Debates of Oct. 31st, 2006

Criminal Code

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I did not appreciate how unruly the House is after question period. I am sure it is a continuing challenge.

Before I adjourned in preparation for question period, we were discussing this particular legislation, the dangerous offender legislation, Bill C-27. I had taken some exception to the comments of members from the New Democratic Party that had referred in their speeches to this being a matter of cooperation or a matter of the health of communities.

The NDP takes umbrage with Bill C-27. I was simply saying before we adjourned that the purpose of this legislation is to deal with the safety of our streets, the safety of women and children in our society, and the treatment of people who are dangerous sexual predators. For the life of me, I am not sure what the NDP is talking about with respect to this.

This legislation is extremely important. It results from a need to follow up upon a previous decision of the Supreme Court, Regina v. Johnson. That case made it very difficult in the minds of some, almost impossible for the police and crown prosecutors to actually secure dangerous offender designations against dangerous sexual predators. The consequences were very clear and the empirical evidence supports the fact that there were fewer prosecutions and fewer convictions. I do not think it is difficult to extrapolate to say, as a result more sexual predators left on the streets.

Certainly, it is an issue in Calgary that I have talked with city police about. I am well aware of the issues that they have undertaken to use scarce policing resources to manage people on the streets who are incorrigible sexual predators and dangerous offenders.

The legislation itself follows up as an amendment to section 753 of the Criminal Code. Canadians need to appreciate, as other parties in the House seek to protect dangerous offenders, the kinds of individuals that we are talking about. If individuals were to make a passing reference to section 753 of the Criminal Code, they would see that we are talking about people who constitute a threat to the life, the safety or the physical or mental well-being of other Canadians.

We are talking about people who show a failure to restrain their behaviour with a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons or inflict severe psychological damage on other persons. We are speaking about individuals who show a substantial degree of indifference on their part in respect of the foreseeable consequences of their action and the effect of that action on other people.

Frankly, we are speaking about people whose conduct is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender's behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.

Simply stated, we are dealing with dangerous offenders, with the most dangerous criminal predatory elements in our society. What the Minister of Justice is attempting to do with this bill is to escape from the logic of the previous court decision which essentially said that the only way these people could be incarcerated as dangerous offenders was if the Crown and the police were able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that these people could not be on the streets.

That is an unfair test. We have heard much in the House about the necessity for balance. Clearly, that kind of a situation lacks any sort of balance at all. I speak on this because I feel very strongly about it. The existing law in this country does not provide the degree of protection that is required for women and children on the streets of our cities and communities.

It is high time that Parliament did something about it. This is not the first attempt either. In 1995 and 1997 there were unsuccessful attempts to tighten up the dangerous offender provisions of the legislation.

One of the issues is whether or not this particular legislation, and in particular the provision that relates to offenders who have two previous convictions, is balanced and whether it respects the Constitution.

I would like to refer the House to the actual legislation, Bill C-27, which is before us and specifically the amendment to section 753, which states:

If the court is satisfied that the offence for which the offender is convicted is a primary designated offence for which it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more...the conditions in [section 753]...are presumed to have been met unless the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.

Therefore, the discretion on the part of the judiciary remains. It still has to assess the evidence. It still has to examine the circumstances of the case and it still has to decide on the balance of probabilities. However, the constitutional jurisdiction or discretion on the part of the court remains. This legislation therefore has the necessary balance between these presumptive provisions and the ability of the court to make its determination based on the evidence.

It carries on and specifically defines a limitation in proposed subsection (1.2), where it says:

Despite subsection (1), the court shall not find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of an application...would adequately protect the public.

So there is a limitation in this legislation that allows for the court to assess the evidence, weigh the evidence, and make the determination which the court is required to do.

In the time available, I will not speak about Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board, and the power they have to extend an offender's stay in custody past a conditional and, in certain circumstances, past the statutory release date. For certain groups of offenders, typically those with two or more violent offences, a dangerous or a long term offender designation may be imposed during the sentencing process.

Dangerous and long term offender designations are set by the court after an application by a crown attorney at the time of sentencing. A designation can be given as a result of a single act of brutality or a number of offences. This legislation allows for such applications to be conducted in a reasonable way, based on the evidence that is before the court.

The nature of the offence that we are speaking of would be a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code. I would implore other members of the House from other parties who have not yet decided whether they support this legislation, and who should, to look at section 752 and look at the list of criminal offences of which we are speaking.

I reiterate my point that these are the most dangerous offenders in our society. They include indictable offences such as first degree murder involving the use or attempted use of violence, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person.

