Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-55. It deals with an issue of great importance to my constituents, the whole issue of public safety and protecting Canadians from violent offenders.
While the proposals in this bill introduce tough new measures to deal with high risk offenders in our society, they also introduce a number of initiatives to deal with non-violent offenders who are at low risk at reoffending.
The proposed sentencing and corrections reforms incorporated in the bill build on current criminal and correction laws. They extend controls over those people convicted of sex crimes and other violent offences and aim to reduce the risk of repeat offenders.
One of the most significant parts of these proposals is the establishment of a new sentencing category. This category is to be called long term offender and I believe this is an important new designation that will work well for the better protection of society as a whole.
Most people are familiar with the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code because this designation has proven to be a useful mechanism for sentencing serious offenders who pose a high risk of committing further violent offences.
This long term offender designation would be equally effective. Long term offenders would be subject to an application procedure similar to that of a dangerous offender. The procedure would apply to people convicted of sexual assault and other sexual offences.
Under the proposal the convicted person found at a special hearing to be a long term offender would be subject to an appropriate sentence and an additional supervision period of up to 10 years.
Every long term offender would also be subject to standard conditions such as keeping the peace and not being allowed to possess firearms. Further specialized conditions can also be added to ensure close supervision of the offender such as regular reporting to an assigned supervisor and mandatory participation in counselling, electronic monitoring and other rehabilitation programs.
I support this initiative and I support the government in its attempt to make our homes and streets safer for all Canadians.
Bill C-55 goes even further. Not only is the category of long term offender being created, the dangerous offender provisions are also being strengthened.
Because under the current law a judge has the discretion to sentence a dangerous offender to a fixed term, under these new proposed changes a judge will no longer have the discretion and will be required to impose an indefinite sentence, thus better protecting members of our society from these dangerous and repeat offenders and keeping them behind bars.
In addition, the crown will now have up to six months after conviction to bring in a dangerous offender application. Currently the application must be made at trial. Sometimes new information surfaces after the completion of a trial and this new information may be critical to the service of justice and to the protection of society from dangerous offenders. I definitely support this proposed change as well.
The reforms to Bill C-55 are simply the latest initiatives in a long series of federal justice initiatives designed to better protect Canadians.
Members of the third party stand in this House day after day and suggest that the government is not fulfilling its obligation to protect Canadian society against criminals, against violence. That is absolutely wrong. The Minister of Justice has produced strong legislation in this House time and time again that protects Canadians. The really strange thing about this is every time he proposes increased sentences, every time he proposes better protection of Canadians, the third party votes against it.
When we proposed and passed legislation that would have increased sentences for young offenders who commit violent crimes, the government supported it. It was government legislation. Look at the Reform Party. A vast majority of its members voted against young offenders who commit violent offences from having longer sentences. Check Hansard . The majority of them voted against it.
For my colleagues opposite, I will list some things. This one they will find difficult to deal with. We have created a national crime prevention council because part of dealing with criminals, part of dealing with justice in society is to work toward dealing with some of the underlying causes.
The third party might have some difficulties with that concept but we have dealt with it. We instituted a flagging system for use by Canadian police to identify high risk offenders.
We established a new mandatory five year sentence for those convicted of using violence to force children into prostitution. I guess that is being soft on criminals. We classify as first degree any murder committed while stalking. I guess that is being soft on criminals, according to the third party.
We have increased sentences for those convicted of stalking and we have specifically dealt with the issue of eliminating the drunken defence and giving the police the tools and means to issue warrants so that they can get DNA samples. I guess, according to the third party, that indeed is mollycoddling to criminals. It is not.
We talked about violence in society. It was the government that introduced legislation that increased the minimum sentence for using a firearm in the commission of a criminal offence by 400 per cent.