolled into one piece of legislation to give the appearance that the Conservatives are leading the charge and know where they are going. In reality, this bill contains many things which, for the most part, had already received a broad-based consensus. In the last session, the Bloc Québécois was in favour of many of the bills and at least three of the five components.

Does my colleague not find that the government's current approach—I am not referring to the substance of each of the components of the bill but the manner in which the government has decided to manage this issue—is designed to serve the interests of the Conservatives rather than to truly serve the interests of justice?

We could have done without the fanfare, brought back most of the bills to the stage they had reached and proceeded with each file, without repeating the whole process again.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question. I was not quite sure of the point the member was making with regard to the age of consent and the fact that other people had not brought forth the issue of the near age defence.

He is correct to some degree. The Conservatives repeatedly, and I do not know how many private members' bills they had, moved those private members' bills on the basis that there would just be a blanket increase in age with no near age defence.

It was a result of questions quite frankly that I put to the former Liberal justice minister and elicited from him a response that showed in writing the number of people who would be exposed to criminal charges, both young men and young women. It would be in the range of 100,000 to 150,000 people per year who would have been exposed to criminal charges as a result of that type of legislation. It was at that point that the issue of the near age defence was raised.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether he was aware of that fact. That issue came up during the bill on child pornography and luring over the Internet.

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

Mr. Speaker, historically and by footnote I suppose he is correct. What my comments were referring to very clearly were the comments from the Conservative opposition member, particularly from Wild Rose, who said that those private members' bills were never considered by Parliament or the government. In fact, they did not have a close in age exemption, so why would they be considered?

[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.

[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, the dangerous offenders bill would make the following amendment. A third primary designated offence would trigger reverse onus, making the accused responsible for proving that he is not a danger to society. The dangerous offender principle remains the same for the other offences. A person may be declared a dangerous offender upon committing a first offence.

This bill would amend the legislation so that after three primary designated offences, onus is reversed. The list comprises 12 offences, so it would be too long to read here. This means that it is no longer up to the Crown to prove that an individual is a dangerous offender; it is up to the offender to prove that he is not.

I would note that this is a perilous undertaking, and a difficult one. Individuals must prove what they are not and must show that they will not pose a risk. Proving that one will not pose a risk in the future is next to impossible. As such, members of the Bloc Québécois find this proposal very unusual.

To get back to my colleague's question, a person can be declared a dangerous offender after the first or second offence. This bill only amends things with respect to the burden of proof. I would note that every step of the way, this Conservative government has been introducing legislation that reverses onus. We have to take a closer look at this because it is getting pretty serious.

Our criminal law system is based on presumption of innocence. It is becoming increasingly clear that with its various bills, this government is using a variety of excuses to constantly reverse onus in its attempt to distort the criminal law system that has been in place since the Constitution.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup has one minute for the question and response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be quick.

I congratulate my colleague on her speech. She clearly showed us how much the Conservatives are trying to give the impression that they are taking a different approach. Yet, in fact, many bills had already gone through several stages during the last session and are now included in this bill.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives should not also be doing something about prevention and going much further on the whole issue of crime, rather than giving the impression that punishment is the answer. Should we not be paying even more attention to prevention in our approach to justice?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member has 10 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, as the Bloc Québécois and Quebec society are doing, if the government were to approach—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry, but the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas now has the floor.

[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.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am greatly troubled by some of the comments the hon. member just made.

We see in our society the need for the types of protections that are in the tackling violent crimes act. I want to go back to a couple of the things he said, specifically around the reverse onus for dangerous offenders.

We see very few examples of people who deserve a dangerous offender designation but there are times when people should have had that designation but the Crown was not able to achieve it because it was disadvantaged from the get go on that.

I really believe there is no greater role for our Parliament than to ensure the protection of Canadians. A very small number of people in our society are predators and this legislation would protect against them.

This legislation is nothing like anything in the United States. I understand that is popular for the NDP but when we have people like Clifford Olson, who should have a dangerous offender designation but does not, he can still apply under the faint hope clause for parole. Can members imagine Clifford Olson getting parole? That is because that is the way our system works right now.

