Bill C-2 (Historical)

Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) allow for the appointment of a judge as a case management judge;
(b) define the role and the powers of a case management judge;
(c) streamline the use of direct indictments preferred under section 577;
(d) allow for delayed severance orders;
(e) improve the protection of the identity of jurors;
(f) increase the maximum number of jurors who can hear the evidence on the merits; and
(g) provide that, in the case of a mistrial, certain decisions made during the trial are binding on the parties in any new trial.

Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House on the experience of indigenous peoples within Canada's justice system.

First, I would like to reiterate that our thoughts and prayers continue to go to the members of the Boushie family on the tragic loss of their son, their nephew, their brother. No family should ever have to endure such pain. Our hearts are united with the Boushie family at this most difficult time.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about the Conservative Party's record in supporting victims of crime.

My colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who has shown leadership on this issue, pointed out something very important. and that was that our colleague, the Hon. Peter MacKay, introduced the Victims Bill of Rights. Again, this is completely consistent with where the Conservative Party is, has been at in the past and continues to be. It became law in 2015. That was not the only thing we had done.

We passed Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, which among other things amended the Criminal Code to allow the swearing in of up to 14 jurors to ensure a trial could be completed. It also had other provisions. One of them was special protections for aboriginal women under the threat of domestic violence. This is known as the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests Rights Act. Again, this is an important step forward to updating Canada's laws.

Another example is that the Human Rights Code in our country did not include indigenous peoples. They did not have the protections that all Canadians deserve. Our government did that. We said that it was important for everyone in the country have those protections.

I want to be clear that the Conservative Party is always interested in ways to improve Canada's justice system.

We talked about Bill C-51, the only bill the government did bring forward, but we supported it. We will not take the position the Liberals took with the previous government when they basically opposed everything we did. We will look at any way to improve Canada's justice system.

This past week, the heartbreaking death of Colten Boushie warrants discussions about the challenges first nations people face. All Canadians want to have fair and equitable treatment for all indigenous people. In fact, if we look at what we did in government over 10 years, they were all consistent with helping to support victims and people in the criminal justice system. One of the significant resources was to expand the aboriginal justice strategy, which enabled aboriginal communities to have increased involvement in the local administration of justice.

During the 2008 fiscal year, as an example, approximately 113 programs were funded and they served nearly 400 indigenous communities. We continued to renew that as part of our economic plan. In fact, in 2014, we renewed it for another two years. Why? Because we believed it was important.

One of my colleagues on the other side said that the native courtroom program had ended. It certainly did not end under our government. It was one of those programs in which I was very interested. It was known as the aboriginal court workers program. It assisted indigenous people to understand their right to speak on their own behalf or to request legal counsel, and to better understand the nature of the charges against them. It was very important. It assisted indigenous people with the administration of the criminal justice system, with special awareness given to the values, customs, languages, socio-economic conditions of indigenous people, and ensured there were no communication barriers between indigenous people and those involved with the administration of the criminal justice system.

Let me be clear. The Conservative Party of Canada has always been interested in hearing from Canadians on ways that we can improve the criminal justice system. Certainly the heartbreaking death of Colten Boushie warrants a discussion about the challenges faced by first nations people. We would welcome and carefully consider proposed legislation that would improve the justice system, while maintaining the independence of our justice system.

Judicial independence is protected in our Constitution, and it guarantees anyone accused of a crime that his or her case will be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. Independence is necessary for public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of our justice system. It is a cornerstone of Canadian democracy. Fairness for all Canadians includes everyone, indigenous and non-indigenous. We all deserve that protection.

As I have stated, I am in favour of seeing more indigenous jurors and working with the indigenous community with other justice-related issues, including indigenous policing. Just two weeks ago, I was honoured to meet with the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians on indigenous policing and law-related issues. We discussed how we could support indigenous police services. One way of doing that would be to ensure they would be listed as first responders.

I hope the government will act on the recommendations of this group. It is extremely important that we give it assistance. The government must bring first nation policing in line with other police services. There is nothing wrong with that, and it makes sense. Those forces need to be protected under strong legislative frameworks, and afforded the same resources and support as federal and provincial police forces.

Underfunding jeopardizes the adequacy of policing in indigenous communities, and there have been examples, which I was told about, among the nine first nation police services in Ontario. For instance, I was told that they were not legislated under the Police Services Act and therefore were not required to meet the adequacy standards of other local police services. There have been a couple of articles on how this can work to the disadvantage of people who need the help.

Therefore, if the government is looking for ways to help out indigenous communities, certainly this is one way. Ensure they get the same protection and the same resources as other policing services do. Again, I heard this about a week ago from groups in Ontario that this was what they should have. If the government is looking for ways to do this, this is something on which it could move forward.

We continue to be prepared to encourage more indigenous representation and input into our justice system. That is important. As I have stated already, politicians, regardless of how powerful they are, must also respect the independence of our judicial system. If it is interfered with, it may have the unfortunate effect of impeding the crown's ability to launch an appeal.

On the weekend, I made a statement about the Boushie case. I recognized that the verdict in this case must have been difficult for all those involved, especially for the family members. However, I am pleased they are in Ottawa this week.

Again, we are open to suggestions on these things. I believe you will get more support from us for worthwhile initiatives. You will probably get more support from us than we received from you in the last Parliament. However, we have to work together.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, tonight the House of Commons is stepping back from its usual business and taking a few hours to discuss the experience of indigenous people in Canada's justice system.

For the past week, Canadians have engaged in an intense, emotional discussion about the outcome of the trial concerning the death of Colten Boushie. There have been protests across Canada and passionate debate among many concerned with justice. This sad situation has touched a nerve with all Canadians.

The outcome of this trial does not change the fundamental facts of the situation: A young man's life has ended, tearing him away from his family and his closest friends. I think every member of the House can agree that this was a tragic situation. First and foremost, our thoughts, prayers, and condolences are with Colten's family and friends.

I lived in a community where there were an indigenous and a non-indigenous community side by side, and we did have some challenges over the years. However, I learned from those challenges that the job of our leadership is to try to calm people and create a sense of unity rather than a sense of division. It is certainly incumbent upon all of us to help these communities in Saskatchewan heal. We have to continue to have difficult conversations that unite rather than divide, and do so with respect and recognition that we are all working to build a better Canada.

When we have difficult situations like this, we should always be open to ensuring that more Canadians have trust in the justice system. Of course, we also need to acknowledge that we have a system that has been built and improved over decades of careful work. Conservatives have always been ready to listen to voices seeking change in our justice system, especially for the benefit of victims and their families.

In office, our previous Conservative government passed over 30 pieces of legislation to keep Canadians safe while putting the rights of victims ahead of the privileges of offenders. We also created the federal victims strategy and the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. We provided significant resources to the aboriginal justice strategy and the indigenous courtwork program, which enable indigenous communities to take a greater role in the administration of justice in Canada.

We introduced Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, which made important reforms to jury selection laws to allow for a larger jury if the judge thought it was necessary. The same bill helped to protect the identity of jurors.