These offenders represent a continuing serious threat to life in our society, to the safety, physical and mental well-being of other individuals. Surely, the first obligation of Parliament, the first obligation of this hallowed chamber, is to ensure that we have sufficient protection for women and children from these kinds of people who are on our streets, sadly, in our cities.

The amendments in Bill C-27 would strengthen the dangerous and long term offender provisions to ensure that violent and/or sexual criminals would receive some of the toughest sanctions in the Criminal Code.

There are those in this House who say that this is unwarranted. I ask them to stand in this House, to face the Canadian public who are justifiably concerned about this, whether we be parents, whether we be husbands who are very concerned about this, and say that they are prepared to mollycoddle violent and sexual criminals who are a threat to vulnerable people in our society. That is essentially what they are proposing.

Designation as a dangerous offender means that the offender must serve an indeterminate sentence with no entitlement to statutory release. It also means that offenders can be detained in a correctional facility for an indefinite period if they have a history of serious or violent offences and pose a safety threat to the public. That is the way it should be.

The legislation will ensure that the judicial responsibility to weigh the evidence carries on, that we have a balanced and fair trial process with respect to these people, and that the designation of a person as a dangerous offender will be conducted in a way that accords with the Canadian charter. However, at the end of the day, those who are the most serious risks to the health and the safety of women and children in our society will be incarcerated in circumstances where they should be.

Like other offenders, dangerous offenders may apply for conditional release. However, they may only do so after serving seven years of their sentence. A conditional release will be granted only if it is determined by the National Parole Board that the offenders can be safely reintegrated into the community and if released, these offenders are monitored in the same way as other parolees who are under supervision for life.

Again, the chances of a dangerous offender achieving conditional release are very low because of the nature of the individuals about whom we are speaking and the fact that this type of behaviour is incorrigible and is not readily changed. It is fair to say that many of these individuals who are dangerous offenders end up spending much of the rest of their lives behind bars.

The reason that this legislation is warranted goes back to a previous court case and to previous attempts to remedy this defect in the Criminal Code. It is quite clear that over time, if one looks at the evidence, the dangerous offender applications and the convictions have decreased as a result of previous judicial decisions. That makes it difficult to secure prosecutions successfully. If one talks to crown prosecutors and the police, they will say this.

The effect of this legislation, which is put forward by the Minister of Justice, including the third strike presumption, is reasonable. If one has been previously convicted of two such incidents that are dangerous offender designations, there is no reason why there should not be a presumption and a shift of an onus in terms of the third such conviction that is brought before the court. Surely, that is a minimum requirement that Parliament should impose to keep our streets safe and the security of our women and children tight.

Those are the submissions I would make with respect to Bill C-27. I am pleased to answer any questions.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin today by talking a bit about the theory of criminal justice and how we get tough on crime, which is the slogan often used by those across the way.

We cannot get tough on crime without being smart on crime and that means not just descending into slogans, such as “getting tough on crime”, “war on crime” and “three strikes you're out”. We know where that rhetoric comes from and we know that it is based on false analysis. It is based on ideology and sloganism, not on criminological research, social research or demographics which all gives serious concern to knee-jerk, superficial stoking of the fears in society about a situation that may not exist. That is done for purposes that are ideological and polemical and they carry a real danger of being self-fulfilling.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak about how being tough on crime means being smart on crime first.

Let us just take the 12 bills dealing with criminal justice that are before this House and the one that is before the other place. The official opposition has offered this week to cooperate and fast track eight out of the eleven of those bills, and I will speak to the other two in a moment, but that is in no way doing anything but making this place work with sensible dialogue and debate over how to, without holding up any of these bills, ensure they are not more dangerous than what we are to believe they are to protect us against.

We have offered to fast track Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing bill. It has had serious debate and an appropriate amendment was moved by opposition parties so it can now go ahead. We will give it all the speed it needs.

We will fast track Bill C-18, the DNA identification act; Bill C-19, street racing; Bill C-23, criminal procedure improvements; and Bill C-26, payday loans. I would pause to say that five out of the six bills that I have just mentioned were actually initiated under the previous Liberal government. They will go forward with our support and with sensible amendments where necessary. We will fast track two other bills.

We opposed the judicial salaries bill because we opposed the suggestion by the government that it disregard the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which recommended appropriate increases for judges' salaries over the last four year period. While we opposed that, we allowed it to pass on division so there would be no slowing up of that process.