We need these changes. We need to protect our society against this very small number of individuals who should be labelled as dangerous offenders. I know the constituents in my riding support it.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unlikely that Clifford Olson will ever get out of jail as a result of a parole hearing.

The problem is that if the Crown does not have the resources it needs to declare someone who is a dangerous offender a dangerous offender, then we should be ensuring that the Crown has the resources it needs to get that designation, not changing the onus over to the accused, someone who likely has very little resources to do that kind of job.

We need to ensure that the Crown has the resources it needs to do its job appropriately. Nothing in this bill would allow the Crown to do a better job of that or to make that designation stick if that is the problem with the current situation. That is where we should be addressing this, rather than doing the reverse onus and making it up to the person who has been convicted, who generally will be someone without any resources, to defend themselves against that kind of situation.

The burden on legal aid will be significant in all of this because many of the people who will find themselves in this situation will depend on legal aid and I do not believe we have the resources in those kinds of programs to accommodate the kind of defence that will be necessary. I think there will be a huge cost to our governments to provide those kinds of resources.

The reverse onus on a dangerous offender designation is exactly the wrong way to go. The state should assume responsibility for taking on that designation, rather than putting it on someone who we know is not likely to have the resources to do that effectively.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you here this Monday morning. I have two short questions.

The Bloc is not concerned so much about reverse onus on the third offence as about the fact that the government is tackling the wrong priorities. Would the government not have done better, for example, to look at the whole parole system and invest in fighting poverty?

Does my colleague not find it sad that the Minister of the Environment is not inviting his other colleagues to Bali so that there is a very broad coalition and the voice of the people is heard? Is this not a black mark against the Minister of the Environment? This minister hurts me deeply.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that our parole system is one of the most effective aspects of our criminal justice system and that it could be even more effective with better resources, which is something we should be paying attention to in this place.

There is great hope in ensuring that someone can reintegrate into society effectively. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that process takes place and that the necessary supports are there.

As for the minister in Bali, I agree 100%.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate at report stage this omnibus criminal law statute. The government made a decision before the session opened that it would package together in one statute approximately half a dozen criminal statute amendments, most of which had already been through the House of Commons and into committee.

As for those parts of the bill that have already been through the House, the justice committee did not spend an undue amount of time in reviewing them, nor did we seek witnesses on them since the parliamentary record deals reasonably adequately with those other components.

The one part of the bill that Parliament has not had an opportunity to look at is the part on the provisions dealing with dangerous offenders. The amendments here tweak or modify the provisions. I want to make three comments in the limited time available so that my views are clear.

Certainly for my constituents I want them to know, and I would like the parliamentary record to show, that are a couple of issues which may be cause for public debate in the future or perhaps in the other place.

First, the name of the bill is slightly pretentious, as it purports to tackle violent crime. I can understand where that thinking has come from, but I suggest that if we as a society are going to tackle violent crime we had better address the causes of crime.

I think most people would accept that the Criminal Code itself is not the cause of crime. The procedures in the code are not the cause of crime. The real causes are societal. They are out there and they are real. This statute really does not do a thing to address the societal causes of crime. It draws the line clearly in the sand and it alters the procedure, but in terms of its impact on the causes of crime, and therefore on crime in the future, the future will have to assess that.

I regard the attempt in this bill to deal with the causes of crime, although I think it does not do it, as being a little like trying to fix a leaky roof from the underside of the roof. It cannot be done. If someone is going to fix a leaky roof, it has to be done from the topside. We have to deal with where the leak is, just as in criminal matters we have to deal with crime and focusing on the causes of crime. It cannot be done at the end of the pipeline. It has to be done at the beginning. I know that most Canadians buy into that.

My second point has to do with the constitutional protections inside the bill. We are dealing with a criminal statute here. While many people will say that we are dealing with criminals so let us just put them in jail and be done with it, the fact is that before these people are convicted they are citizens just like me and everyone else in this chamber. We expect that our citizens will be accorded the fairness and the legal protections that have been inherent in the Canadian justice system and our Constitution virtually forever. Part of our job in this House is to make sure that continues.