We authorized the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the first law to entrench the rights of victims of crime into a single piece of legislation. As the former attorney general, Peter MacKay, said when the legislation was introduced, “every victim deserves to have an effective voice and to be heard”.

I remember when we were developing that particular piece of legislation. There was a very tragic case near the riding I represent where an 18-year-old girl had been brutally murdered. The court process was continuing, but the family was able to participate in Mr. MacKay's process so that they could share their experiences and hopefully help make that particular piece of legislation better.

I acknowledge that trial many years later. It is still going on. It was 2011 when the daughter was killed. There was an automatic presumption that the parents were suspects because they were family. They experienced some very difficult moments. At the round table, I remember them talking about not being able to say goodbye to their daughter because they were in the RCMP office. It was profoundly impactful to hear them talk about not only the very difficult loss of their daughter, the murder of their daughter, but also the immediacy of the RCMP process. It was an awful experience for them, and it informed the Victims Bill of Rights.

We had 30 pieces of legislation. In contrast, we know that the current government has not passed a lot of legislation. There were a number of articles out a while ago comparing the Liberals' record of actually getting legislation through the House to our record. To be quite frank, in two and a half years, the Liberals have failed to table any legislation to improve Canada's justice system. We are hearing that they have to do something, but they are two and a half years in. They do not have anything on the table yet for us to look at.

We have to wonder if this is even a priority for the government. There is scant mention of justice issues in past remarks and in the mandate letters, and nothing in the Prime Minister's speech to the UN. Recently, since this tragic case, the Liberals have referenced the 2013 report by former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci, but until this week, it was never acknowledged or put out there as something they were going to look at. We have all heard media reports that some form of legislation will be coming in the near future. It almost has the appearance that the Liberals are scrambling to tack on some changes to jury selection, and it almost seems like an afterthought. All of a sudden they are quoting a report that they have not talked about in their time in office.

I talked about the number of measures that we brought forward over 10 years, and I want to talk about the ones the Liberals voted against: ending house arrest for serious offences such as sexual assault and kidnapping; tougher penalties for those who produce, traffic, and import date rape drugs and those who sell drugs near schools; ensuring that state sponsors of terrorism are held accountable for their crimes; ensuring that public safety comes first when dealing with individuals found not criminally responsible; the protection of indigenous women under threat of domestic violence. I could go on.

These are things that were focused on protecting the victims, and the Liberals have a history of voting against them. We worked hard to ensure that justice is served swiftly and the rights of the victims are put first.

With this record in mind, if and when the government finally decides to table some legislation in response to this tragic situation, we will take the time necessary to consider it and its effects. This is what Canadians expect us to do.

At this time, we need to respect the independence of the judiciary and ensure that we do not undermine the crown's ability to seek an appeal of this verdict, should it intend to do so. It is not the role of parliamentarians or ministers to assign guilt in this case or any other. It would not deliver justice to the victims or to society at large.

There can be no political point scoring in this case. There are no winners, only grief and sadness. There is a mother without a son, a brother gone, a friend lost. There is a man with the death of another on his conscience, a memory that will not be erased. There is an indigenous community feeling once again that it is left in the cold, its needs and its sense of justice forgotten by the rest of us.

This sad turn of events has moved Canadians and escalated some of the most fundamental debates in our society today. As the official opposition, we will play our part in these discussions, fighting, as we always have, for a justice system that puts the rights of victims first.

Third Reading

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House for the second time this evening, this time, to speak to Bill C-54.

Bill C-54 is important. It is the latest bill on the Conservative government's crime agenda. Based on the controversial example of Dr. Guy Turcotte in Quebec, the government thinks it is better to impose its ideological measures.

The profound, collective feeling of injustice triggered by the murder of his two children was a completely normal, healthy reaction. Indeed, he made us question the essence of justice and the future of our society and prompted us to ask other important questions of that sort. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to ask whether such a case, which fortunately, is very unusual, requires us to question where the justice system is going.

I would like to quote a senator who was talking about one of her bills dealing with this issue. I think this quotation is quite relevant:

Even though there may be the odd case that concerns us all, Canada has recognized mental health experts and a proven judicial system. Anger and pain should not dictate our courts. Nor should they dictate our laws. It is a mistake to go down this path because instead of building a peaceful society we would create an unstable, harder, less tolerant one. We would fall into a vicious cycle of repression and violence, precisely into which the [Prime Minister's] Conservatives—and Senator Boisvenu—seek to lead us....We are talking about sick people. Punishment will not cure them. Prison does not cure.

That was Senator Hervieux-Payette, and those were her words regarding her own Bill S-214. I am quite certain that she will not mind if I draw a parallel with the current situation.

Is the government outraged that I would dare claim that it is playing politics at the expense of victims? The government is constantly accusing the opposition of siding with pedophiles, murderers and other criminals of that ilk, so I would simply like to try a little experiment.

The government has made several public statements on this bill, as did Senator Boisvenu and the mother of the two murdered children, Isabelle Gaston, whose state of mind I cannot even begin to imagine. The following is an excerpt of the statements of Senator Boisvenu and the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the announcement of Guy Turcotte's release on parole:

We believe that Isabelle Gaston doesn't deserve to live in fear of her children's killer, and neither do other victims...

Such decision is clearly undermining Canadians’ confidence in our justice system.

That's why our Government will shortly introduce legislation to address Canadians’ concerns about high-risk accused persons found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder who may pose a threat to public safety if released.

Well, if the government is not engaging in petty politics, and if the bill does not apply in any way to Dr. Turcotte's case, why are the Conservatives promoting the bill by using an emotionally charged and high-profile case involving children?

It smacks of demagogy and is very dangerous when the government plays with Canadians’ feelings and keeps them in the dark. The Conservatives know full well that this legislation will give the government an opportunity to capitalize on Canadians’ empathy for Ms. Gaston, while at the same time never clearly pubically admitting that the legislation cannot, and will never, apply to Ms. Gaston even if Mr. Turcotte were to face a second trial. Moreover, when Ms. Gaston was questioned on a Quebec public affairs television program, she admitted to being unaware whether the legislation would even apply in her situation. To quote Ms. Gaston “As far as I am concerned, I do not know, it is perhaps too early to get a sense of whether it will have an impact on my situation—the process is ongoing.”

This proves that all Ms. Gaston really wants is for things to change, and for her children not to have died in vain, which is entirely admirable. However, I seriously doubt that a more rigid position and the criminalization of mental illness will resolve the problem.

I use the word criminalization because, in truth, government members do not really believe in rehabilitation—we realized this when Bill C-10 was adopted. After listening to Senator Boisvenu, the jury is out as to whether he even believes that people genuinely suffer from psychological distress or severe mental illness.

In fact, the senator even wants the government to review the definitions of a number of mental illnesses whereby individuals may be found not criminally responsible.

Why? Simply because Mr. Boisvenu does not think that the incidence of mental illness could have increased so significantly over the past 10 or 15 years.