The 13th bill is Bill S-3, the military sex offender act, which is now before the other place. We will be supporting that bill and are willing to fast track it in every way we can.

In the context of discussing the dangerous offender legislation, it is important to underline the cooperation that is going on in the House to identify what is important, to carry on work that was done by the previous government and to get some of these things moved ahead.

However, Bill C-27 is of a different order. The dangerous offender legislation before us has some major flaws that I will speak about but I would first say that we need a reality check. Let us take a reality check first on the criminal conviction statistics in Canada which have been steadily coming down over the last 10 to 15 years. That is what the research tells us. The demographics themselves in society are leading through analysis to that decline in the crime rate. While we may raise the fears of the public to justify simplistic solutions through sloganeering and superficial claims to put fear in the hearts of Canadians, the crime rate comes down.

Let us take another reality check on the situation in the U.S. where these slogans come from and much of this legislation seems to be patterned after. The United States has the highest crime rates and incarceration rates. It also has the most dangerous communities and the most expensive criminal justice system.

If we are to follow any model in the world when we amend our criminal justice statutes, we certainly do not want to follow the so-called war on crime in the United States.

Let me pause to mention that the state of California spends more on criminal justice and corrections than it spends on education. That should be very edifying to all of us.

Let me give another example about the folly of pretending that just by putting people in jail on very restrictive terms without any adjustment for the context of a particular case can be more dangerous for society. Most convicted people, dangerous or not, will get out. We have the Bernardos and some of the most horrid criminals in our country's history who will be behind bars, blessedly, forever, but most criminals will get out.

Let us think of those people who go into a prison situation, which members opposite would like to see everyone go into. It is a bit of an irony to consider that prison life, if that is what we can call it, prison for life, is the place in society which should be the most protected but is in fact the place where one is most likely to be assaulted, raped, infected and injected, and these people will come out.

Therefore, we need to take particular care for the correctional services, the proper services within them and who we put behind bars and for how long.

Let me speak about the fact that 25% of the prison population in this country is made up of aboriginal people. This is a stunning statistic of despair. Can this be the result of a fair criminal justice system or is this a result of despair in aboriginal communities? Is it part of the despair of our prevention system and our criminal justice system of preventative crime? Is it a matter of racism in society? What is happening?

These are the underpinning questions that we must be asking ourselves in the House as we respond to the reality of the criminal justice system. This is 1% of the population and 25% of the prison population.

Let us ensure that when people do come out of prison, if they are going to be spending time there, that they have been rehabilitated and they are safe to society because the vast majority will come out.

We will not ensure that the context of the situation is properly taken into account in peculiar circumstances unless police officers, prosecutors, judges, correctional officers and parole officers have the discretion to identify where the dangers are and where someone may have a better response to a criminal justice sanction than simply putting someone in jail for an indefinite period.

Turning to Bill C-27, the dangerous offender legislation, the member opposite has mentioned that there is dangerous offender legislation on the books now and it is operating. It operates as a companion with long term offender legislation which can kick in. Prosecutors have the discretion to bring forward at sentencing applications before a judge for a long term offender or a dangerous offender designation. That works. It has been covered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lyons and Johnson cases in 1997 and 2002. It has been found to be constitutionally appropriate. I would suggest that it is working because it allows for all the proper discretions to be exercised.

The problem with what is being suggested in Bill C-27, and it has been referred to by numerous members of the House, is the reverse onus provision at sentencing after a third conviction of a certain type of very serious crime.

We have heard some people say that this offends the presumption of innocence, which is an historical criminal law principle in our legal system. However, the trouble is not with the presumption of innocence, which is subsection 11(d) of the charter. The question is about the reverse onus of the burden. This is not a conviction matter. It is not a presumption of innocence because the person has already been convicted for the third time.

What we are talking about is whether fundamental justice, in reversing the onus on such an extraordinary punishment, can meet the tests under section 7 of the charter for fundamental justice. There is strong authority that this simply cannot be done. This does not meet the tests of fundamental justice. It involves, for instance, the convicted person proving a negative into the future. Yes, it is on the balance of probabilities and, yes, as the member opposite said, there is judicial discretion to determine whether that onus is met or not, but there is still a reverse onus and, in many cases, it is an impossible burden to attempt to prove a negative into the future.

It is also a problem because it offends section 7 as being against the principles of fundamental justice and it is a problem under section 1 as to whether this is a justifiable limit on the rights under the charter. Is it a substantive need? Is it a rational connection? Is there minimal impairment? I would say that under all those cases this reverse onus does not meet the test. This is highly constitutionally suspect. Why, when we have a provision that is working well, would we want to throw ourselves into very likely years of constitutional charter litigation when we have charter compliant provisions now for dangerous and long term offenders?

