Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).
This bill, which was introduced on October 15, 2006, by the Minister of Justice, has provoked many reactions among Quebeckers and Canadians, because it brings important changes to the process of designating dangerous offenders.
Some people in my riding asked me if this bill will improve the Criminal Code. Will it make families and children safer in the community? Will it help reduce crime?
After looking at this bill, after being asked questions by a few members of my community, after discussing it with my Bloc Québécois colleagues and other members of this House, my answer is no. This bill will do nothing to improve the Criminal Code or to improve safety for the citizens of my riding or for other Quebeckers or Canadians.
Bill C-27 amends the Criminal Code to provide that the courts declare someone a dangerous offender if that individual is convicted of three serious crimes, unless that person can prove that he or she does not meet that definition.
As members of Parliament, we are concerned about public safety. We can be concerned about public safety and the well-being of our fellow citizens and yet still be opposed to this bill. In our opinion, it does not improve public safety.
Obviously, we want an improved, effective justice system that will protect everyone's safety. After analyzing this bill, my first reaction is that, once again, the Conservative government is trying to impose a “made in the U.S.A.” approach to justice.
Having expressed its intention to eliminate the gun registry and stated that imprisoning young offenders from the age of 12 and giving them longer sentences would help fight youth crime, the Conservative government is now proposing to introduce the “Three strikes and you're out” approach, as some American states have done. I will come back to this later.
This approach has not been found to reduce the crime rate in the United States. Studies have shown that this measure has no impact on the crime rate. On the contrary, as we know, the crime rate in the United States is often higher.
We feel that constantly following the model used in the United States, where the incarceration rate is much higher and sentences are longer, is a bad strategy, because there are three times as many homicides in the United States as in Canada and four times as many as in Quebec.
Instead, the Bloc Québécois suggests that the Conservative government follow the model used in Quebec, which has achieved success with its approach to fighting crime, based not only on repression, but also on re-education and social reintegration.
I urge my dear colleagues in the Conservative Party to ask the Conservative members from Quebec whether the justice system in Quebec is having a positive effect on crime.
We in the Bloc Québécois believe that it is better to attack the roots of violence—poverty, social exclusion and social inequality—than to send more and more people to prisons, which often serve as crime schools.
We are not opposed to incarceration, because some crimes are serious and we must protect our fellow citizens.
As already mentioned by some of my colleagues, the Bloc Québécois opposes this bill. It is based on an unproductive and, above all, ineffectual approach. We are convinced that it will in no way contribute to improving the safety or our fellow citizens.
Were Bill C-27 to be adopted, it would make significant changes to the dangerous offender designation system. According to the government proposal, an individual could be declared a dangerous offender when found guilty for the third time of a serious crime. Bill C-27 creates a presumption: the accused is a dangerous offender when convicted of three primary designated offences for which he has received a sentence of two years or more.
In addition, Bill C-27 transfers the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused. This means that the accused will have to prove to the judge that he should not be designated a dangerous offender.
The Bloc Québécois believes that any measure that automatically determines the extent of the sentence imposed is a dangerous and irresponsible approach. As for the reversal of the burden of proof, it is not justified. If the offender runs the risk of spending the rest of his life in jail, it stands to reason that the state prove that he should be designated a dangerous offender.
In addition, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, we have serious—