Why did the number of people found not criminally responsible increase twenty times? I do not think that the incidence of mental illness has increased at such a rate over the past 10 or 15 years. We must find out why there has been such a drastic increase in the number of these cases.

My colleague, the member for Gatineau, our justice critic, explained this during her opening speech. She said:

It is true that the percentage has risen over the years. However, and this is what it does not say, before 1991, if I recall correctly, when the amendment was made to the Criminal Code, the term was changed from “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder”. At that point, summary conviction offences were also added, and this resulted in a lot of cases that had not been covered previously. Obviously that had an impact on the statistics. According to the government's responses, we are talking about a tiny percentage of cases where the individuals were found to be not criminally responsible.

To what point are mentally ill offenders dangerous?

This question was at the heart of an extensive study the Canadian government's Department of Public Safety conducted at the end of the 1990s. It recorded and analyzed more than 60 studies on this subject to properly identify the problems.

These studies looked at more than 15,000 offenders who had been released from prison or specialized hospitals and who were followed in their communities for a period of four to five-and-a-half years, on average. What were the findings?

When compared to offenders who do not have major psychological or psychiatric disorders, mentally disordered offenders are less likely to recidivate violently.

Second, mentally disordered offenders are not always actively psychotic. They may be in remission or their symptoms are being managed by medication.

The study also evaluated the relative importance of different risk factors. Many mental health professionals place considerable emphasis on “clinical” variables. Examples are length of hospitalization and type of mental disorder (e.g., schizophrenia, manic-depression). The meta-analysis found that these variables demonstrate very weak associations with violent re-offending. Much more potent predictors of violent recidivism are the factors typically found to predict violence among non-disordered offenders. Examples of these risk factors are criminal history, unemployment and family problems.

When the Minister of Justice said in his opening speech on second reading that the objective of the proposed reforms was not to impose criminal penalties on individuals found by a court to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, that was only half true, in fact.

In reality, Bill C-54 will divide the clientele into two types of cases: those who meet the criteria in Bill C-54 and those who do not meet those criteria, even though they have all been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This means that accused persons whose cases meet the criteria and who are found to be high-risk accused could be held in custody with no possibility of release by the review board as long as the court has not revoked the finding.

Why place people who are not criminally responsible outside the jurisdiction of the review boards that deal with mental disorders, quasi-judicial tribunals that are composed of psychiatrists, not judges? Only a court could find an accused to be “high-risk” and then revoke that finding, at present. Before revoking it, the court would seek the recommendation of the mental disorder review board, but the final decision would no longer be the board’s.

In Quebec, the mental disorder review board makes decisions concerning individuals who have been found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

As long as the accused is not discharged unconditionally or found fit to stand trial, a review must be held each year. With Bill C-54, that time will be extended to three years, and this could cause a number of problems, according to the experts with the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network. It would prompt defence counsel to stop pleading not criminally responsible and opt for custodial prison sentences in the traditional prison system. In addition, individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder would not receive proper care, but they would still present a danger when they were released.

The study I referred to earlier also found that the similarities between risk factors for offenders with mental disorders and other offenders suggest that there is a point at which health care services and the criminal justice system could integrate their approaches in order to effectively manage offenders with mental disorders.

There are two specific areas where co-operation between the two systems is possible: risk assessment and rehabilitation of offenders. I am not citing that study to embarrass anyone, but simply to try to make the government members understand the consequences of deinstitutionalization, poverty and the criminalization of mental health problems. Prison does not cure people.

This bill, like so many others, was drafted without much thought to the consequences and without consultation, in order to make the public, and particularly the Conservative base, believe that this government is tough on crime. In reality, this bill would probably not apply to the case of Guy Turcotte.

Clause 12 of Bill C-54 adds a new section to the Criminal Code, section 672.64, which lists the conditions that must be met in order for a person to be considered high-risk:

672.64 (1) On application made by the prosecutor before any disposition to discharge an accused absolutely, the court may, at the conclusion of a hearing, find the accused to be a high-risk accused if the accused has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a serious personal injury offence, as defined in subsection 672.81(1.3), the accused was 18 years of age or more at the time of the commission of the offence and

(a) the court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person; or

(b) the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

For Guy Turcotte to be declared an assumed high-risk accused, the judge has to be convinced, beyond a doubt, that he would likely seriously harm another person or could endanger the life of another person. Everyone agrees that the murders were both brutal and grotesque. I, too, have children. However, that is not what justice must decide. Rather, it should focus on whether or not there is a chance the accused will reoffend.

Given the decision made, the experts were obviously able to convince the judge that this was not the case. I am going to outline the five criteria that the judge must take into consideration—and he must take all of them into consideration—when determining whether the individual is a high-risk accused.

He must consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, any pattern of repetitive behaviour of which the offence forms a part, the accused’s current mental condition, the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment, including the accused’s willingness to follow treatment, and the opinions of experts who have examined the accused. If one must take into consideration all these criteria, the Turcotte case does not at all fit, given the experts' opinions, his mental condition and the treatments and therapies that he is following.

The nature of the offence is the only criterion that might lead a judge to consider him dangerous. However, given his mental condition at the time, and based on what the judge took into consideration, the risk of reoffending is very low. According to the Conservatives' bill, Guy Turcotte would not be a high-risk accused.

The one thing I agree on is that victims should be at the centre of the process. The problem is that the bill says very little on this aspect.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the government must realize the importance of providing real support to victims of crime, including by following up on more than one recommendation of the report by the ombudsman for victims of crime. It must also understand the whole psychosocial structure surrounding prevention, the study of risk factors, research, health care and rehabilitation.

It is difficult because each case is unique, but experts have tools to try to have everyone make progress. Some are probably beyond redemption, but just like with the concept of high-risk accused or mental disorder, it is certainly not up to politicians, or even the legal profession to establish the foundations. It is up to psychiatrists and doctors.

While referring to the former cardiologist's case, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that such decision obviously undermines Canadians' confidence in our justice system. However, the minister was not able to say how this desire to put victims at the centre of the process would translate into concrete measures.

That is another contradiction in the Conservatives' logic, and it is the reason why we presented a number of amendments in committee. In fact, one of those amendments was accepted, and it is one of the few that the Conservative government has accepted in any committee.

The amendment would inform victims, at their request, of the address of a person already found to be not criminally responsible for a crime so that the victim can avoid the area for his or her own well-being. It is one of the examples that showed that we do care about the victims. We want to improve this bill so that it reflects this concern.

One of the reasons why we will be supporting this bill is that we were able to have the Conservatives accept a second amendment that would require the government—no matter which party is in power in five years, that is in 2018—to have a committee study and re-examine the situation.

There are still many concerns about this bill, and I have pointed out a few of them. I think it is worthwhile examining them. There are other concerns that I did not have the time to address in my speech. They were brought up by experts, or in committee, and had to do with the possibility that this bill may be unconstitutional.