We also have a problem that this will not be enforceable. This is ultra vires of the federal government to tell the provincial governments, which are responsible for the administration of criminal justice, who they should prosecute and what sentences they should ask for. That simply cannot be supported in our constitutional division of powers and, therefore, it is inappropriate for the government to put this forward.

There are also dangerous unintended consequences that could come to the fore here. We have long delays in our criminal justice system today. A report in the paper last week showed that in the province of Ontario 100,000 charges have gone beyond the nine months before they actually go to trial. This is bouncing very perilously close up against the Supreme Court of Canada Askov decision where all members will remember with regret that 30,000 criminal cases were dismissed because it took too long for people to get to trial.

If people are facing this so-called simplistic, superficial three strikes and they are out law, which has been so disastrously unsuccessful and dangerous in the United States, they will insist on going to trial more often. There will be less guilty pleas which will cause further delays in the courts and perhaps more cases will be thrown out because of charter violations.

The one side of it is that there will be more trials, longer delays and more costs to the prison system. I have not even begun to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs that will be required to build the prisons that will hold these long term offenders.

Costs will be going up, delays will be longer and cases will be thrown out for charter violations because of delay. The other dynamic that may happen and where prosecutors, with long dockets and not wanting to have further delays in trials, may charge people with lesser offences than would otherwise justify a conviction for a more serious case that may give them a longer prison term, or the convicted person may plea bargain to a lesser offence.

Both of those dynamics are more likely to put dangerous people on the streets and put in danger the men and women the member opposite was just speaking about. We have to be very careful when we tinker with these laws, especially if we are doing it superficially and against the evidence of criminologists and social scientists as to what is effective and what is not.

Let us turn for a moment to what being tough on crime by being smart on crime really means. It means a national crime prevention strategy, such as the one the previous government put into place across this country over a period of 13 years, funded in a very targeted way, to help kids have things to do after school. If I may indulge myself in a short phrase, it is about shooting hoops, not drugs. There are sports programs across this country in the evening and even far into the night where kids who otherwise would have been getting in trouble are involved in healthy activity.

We have to watch for issues of poverty and cultural exclusion.

We have to look at the issue of legal aid, which is in underfunded disrepair across this country, thus involving people in perhaps building up criminal records when they should have been having trials and pleading not guilty. They are pleading guilty because they cannot defend themselves in the courts without assistance.

We have to look at issues of homelessness. We have to look at issues of mental illness. The Kirby-Keon Senate report was an extraordinary statement of sound thinking about how to deal with those with mental illnesses, who unfortunately fall into the ranks of the homeless as well as the ranks of the criminal justice system, which is the worst place for them to be. We have to rethink this and meet our social contract around the concept of deinstitutionalization, whereby governments emptied the mental hospitals but then did not provide services in the community to support people.

We have to look at drug courts. They are operating in Toronto and Vancouver and in numerous American states. That is one example of where the American criminal justice system has actually been a stunning success at diverting people out of the criminal system if they will go into detox and treatment.

We have to look at issues of harm reduction. Drugs, addiction and substance abuse are great parts of the despair that leads people into the criminal justice system. Harm reduction, of course, involves needle exchanges and safe injection sites, which the government has failed to guarantee would be extended in Vancouver, when it has been an example for literally the world to consider the effectiveness of harm reduction in that situation, to help motivate people into detox.

We need shelters for them. We need transitional housing. We need skills training. We need affordable housing. We need jobs. In fact, the social enterprise initiatives of the last Liberal government, which were ready to go across this country, certainly in my province of British Columbia, were cancelled by the current government in its last budget. Those are the things that can assist people to not fall into crime and into despair, which leads them to become dangerous for other members of society.

What are we going to do instead? We are going to dismantle the gun registry. It is amazing that any thought could be given to that at this stage after the tragedy at Dawson College in Montreal.

We have a Prime Minister who will not go to an international AIDS conference in Toronto. We have a Prime Minister who did not go to a world conference on harm reduction in Vancouver last April.

We are simply looking in the wrong direction. We have to be tough on crime, I agree with all members opposite, but we are going to be tough on crime by being smart on crime and not by being simply superficial and using slogans.

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

Mr. Speaker, a member opposite has mentioned that I am a little slow getting out of my chair--

[An hon. member]

He's old.