The first principle is the principle of “fundamental justice”. One of those principles that is protected by section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the right to remain silent. In this particular new provision involving dangerous offenders, imposed in the procedure is a reverse onus, a presumption. It states, and I am paraphrasing, that if a person has been convicted three times of offences which carry a sentence of two years or more, that person will be “presumed” to be a dangerous offender.

If, under our Constitution, a person has the right to remain silent in criminal procedures, the imposition of this presumption effectively takes away that right to remain silent because one cannot rebut the presumption unless one breaks one's right to remain silent.

In this particular case, the new procedure allows the judge some discretion in not finding the person to be a dangerous offender, but is it enough? In my own judgment, it is borderline. I think it comes so very close to breaching the charter protections that I was very cautious about it. In the end, I think I just barely accepted that it withstood scrutiny. I am not so sure that the legal fraternity in Canada or the other place will view it the same way, but they will have the benefit of our parliamentary record and our debate on it.

The second issue is constitutional in nature and also has to do with protection, not protection from criminals but the legal protections that we all have under the Constitution. In regard to imposing the reverse onus on the offender in this case, I should point out that until now it has not been a reverse onus. Every element of showing someone to be a dangerous offender had to be proved by and shown by the Crown. A pretrial assessment and a lot of procedural protections and judgments are brought into the process.

However, until now, the burden has been on the Crown to prove it. If this section reverses the onus and says that the person is presumed to be dangerous and now must disprove it, my question, to which we have to find an answer, is this: how does the person alleged to be a dangerous offender know the particulars that have come to make him or her dangerous, the particulars that allow that person to meet the threshold of the definition that he or she is dangerous?

The new statutory provisions do not take any steps to insist on the provision of particulars by the Crown as to why the person is dangerous. There is simply a presumption that he or she is dangerous. I believe that this does cross the line. If, in the procedure that is out there, the officials involved begin to rely on the presumption, they will fail to meet a standard of disclosure. Disclosure is part of a procedure that will take away, potentially for life, the freedom of the convicted offender. The courts and a fair-minded assessment under our Constitution will find these procedures deficient.

In order to rectify this, I did propose an amendment at committee. It was fairly discussed at committee. In the end, it was not adopted. In my view, this potentially would require an amendment to section 753 or section 754. All it would require is a statement in the code that in relying on the presumption it would be necessary for the Crown to provide a list of particulars, an itemization or a description of the particulars on which the Crown is relying and on which the judgment that the person is a dangerous offender is based. This would cure that particular problem for me.

If we have all been right, and I hope that we are right in this House, that the general presumption meets the charter test of fairness and does not offend the principles of fundamental justice, then this bill will have a chance to see it work itself out, even though I think we can find much better ways to address the causes of crime and I think we should be doing it.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a couple of questions, because I do think that this comes back to protecting the community, our families and our children.

The sex offender registry in Ontario was enacted by Christopher's law. It resulted from the death of Christopher Stephenson, a young boy who was at a shopping mall with his mother and sister and was abducted by a gentleman who had committed not his first, second, third, fourth, fifth or even his sixth violent offence, but his seventh. He had just been released from a seven year prison sentence and had received parole after a much shorter period of time. He abducted this young boy, violently raped him over a period of days and then killed him.

That offender never should have had the opportunity to abduct this young boy. He never should have had the opportunity to destroy these families' lives. He never should have had the opportunity to impact his community in the way he did.

We all grieved that death, but we could have prevented it. We could have prevented it with laws like reverse onus for dangerous offenders. I ask all members in the House to stand behind this bill, because we need it for people who truly are violent offenders. They are small in number, but we need to ensure they do not endanger our society.

I ask the member why he would not support such a position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member and his assessment of the individual in that case, the convicted perpetrator of that horrible crime, but here we are designing a system to respond to the real exigencies across the country.