The validity of such measures is obviously based on the victims' rights, but also the rights of those deemed to be not criminally responsible for the acts committed. These laws must also be protected. In that sense, a contradiction could easily lead to interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The committee was informed of concerns by the media. That is why, five years after the bill becomes law, such a study would be pertinent.

In my speech, I made sure that I talked about the danger of politicizing cases like the Guy Turcotte case. I am certain that other members could cite similar cases that have occurred in their riding or region. These cases are very delicate and they affect us.

I already mentioned that I have children. Anyone who has young children will be emotional about a situation like that. It is the reason why such a delicate and sensitive situation must be handled by parliamentarians in the same manner, that is in a delicate and sensitive manner. These types of cases must not be used to promote a political agenda.

The reference made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Senator Boisvenu to what I just mentioned was the second speech made on the same bill. It was announced twice. The government must be very careful, because this kind of issue is very volatile. Again, the politicization of these cases has muddied the waters for the collective debate we should be holding on this issue. This makes it much more difficult to find our way.

In the future, for law and order bills on crime, I would like the government to be much more sensitive to the reactions it causes and the way they interfere with the debate when similar bills are introduced.

On this side of the House, we showed we were willing to work with the government. We will do so by voting for this bill, among other things. In addition, we demonstrated our co-operation by proposing and expediting the passage of Bill C-2, which allows for the group prosecution of biker gangs.

We will continue to work on this issue, but we need the government's co-operation in order to have a healthy and useful debate for Canadians.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary thinks the NDP will vote with the Conservatives on a bill that violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that prevents Canadians from enjoying their fundamental rights, he can think again.

I would like to remind him that we supported the government on Bill C-2, on street gangs.

The government also has our full support when it comes to the current RCMP investigation into Nigel Wright's actions and the $90,000 cheque he wrote out to a senator. We support the government 100% on that.

They should let the RCMP investigate the fraud involving dealings between the PMO and the senators.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.

In fact, the NDP does support good crime legislation. I believe we began with Bill C-2, immediately after the election, when we suggested working with the Conservatives to quickly pass a bill that would make it easier to hold megatrials for criminal gangs. We are not afraid to support good bills; we are proud to do so.

I understand the evidence that was presented in committee. However, we have to realize that it was somewhat ambiguous.

My colleague mentioned that the RCMP had enough resources. However, this is what it says on the RCMP website:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

Major police forces across Canada and the associations that represent them believe that the resources are generally available. However, in very specific local situations, there may not be enough resources, and this can compromise the safety and proper protection of witnesses.

The evidence is contradictory, and that is why we are asking for a guarantee from members of the government. They must assure us that, if there are not enough resources, they will be the first ones to fight for additional resources and to ensure that Bill C-51 is in reality a good law.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Gill, for coming in today.

I've been hearing quite a number of concerns from the opposition benches today.

One of the things is mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentences have a long tradition in Canada. Since the turn of the 20th century we've had them. Usually it's in cases where there are particular crimes that the public at large finds both offensive and heinous. So for members to bring forward legitimate concerns and say that the other argument given on another bill...it doesn't apply in this case. We are finding that this particular aspect of the gang problem, where someone is recruiting youth and entering them into a life of crime, is particularly offensive to my constituents. For us to say that this is a heinous crime that needs to be stopped, we do need to put some mandatory minimum sentences to communicate that.

The previous bill did not even add clarity to the existing Criminal Code. This bill would. It would send a very broad message that gangs are a problem in our Canadian cities and we need to have a full range of tools available to law enforcement, particularly a mandatory minimum sentence.

Our government's support for this bill is consistent with a long-standing commitment to improving existing responses to crime, including organized crime, as reflected in many of our election platform commitments and speeches from the throne. For example, you have, from 2008, Bill C-2, which created mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes involving organized crime; Bill C-14 in 2009, which deems murder committed on behalf of criminal organizations to be automatically first degree murder, and creates a new offence targeting drive-by shootings; the enactment of a serious offence regulation in 2010 for the purposes of organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code; and most recently, Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which proposes mandatory minimum penalties for drug crimes committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization.

Mr. Gill, your bill proposes to create a new indictable Criminal Code offence that would prohibit the recruitment, the solicitation, the encouragement, or the invitation of another person to join a criminal organization for the purpose of enhancing the ability of that criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences.

I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, because that clarifies that this particular aspect of organized crime is unacceptable in our society. That's why this adds clarity, in my view, to the Criminal Code, specifically because it highlights this heinous activity. There are many activities that may go on in organized crime. I appreciate Mr. Mai's wording of his concerns, but by the same token, this is one of the parts where we have to say that no more is acceptable.

Anyway, though many in the opposition say that mandatory minimum penalties are ineffective, this offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment of six months if the individual who's recruited is under the age of 18.

Mr. Gill, getting back to your testimony, how do you think this mandatory minimum penalty would help get these gangs that prey on the most vulnerable in our society? What kind of message would that send to the broader criminal element? Again, as you said, Toronto City Council has said this is a recurring problem. They support your bill.

How will a mandatory minimum sentence send a signal to those who would perpetrate these crimes?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I just want to respond to some of Mr. Alexander's comments.

Clayton Ruby is not the only one to raise concerns about this. The Criminal Lawyers' Association expressed grave concerns about it. They were opposed to the giving of a criminal record to people who were charged and convicted under a summary trial, objected to the procedures and to the constitutionality of it.

Mr. Justice LeSage, himself, in his report, said:

...I have very real concerns about obtaining a criminal record from a summary trial conviction. The issue of criminal records flowing from convictions at summary trial must be reviewed. The very damage that flows from a criminal record and the potential effect on a person’s life is far too severe a consequence for most offences tried by summary trial. I am fully supportive of the summary trial as an efficient and effective method of maintaining discipline. However, because the summary trial, although constitutional for its purposes—

—and I think he's again talking in the general way—

—does not provide the panoply of safeguards of a civilian criminal trial, the unintended consequence of acquiring a “criminal record” at a summary trial should occur only in exceptional circumstances.

Now we're not talking about exceptional circumstances here. I suppose one might argue that if we're getting 94% out of 100%, the other 6% must therefore, by definition, be exceptional. I don't think that's the case. There's no particular special circumstances. For example, the mere shoving of a person is an assault. If one decided to charge someone with assault, you could get a conviction, possibly even in a criminal court. But I doubt very much that every shoving match that occurs in the military is dealt with by a charge of assault, just as every time something like that happens in a school yard or a school, the police are called. But I think it could be recognized that this kind of behaviour could be a discipline issue; fighting, shoving, even striking someone could be a discipline issue, but not necessarily one that ought to attract a criminal offence.

Mr. Alexander referred to the eight offences that we're talking about that are Criminal Code offences. If there are only eight offences that we're talking about, then you make a choice.

You invoke the police in a civilian trial system to ensure that what is regarded truly as a criminal offence ought to be treated as such, handled by the civilian authorities. A person gets all of the rights that they're entitled to under our Constitution and under the law, and if they're convicted, they end up with the consequences of that.

If it's going to be regarded as a disciplinary matter, we've all agreed that it's important to have a military discipline system, one that is, as Justice LeSage said, “an efficient and effective method of maintaining discipline” through the summary trial process. It's fast; it can be dealt with in a matter of days, not in the kind of time that a civil trial might take. It can restore unit cohesion, restore morale, restore discipline in a swift way and an appropriate way, and the punishment might be greater than one would get for the same offence in society.

We understand that may be required to maintain that discipline and efficiency. It's not being done because it should be. No one says soldiers should be punished more than civilians. That's not the purpose of it, not to provide a greater punishment.

Mr. Alexander's argument about treating them more leniently by not getting criminal records doesn't hold water in this context. Because the purpose of making it tougher on the individual is to ensure that the unit cohesiveness, the discipline, and the morale is maintained, not to punish them for the rest of their lives with a criminal record.

That's not the point here at all. The issue is the punishment that you're given, the process by which you get there, doesn't have the same constitutional protections, and therefore as Justice LeSage says, ought not to attract the unintended consequence in many respects of having a criminal record. Clause 75, with the G-2 amendment, goes some way to recognizing it, and it has taken a couple of years. It's taken the last iteration of this bill, Bill C-41, Bill C-15, and two years of arguments to get to the point where it was accepted. It was accepted in the last Parliament mainly because it was a minority Parliament. I would venture to say, given the makeup of the last Parliament and the makeup of this committee, there's no possibility that the changes to clause 75, which are now there, would have got through. If they didn't get through then, they'd be unlikely to be passed by this committee.

It's all very well to talk about ten years to get here, or six years or seven years or three iterations or whatever, but we would never have got here if it wasn't for the arguments that were made in the past two years. We're now here, but we're here obviously because the recognition of the consequence of a criminal record is a serious matter and the government and Parliament has now decided to do something about that, not everything, but something about that, and that something is contained in Bill C-15, clause 75.

We are putting forth the proposition or the argument that we must go further, that we must prevent people from getting a criminal record when they don't have due process of law, which every other citizen outside of the military has access to if they are going to obtain a criminal record. That's the distinction we're making here. We're saying to the men and women who sign up to the military that they could come out of here with a criminal record without due process of law. Every other person in our society who is going to end up with a criminal record has the constitutional guarantees, has the ability and the right to a fair and independent tribunal with the right procedural protections that are enshrined in our Constitution, and the procedures, laws, cases, and all the things that have been put into our law as the law progressed.

As retired Justice Létourneau said, the law has changed. The law changes as time goes on. There's been a development in the law and in the application of the Charter of Rights to our criminal law and our system. He suggested that the military justice system has not kept up with that. I have to agree with him; we are trying here to help it catch up in this particular aspect. Yes, we have a military justice system that may need a fundamental review but we have an opportunity here to say we want to make sure in the meantime that we don't give people criminal records who don't have legal protection.

If the concern is, and I know it is, that some people who perhaps should have a criminal record are not going to have one, well then there is a solution. That solution is to have them charged in the civil system. If someone commits a sexual assault against a minor on a base or a rape, then they can be tried civilly and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and they will have the consequences associated with that. But we don't want to have a system wherein the only people in our system of justice who don't have access, as of law, to the procedural protections of our Constitution are the people who are serving our country in the military. That's a situation we'd find ourselves in if we don't pass this amendment here today.

Justice and Human Rights

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

moved:

That the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present the motion that the report be concurred in. Organized crime in Canada is something that has been studied for a number of years by the justice committee. I was not involved at the commencement of it, but I was there in the session last spring for the preparation of the report and the hearing of the final number of witnesses.

My predecessor as justice critic, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, now the The Deputy Speaker of the House, was very much involved in the organized crime study. We took great interest in trying to find mechanisms that were going to work to take on organized crime and fix some of the issues within the justice system that made it ineffective and difficult to prosecute.

In fact, we had witnesses before the committee who talked about the issues and the difficulties. A prosecutor from Quebec talked about the difficulties with the prosecution of the Hell's Angels in Quebec and the breakup of the Banditos biker gang. They had to take very significant extraordinary measures in order to be able to carry out the prosecution of this very difficult element of organized crime in the province of Quebec.

It included the creation of specialized police task forces and the participation of a variety of different police agencies working together; lengthy police investigations, which targeted the whole criminal organization at all levels; the use of civil infiltration agents, which can be controversial but nevertheless were necessary; the creation of specialized teams of prosecutors such as the proceeds of crime bureau in 1996 and the organized crime bureau in 2000; and the construction of a particular courthouse, a special judicial services centre, in order to be able to have the kind of security that was needed to carry out these special prosecutions. As well, the renovation of several courtrooms around Quebec allowed for the holding of several megatrials in different places at the same time.

On the issue of megatrials, it is important to know that these create enormous difficulties for the judicial system. We have a system that assumes one is innocent until proven guilty and has myriad provisions for the protection of people who are accused of crime because of the consequences of the loss of liberty. These are important safeguards in our criminal justice system. We have our Charter of Rights and a system of justice that depends on the rule of law and not on the fact that someone decides that someone else is a criminal, so we have to prove these things.

In a significant trial such as the biker gang trials, for want of a better name, we have a large number of defendants, complicated procedures, multiple defence counsels acting at the same time, complicated provisions and the difficulty of the judge handling the case having to manage all of that.

As a result, our party co-operated with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that there be special legislation brought forward to deal with megatrials during the course of this study so that, at least, changes would be put in place to allow for a more proper and reasonable way to deal with them that would allow the administration of these trials to take place without compromising the rule of law, the presumption of innocence or the other protections that all citizens are entitled to.

We just cannot jump to conclusions in criminal matters, even if we are prosecuting someone we believe, and have evidence to support that belief, is engaged in a criminal activity or a criminal organization. We still have to provide that proof according to law at a fair trial. The shorthand in criminal law is that we have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial that takes place in accordance with law.

Before I get too much into the report, I want to say that we need to have some special rules to deal with criminal organizations in Canada, but we have to be careful about what we are doing here. We must make sure that we are not using the notion of the existence of criminal gangs to frighten Canadians into believing that crime is everywhere and that we require extraordinary measures that ignore the rule of law and basic fundamental rights in our society, which could affect everybody. We have to ensure that all citizens have the right to fair treatment by our legal and judicial systems.

It is important to note that Canadians do feel safe. In 2009, a study done under the Statistics Canada rubric determined that 93% of Canadians felt either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their personal safety. It indicated they felt as safe as they had when the 2004 study was undertaken five years previously. Of the respondents, 90% said they felt safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood at night. When asked about the perception of crime in their communities, 62% of respondents said they believed the crime rate in their community had not changed over the past five years. There is a general feeling of community safety across the country. There is no fear in the land.