It is true that in the 1970s and 1980s there were many egregious failures of the criminal justice system in dealing with parole, interim release and bail. I note the number of statutory amendments that have come through this place over time, one of which was to address the circumstances described by my friend involving the victim Stephenson.

We believed we had done a good job of fixing the Criminal Code and process and the sentencing process. By and large, I think, the House, the corrections system, the justice department and provincial counterparts all have done a very good job of making the system work in a much safer way. I once referred to some of these people as the human counterpart of nuclear waste and nuclear fuel when they are out there on our streets and are a danger to the public.

I think we have done it better. This bill is an attempt to improve it. I just am not a loud, vocal supporter of the methods and procedure used in this particular case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my friend a question in the proof that in the Liberal Party we sometimes have differences of opinion. My question is with regard to this very aspect and his good suggestion for amendments to sections 753 or 754.

First, does he take some comfort in the comments of the justice officials with respect to the Grayer decision and the right to silence being protected by this legislation we have before us? Second, although probably out of humility he may say no, is he hopeful, because of his strong appearance before the committee and his strong recommendation to DOJ officials, that his amendment will make its way into the Criminal Code some day?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River should know that there are 30 seconds left to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think the Grayer decision cited by my friend adequately deals with the issue that was raised. There is a certain pride in authorship that officials take when they present legislation. Always they are reluctant to accept that there might be a flaw in it.

However, at some point, if my instincts are correct, there may be a need for some amendments. There certainly will be some constitutional challenge, but in the end Canadians will get the laws they deserve and hopefully we all will have done our job in this place.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we are getting into this philosophical thing about let us get the bad people in jail.

Is the member aware of any characteristics of people who may have committed crimes that should not in fact be subject to some of the punitive measures for other circumstances, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders?

[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.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member for Mississauga South have the unanimous consent of the House to continue speaking for another 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. member had to say. Of course, he has been here for more than 1,000 days and during that period of time he has witnessed quite a few things occur, like gun crime in the city of Toronto, which has expanded greatly, and violent youth crime, which expanded greatly under the previous government. The Liberals did not act. They did not do anything about it.

The hon. member talked about allowing the courts the ability to make decisions to give them lots of room, so that they could look at each individual case on its merits, but he knows full well that the issue of precedence weighs large in courts. Lawyers stand up and say, “Yes, but here is a case that was exactly the same where the person only got house arrest for this violent crime”, and the court's hands are tied.

What our government is saying, a government that is standing up for safety, safe streets and communities, is that we will not allow these issues of precedence, these of issues of soft on crime decisions, to affect justice in the future. We will give them some guidelines. We will say that this is the minimum that Canadians should expect.

I do not understand why the member would have a problem with that, with supporting this comprehensive legislation and protecting communities, ones, quite frankly, very close to his own.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get the quote right, but what I heard in substance was that a person only got house arrest and that puts the court in a situation where it has no way to deal with the matter.

When we think about it, house arrest would be ordered by the courts. It is not impeding the courts. I do not know where the members is coming from.

Let me try again with regard to the omnibus bill itself. It is not a matter of whether we are soft on crime or tough on crime. The matter is that we are legislators. We had an opportunity to have this legislation passed more quickly. That is not going to happen now. That is justice and legislation delayed. That means justice and legislation denied.

It is extremely important for the member to understand that the government has taken a course where it has delayed five important bills by putting them in an omnibus bill and making them start all over again, when it had the opportunity to have them move forward in an expeditious fashion so we could have good laws in Canada.

[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--

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, 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.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-2, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 37 with the following:

“vision ordered under subsection”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-2, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 50 with the following:

“vision ordered under subsection”

[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.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment. I realize the member was not on the justice committee as I was during that period of time. I listened to all the debates and the witnesses who came forward, et cetera.

I will go back to the year of 2006 during the election. In my riding and in several ridings in my area all parties seemed to agree to the need to pass certain legislation, which we have brought forward in the House since that election. I could not get a debate from the Liberal or the NDP candidates about crime and who would do what. They were quite convincing that they too wanted to see these very stringent things carry on.