In some respects it is ironic that when we look at the news on the television, particularly local television, a great deal of time is taken up with the reporting of court cases and what happens in the courts. Those types of stories always make the headlines in the local newspapers and television shows. They are easy to report and there are visuals of people being brought before the courts. Also, we have the overlay of American television with its extremely high crime rates and large numbers of homicides. Canadians seem to be able to filter through that and understand the difference between what is on TV and what their reality actually is.

I say that because it does belie the mantra we hear from the government on an ongoing basis, day after day, week after week, about how all these crimes are being committed and we need to take extraordinary measures and go into a whole series of extraordinary sentencing provisions, mandatory minimums, that fill up prisons. While the government does not like evidence-based decision making and seems to base most of its decisions on ideological approaches, the evidence is that these approaches will not work in terms of prevention.

On the other hand, with so many people in prison, we are now at the point where double-bunking is becoming the norm and will be, according to certain information recently released or leaked. Taking the general disapproval of double-bunking out of Correctional Services Canada's mandate and manual is an indication that the government considers double-bunking in prisons as something that is standard, natural and to be expected.

There have been a number of articles written on the results of that, and one recently, decrying that the provision is not only expensive but it would increase bad behaviour, illnesses and the brutalization of one inmate to another. As a result of overcrowding, it would cause an increase in crime and costs, a lack of rehabilitation programs, an increase in recidivism, et cetera. Those are some of the negatives of that.

It is worthwhile saying that, on the whole, Canadians are not buying the notion that we have a major crime wave happening and that we need to be protected by extraordinary provisions and by being tough on criminals, while not necessarily doing what needs to be done to actually prevent the crime.

According to the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, we have approximately between 700 and 900 criminal organizations in Canada. We have to be careful when we say that, because a criminal organization is not the same as a gang. It does not have to be a major organization. For the purpose of the law, any three people who work together with the purpose of committing ongoing criminal activity can be considered a criminal organization.

There was a concern among defence counsel over the years about calling three people who committed a crime together a criminal organization was an extraordinary measure, but that concern has been looked after.

In 2002 the number of people required to constitute a criminal organization was reduced from five down to three. The requirement that at least one of the members be involved in committing crimes for the organization within the past five years was also removed. There was also a broadening of the scope of offences that defined a criminal organization, which was previously limited to indictable offences punishable by five years. The term criminal organization does not mean a group of people who form randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence. Again, that is still on the edge of what ordinary people would consider a criminal organization.

There are three specific offences in relation to criminal organizations. The first has to do with the participation in the activities of a criminal organization, which is punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. The second one is the commission of an offence for a criminal organization. The third is instructing the commission of an offence for the criminal organization. These offences are aimed at people working together in a criminal organization. Participating in that organization is deemed to be a crime, and it would have to be shown that the organization is engaged in committing crime. These are the basics of having a criminal organization, and the activities and offences that are designed to cut down on the number of criminal offences.

In Canada in terms of the criminal market that takes place with groups, the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada in 2001 reported that financial crime accounted for approximately 11% of that activity. We are talking about things such as payment card fraud, which is the largest part of that market and continues to expand, card thefts, fraudulent card applications, fake deposits and so on. Securities and mortgage fraud is another area of the financial crime market in which organized crime has an interest.

Thirty-two per cent of criminal market activity is taken up with other illicit goods and services including theft, contraband such as alcohol and tobacco, the sex trade and human trafficking. Legislation often mentions foreigners engaged in human trafficking or bringing people into the country. The committee was told that by far the largest amount of human trafficking that takes place in Canada is actually domestic, that is Canadian girls being trafficked within Canada, and it is done through organized crime networks. Street gangs facilitate the recruitment, control, movement and exploitation of Canadian-born females in the domestic sex trade primarily in strip bars in several cities across the country.

We do have an important and crucial role to play in trying to prevent the exploitation and trafficking of young women in particular through criminal activity. We need to take special measures to ensure that the people engaged in that criminal activity can be prosecuted and punished and deterred.

The official opposition provided a supplementary report to the report tabled on March 12 in which we indicated that, while we supported the majority of the recommendations in the report and worked collaboratively with the other parties on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with the objective of recommending new strategies for the government in the fight against criminal activity and criminal organizations, we promoted an effective and balanced approach to combatting organized crime. Some of the measures that are in the report we do not support.

Our approach has involved the emphasis on three pillars: prevention, policing and prosecution. It is founded on the conviction that the fight against organized crime must be taken to its root in the recruitment of youth into street gangs and into this kind of criminal activity.

Obviously, there is a need for some of the measures that have been implemented here. In terms of prosecution and having a proper foundation for megatrials, we worked with the government to pass Bill C-2 in June 2011 in order to do that. We wanted to ensure that the judiciary had the necessary tools to make an effective prosecution when dealing with megatrials. Through this balanced and effective approach, we supported the majority of the recommendations.

Unfortunately, the government fell back to its knee-jerk reaction, to the things that it wants, to paint in one corner, by using mandatory minimum sentences. We have opposed that consistently.

We also found objectionable the first recommendation following paragraph 100 recommending the amendment of the Criminal Code to impose mandatory minimum sentences for criminal organization offences. We do not believe that is necessary. Judges across the land share the concern that all of us have, which is that organized criminal activity is a scourge on communities and that significant sentences are being imposed and will continue to be imposed to provide the kind of deterrence that is necessary to help persuade and ensure that we do not have large numbers of people engaged in criminal activity. In fact, some of the offences, for example, members of criminal organizations who instruct individuals to commit an offence, in other words, carrying out in an organized way and actually telling people to do criminal acts, they are already liable to life imprisonment under section 467.13 of the Criminal Code of Canada. They are already taken extremely seriously by the law and by the judges.

We are concerned about the proposed disclosure model, which could potentially require defence counsel to disclose its plan of defence to the crown. It is not adequate to avoid that. We are concerned about the change recommended here that would allow electronic eavesdropping without proper judicial oversight and the need for warrants in all cases. It is an unnecessary expansion of powers. We have fought against this and will continue to fight against it.

One of the serious problems is that not enough attention is being paid to legal aid, so we end up having people defending themselves, which slows down prosecutions and makes it more difficult to do so.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the report that was just presented on organized crime.

The New Democrats, since 2009, have been working collaboratively with other parties on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with the objective of recommending new strategies. There are, in fact, some 699 criminal organizations in Canada, 83% of which are engaged in illegal drugs, such as cocaine, cannabis and synthetic drugs, in that order. We have consistently promoted an effective and balanced approach to combatting organized crime.

In that regard, although we support most of the 35 recommendations in the report, we supported, along with the government, passing Bill C-2, the megatrials bill, in June 2011.

However, we do have some concerns about this report, which is why we have filed a supplementary report suggesting that the government has proven, unfortunately, that, with overreaching bills such as Bill C-10 and Bill C-30, it is putting overreaching ideology ahead of level-headed legislation.

We are opposed to the mandatory minimums proposed in the report and we are concerned about the lawful access provisions that support Bill C-10. We are concerned about the lack of judicial oversight recommended and the unnecessary expansion of powers that are contained in the report.

However, regardless of that, we do support, in general, the report but have filed a dissenting report.

Opposition Motion—Closure and Time Allocation

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to speak to this motion. I also thank my colleague for Windsor—Tecumseh for bringing this motion forward at this point. I want to look at the motion in detail because it is not just a simple statement that this is a bad sort of thing and that the government should not use time allocation as much as it does. The member provides some detail in the motion that I would like to talk about.

For instance, the motion states:

...a study and make recommendations to amend the Standing Orders with respect to closure and time allocation, such that: (i) a Minister would be required to provide justification for the request for such a curtailment of debate;

That is certainly something we ought to talk about simply because when time allocation is brought into this House we hear little justification for doing so. We are given short explanations that are basically passed over. The reason for that, on many occasions, is that there is no justification and no requirement to justify it. I agree with the member in many respects on that. I think that justification should be brought to the House and presented to all of us. A big reason for doing that is that some of the fundamental questions as to why time allocations are brought sometimes go unanswered, such as, if bills have passed over a certain period time such that members of Parliament could consult their constituents. A lot of the time, items are promised during campaigns, which is what the Conservatives go on about, and on which hey are now delivering.

In 2008, there was a basic promise in dealing with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia regarding the Atlantic Accord and some of the money that would be withheld within the province because of oil revenues. The promise was that the equalization formula would be made such that non-renewable resources would not play a factor in tabulating each provinces' ability to raise money.

However, when the budget implementation bill came out, much later than the broad principles, it was realized that the devil certainly did lay within the details of what was happening in the budget implementation. It ended up that the promise, by which 100% of non-renewables was to come out of the formula, was not in the budget implementation. Essentially, they had put an agreement that was outside of normal equalization and brought it back in. Former member, Bill Casey, was one of the members who left the party as a result of this. He voted against the budget for that and sat on the opposition side shortly thereafter.

I only put that into context because there is a certain amount of time from when the broad principles of the budget are announced by the finance minister to the time of budget implementation. Once we look at the legislation and a lot of the details that are involved, sometimes these broad principles get watered down or are not what they had appeared to be. Therefore, I think time allocation works against this principle.

The government will remark that the Liberals did this back when they were in power, but a lot of times, such as the Species At Risk Act, time allocation was brought in at third reading. At that point there had been a substantial opportunity to discuss and debate.

Canadians can review the cut and thrust of debate, enough to see what the principles are about, how the legislation is laid out and then, coming back from committee, how the proposed legislation was fine-tuned or not.

I commend my hon. colleague for bringing this motion. I think he brings up some decent questions as to how we can deal with time allocation, filibustering and the limitation of debate within the House.

We also now use the terminology “constituency weeks”. For instance, when the House is shut down for a week, people say that members have a week off. However, no, they are in their constituencies dealing with constituents and they can find out at that point how their constituents feel about certain pieces of legislation. Time allocation works against that, in my opinion.

One of the comments that was made earlier was that we have had so much time to deal with this, that the budget implementation bill has been in the House for quite some time and that we have dealt with it thoroughly, therefore, no bills, as was stated, have received royal assent. However, that is not true. At the end of June, we had Bill C-2, Bill C-4 and three other bills that received royal assent at that time. Those measures went through.

When the Conservatives say that the budget implementation bill needs to be passed in 2011 because it is budget 2011, that may be a valid point but, if it is valid, why are we spending all these hours talking about copyright legislation, the long gun registry and other measures, such as Bill C-10?

What the Conservatives could do is put that on the agenda each and every time. Every member in the House, at that point, could certainly speak their piece on how they feel about the budget implementation bill or the budget bill for this coming year, 2012.

I do want to point out that in this motion the other thing that it goes on about is that:

(ii) the Speaker would be required to refuse such a request in the interest of protecting the duty of Members to examine legislation thoroughly, unless the government's justification sufficiently outweighs the said duty....

There is a great deal of responsibility in what the Speaker must bring to this legislature, beyond the obvious, which is the running of the House. The Speaker also the responsibility of judging whether the normal legislative process is adhered to. We saw examples of that when our former speaker was here. He made big rulings, certainly rulings that made history, and will always be looked upon as a key moment in the speaker's career, because of the judgments that he brought.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the way you do your job, one of the key responsibilities is to look at legislation that has been accepted in principle and scope in second reading, then you must decide if, within the committee, its work went beyond the scope and principle of the bill. You have the authority to overturn those amendments, even if everybody in this House, as I have said time and time again, says that they agree with the amendments that were made, you, Mr. Speaker, have the authority to turn them down despite that.

It has been done before. It happened in a private member's bill some time ago on back-to-work legislation, or what people call “anti-scab” legislation. There was an amendment to exclude essential services and there seemed to be a lot of agreement with that, certainly the majority of members agreed with that, but the speaker turned down that particular amendment because it went beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Therefore, this brings up a good point, which is that this motion would say that you, Mr. Speaker, should have that responsibility to turn this time allocation down, if it is not justified, certainly in dealing with the history, the principles and the spirit of how this House of Commons operates. I think that is a good thing. Why can the Speaker not be involved in this and say that he or she finds that it is not a very justifiable answer as to why we have to slap time allocation on this when we are dealing with something as large and complex as the budget?

Another valid point, I believe, is the fact that following the election there seems to be a lot of new members in the House. I only say “seems to be” because I think all the new members in this House of Commons are doing a fine job. I think they are holding the bar up there when it comes to representation of their constituency.

Time allocation runs in the face of that because a lot of these new members have not had their say. It is their first time in the House and I think compassion should be given, if not by the government then certainly by the Speaker to say, “Well, just a moment”. This legislation in regard to budget 2011 needs to be done soon, therefore, new members in the House should have a chance and the opportunity to speak to that.

I think that, in and of itself, is a good reason why we should have a filter upon which time allocation is used in this House. It has been used throughout history. I cannot justify a lot of the time allocations that have been used because, in many cases, it was wrong. Does the minister not agree? Whether it was red, blue, orange or any other colour, it was wrong in many cases. Depending on the issue, depending on the people involved and depending on the fact that some people have not had their say about this legislation, and that there has not been as much consultation, time allocation is used in a very crass way.

If we look at the situation in front of us now, there are several pieces of legislation deemed important, but some more so than others. Therefore, I would humbly suggest to the House that we should support this simply because it brings a new element into the House where no one party has the authority—

Opposition Motion--Closure and Time Allocation

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there was some confusion earlier about the fact that no bill has received royal assent. For the record, since the election, Bill C-2, C-3, C-6, C-8, C-9, several bills have received royal assent. I do not know where that confusion is coming from.

Nonetheless, I would like to read what I think is the quintessential quote about how we should uphold the principles of debate in the House and that every member of Parliament willing to speak on an issue should have his or her say:

The role of each and every individual in the Chamber is to have an opportunity to stand up and debate legislation. If we want Canadians to have faith in this institution and in the relevance of parliament, we must be able to debate intelligently and to make suggestions, not just to take a wrecking ball approach but to put forward thoughtful suggestions and thoughtful input into legislation.