The NDP pretty well held its ground when we got back after the election. However, when we got to committee and the bills started coming forward, as discussed during the election and as agreed to by the Liberals, what in the world happen that all of a sudden they wanted to rip Bill C-9 for example to shreds? They could not accept it the way it was written, although that was what we promised to do during the election. My opposition candidate certainly agreed to that.

What happened to these hard on crime people in the Liberal Party? They certainly disappeared since the election of 2006. Where did they go?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear the Conservatives constantly repeat their mantra “hard on crime”. I think they are hard on people who cannot defend themselves. They are not hard on crime; they are stupid on crime. U.S. crime policy is what they want. Tough measures, similar to what is in the Tories' omnibus bill, are costly and pointless. That is what the report found. Nobody has disappeared.

Our party's amendments added value to Bill C-9 and Bill C-10. We are respectful of people. We are respectful of understanding a holistic approach. Nobody in our party is soft on crime and the member should understand that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Don Valley East asked why an omnibus bill. I should clarify for her as she should know and perhaps she does know that this in fact is not an omnibus bill.

An omnibus bill is a piece of legislation that has legislative impacts on various ministries. Based on that, I would have to conclude that an omnibus bill actually has a number of different ministry changes involved in it.

This bill is very specific. It has five very specific points and clauses in it that are specific to the justice ministry. Therefore, she could claim that it is a comprehensive bill, but it certainly does not fall under the term that she uses of an omnibus bill. She may wish to call it that, but technically and in the House she should be referring to it as a comprehensive bill.

She talked about all of the issues the Liberal Party has so much difficulty with. I would remind her that the Liberal Party members that represented her at committee in fact moved one amendment to the entire bill.

My question for her is, how much time is she personally going to spend helping the good senators in the Senate, most of whom are Liberal, so that in fact they will rush this bill through that house and make it legislation? She also should support her members at committee who in fact supported the legislation and only moved one amendment at committee.

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

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

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

Let us have some fairness and some truth.

[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.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would draw my colleague's attention to a report in the United States entitled “Unlocking America”. The top nine criminologists produced the report and essentially said that the policies of get tough on crime in the United States were totally counterproductive.

The United States has about two million people incarcerated at any particular time and the report shows a racial basis for who is incarcerated. The report says that one-third of all black males and one-sixth of Latino males versus 1 in 17 white males will go to prison during their lives.

Why would the neo-conservative government copy the tactics of another neo-conservative government when it has been clearly shown that they do not work? When the Conservatives talk about producing safety, they actually are making things more unsafe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and I will provide a quick answer. Personally, as a former criminal lawyer—in fact, I am still one, because I can still practice law—I agree with the hon. member that increasing minimum prison sentences will not solve the problem.

The public is not necessarily asking for longer sentences. Rather, it is asking that jailed offenders do serve their sentences. That is the problem.

I have pleaded before judges and, in some cases, the offender was sentenced to 22 months in jail. However, four months later, the judge would see the offender on the street. Yet, when the judge, after a thorough review of the case, decides that so and so will spend 22 months in jail, he expects that the individual will serve at least 12 or 15 months of that sentence. However, that individual is back on the street a mere four months after being sent to jail. This is what the public does not accept.

I do not agree with the Conservatives, who want to impose minimum jail sentences in every case. That is not the solution, and it is not true that it will help reduce crime. Just look at the United States, our next door neighbour. This is the best example of a country that imposes minimum sentences. Yet, the Americans have not solved anything, far from it.

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.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 1 and 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The vote on this motion stands deferred until later this day. The hon. chief government whip is going to defer it. I will hear him first.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you were anticipating what I was about to say. I would ask that the vote be deferred until the end of government orders this evening.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Accordingly, the vote is deferred until 6:30 p.m. this evening, or at the conclusion of government orders.

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 Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 2 at report stage of Bill C-2.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #14

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 2 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 1 and 5 lost.

[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 Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #15

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.