Who said that? The Minister of National Defence said that several years ago. At the time he was complaining that 30% of the bills were time allocated. The Conservatives are now up to 50%. Half of the bills have been subject to time allocation.

[Jean-Marc Fournier, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec, Government of Quebec]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I have the honour of appearing before this Committee to present Quebec’s position on Bill C-10. Although there are precedents, only exceptionally does the Quebec government appear before a parliamentary committee studying a piece of Federal legislation. The seriousness of the situation explains my presence here today. I am appearing on the strength of a motion tabled by the member for Joliette and passed unanimously by the Quebec legislature.

As a mark of the wide-spread support for the position I will be sharing with you, I am accompanied today by representatives of the Quebec Bar, the chief prosecutor, Criminal Prosecution Service, Ms. Murphy, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, the Canadian Paediatrics Society and the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec. I would like to make it clear that we are not challenging the Government but rather the provisions of a Bill, which negatively impact the long-term protection of the public. May I remind you that it was in the much the same mindset that I came last June to urge the leader of the Green Party, Ms. May to expedite the study of Bill C-2 on megatrials. When something is good, we say so and when it is not we also speak out.

I would like to make it clear from the outset that we cannot agree to the removal of the concept of long-term protection of the public. By removing the reference to long term, you are opting for temporary protection of the public. It is difficult to see how this is a tough-on-crime proposal. In actual fact, the removal of this concept and the amendment of other provisions means that Bill C-10 will actually encourages repeat offenses and increases the number of victims. Many studies, including some by the Federal Government, have demonstrated that prison sentences do not reduce crime or recidivism. Quite the opposite in fact. Prison may actually serve as crime school, thus encouraging inmates to reoffend. One things is certain, an effective, long-term anti-crime strategy cannot focus soley on sending offenders to prison. At some point, offenders are released from prison and return to society. Any long-term anti-crime initiative requires special focus on their reintegration into the community. A strategy purely focused on locking up offenders for a time is nothing more than a temporary, superficial solution. It is a springboard to more crime. However, if you teach a young offender acceptable behaviour, you can stop them repeating the same mistakes. Failing to provide offenders with instruction or follow-up on how to behave in society is tantamout to encouraging them to offend again. The solutions proposed in Bill C-10 do not meet the stated goal of making the public safer. They also fail to address effective penalties for offenders or the prevention of crime and recidivism.

I would like to point out that Quebec has, on several occasions, expressed its misgivings and disagreement with regard to the initiatives put forward by the Federal Government. We even took the step of suggesting amendments in writing to Minister Nicholson on the now defunct Bill C-4. Simply put, this Bill does not contain the right provisions to ensure the long-term protection of society and victims. For decades now, Quebec has developed a unique strategy for the long-term protection of its citizens. We have done this with the involvement of the police. We have chosen to focus on reeducation, rehabilitation and social reintegration of young offenders. This involves sensitizing them to the harm they have caused their victims. In actual fact, the rehabilitation approach provides a greater role for victims than does the custodial sentence model. Indeed, young offender initiatives must consider the best interests of victims, the impact of the crime on them and ensure their rights and dignity are respected. Victims have the right to be informed of steps taken to bring young offenders to recognize the harm caused to their victims. Where possible, youth offenders are required to submit to a process of reparation. This way of dealing with young offenders works. Quebec has the lowest crime rate in Canada.

Our vision is based on Supreme Court of Canada pronouncements on the importance of dealing with young offenders differently. Our view is also based on opinion from experts, such as the Canadian Paediatrics Society. They too consider that youth must be treated differently if they are to become fully-integrated, useful members of society.

Some will argue that Bill C-10 maintains the difference in the way adults and youth are dealt with. This, in our opinion, is a mirage.

In reality, the Bill introduces even more cookie-cutter principles that should only really apply to adult offenders.

Indeed, the Supreme Court and prosecutors, who deal with youth and adult offenders on a daily basis, firmly believe that this approach to youth justice does not work.

What's more, it is likely to confirm youth offenders in a life of crime because it does not tackle the basic underlying causes of their inappropriate behaviour. It fails to ask two fundamental questions: who are they and why do they behave as they do?

By focusing on the short term and jail time, Bill C-10 provides only an illusion of protection. It overlooks the long term since it fails to consider offender release. It is like applying a bandaid to an infected wound. It is temporarily out of sight and out of mind. However, the problem inevitably reappears.

Rehabilitation is designed to tackle the root cause. The long-term protection of the public requires individualized processes that bring youth offenders face to face with their responsibilities.

In our opinion, the guiding principle of youth justice must continue to be the use of appropriate measures to fit the circumstances.

Please do not remove the concept of long-term public protection.

Please do not encourage the publication of the identities of youth offenders. It compromises the person’s chances of reintegration and society does not really benefit from knowing the offender’s identity. The Supreme Court recently pointed to the importance of this principle.

Please listen to those stakeholders, who over the past 40 years, have developed the studies, science and statistics to enable them to rehabilitate young offenders. Should you choose to reject their expertise and science, the onus is on you to support your proposals with serious studies and analysis.

Quebec is willing to partner with you in a science and statistics-based dialogue. However, we are asking you to postpone the enactment of the young-offender provisions.

The new minimum sentences are our second concern. Quebec doubts that these sentences will be a deterrent and therefore has expressed misgivings about them. Quebec would far prefer to trust prosecutors and the courts to set the most appropriate sentence.

Indeed, it is a basic principle that judges, having heard all the facts of the case presented by the defence or the prosecution, are best placed to determine a sentence in keeping with the context of the offense.

The proliferation of minimum sentences restricts the court’s ability to impose a suspended custodial sentence where circumstances warrant despite Supreme Court pronouncements on the restorative value of such an approach.

As Mr. Jean-Claude Hébert said, Bill C-10 transforms courts into an ATM for custodial sentences.

The closure gained through revenge is illusory. At some point, offenders will have served their sentence. Bill C-10 fails to provide for the release of offenders back into society. Without provision for reeducation or behaviour correction, inmates are released to offend again and to create new victims.

Once again, please do not enact these restrictive provisions that will prevent the courts from playing their proper role until you have developed studies or well-thought-out justification to support your proposals.

Our third concern relates to the financial impact of the proposed initiative.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-3, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011--Chapter 15.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)--Chapter 16.

Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services--Chapter 17.

Bill C-8, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2012--Chapter 18.

Bill C-9, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2012--Chapter 19.

Bill S-1001, An Act respecting Queen's University at Kingston.

It being 8:50 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 19, 2011, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:50 p.m.)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills:

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials); and

Bill C-3, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011.

I also have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following private bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired:

Bill S-1001, An Act respecting Queen's University at Kingston.

The bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 16, Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), is deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill concurred in, read the third time and passed)