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

Yes, I am getting old, Mr. Speaker. There are only five MPs in this House who are older than I am, so I will take my time getting up.

The member opposite, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, misses a whole bunch of points. One thing he said, to which I took great offence, was that he mentioned that our party just wants all of them to go to jail. This is not accurate. It is a downright misrepresentation. I will tell him personally and all who are in the House and anybody else who will listen that I think the saddest thing in the world is for people to get into in crime and end up wasting their lives in jail. That is absolutely true.

There is a maximum security institution in my riding. I visited it a number of times even before the boundary changes put it in my riding. It is incredibly sad in there. No one knows how I wish that every one of those people, mostly young people, although some are older, would have had a decent, moral education when they were growing up so that the type of activity they were involved in was just so wrong they would not contemplate doing it.

Where do we get the idea that it is all right to bludgeon a person to death? We get that in our society. Where does that come from? That would be impossible for me. I venture to guess that it would be impossible for my children because of what we have taught them about what is right and what is wrong.

I think that is the part that is missing in our society. In regard to anything moral, we have decided that we cannot impose our morals on anybody. However, we impose morals on people when somebody comes up to a member of my family and kills them. That has happened. It is not acceptable. That is an imposition of morality. Teaching of a morality and having them make their own choices because they have been taught correctly is valid and good.

I take great umbrage at that remark of the member.

I went to a youth incarceration centre and saw 13 year olds and 14 year olds who were there because they knifed somebody. Where did they get that idea?

This is not the venue in which we can contemplate this, but I absolutely believe that we need to do more to prevent people from going to jail.

When they do go to jail, we give them a sentence and we say, “Yes, they have another chance”. They go out and do it again and we say, “Okay, one more chance”. We are talking about serious crimes here, not just petty theft or things like that, as bad as that is. We are talking about attacks on human beings, brutal attacks. We are saying to them that obviously after someone has been convicted the third time, that person is a dangerous offender. Unfortunately, as much as we regret it, we tell criminals that for the good of society and the protection of law-abiding citizens, they are going to find some way to spend their lives usefully behind bars because we cannot trust them.

To me that is dreadful, but it is a valid choice we have to make if we are going to have a society in which our citizens feel safe.

The member is just wrong in his approaches and some of his statements.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I think the member set up a straw person to burn down. I do not think I said or suggested in any way that the Conservative government wants everyone in jail. I do not believe that and I did not say that.

However, the member makes a very good point in terms of the life chances of young people and the tragedy that occurs when, because of a lack of life chances, they get into criminal activity and end up in jail. I cannot think of anything that could possibly be worse for a child of mine or any other children.

When I hear comments like this that make perfect sense to me, I wonder how that could equate to the decision to cut literacy programs, which actually give people life chances so that they do not end up in poverty or despair. I wonder how the court challenges program could be cut when over the years it has championed charter rights for people who sometimes are in the greatest despair in our society and in the most marginalized groups. It is those people, of course, who are most at risk, through despair, poverty and exclusion, of ending up involved in criminal activity.

I agree partially with the member opposite. We need to improve and we need to do do everything we can for real early childhood education and development, for instance, to ensure that the life chances of our young people steer them away from crime, not toward crime.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the hon. member's distinction between being smart and being tough. I do not think there is any argument about being tough on crime. The question is whether we are smart at the same time. Any fool can be tough. It is much more difficult to be smart.

It seems to me that there is a pattern here. I want my hon. colleague to comment on it. The pattern is that we create a fear, which the party opposite seems to be particularly skilled at, we propose a solution to a fear, and then we pat ourselves on the back and walk away, having created a whole bunch of unintended consequences.

I want the member to comment on why he thinks this is a stupid bill. It is tough, but it is stupid. Why does it not make Canadians any safer? What are the unintended consequences? What is it really like, if one has three convictions, to try to prove, either on the balance of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt, that one will not likely commit the fourth crime?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may correct the hon. member at the outset, I did not call this stupid. I called it superficial. I think that is the danger. I do not attribute this intention to the government, but I do warn of the consequences. When we raise fears beyond reality in order to justify, for whatever reason, having tougher laws in terms of putting people in jail for a longer time, and having more people in jail, which is a hateful and depressing situation for anyone to be in and a very poor place for people to actually recover balance in their lives and become responsible citizens, then we waste money. In fact, we cause more dangerous people to get out of those prisons sometimes.

As I say, the vast majority of them get out eventually. They are not all Clifford Olsons. If these people are not treated in the context of their lives and measured against their contribution and their determination to improve their lives with the prison correctional programs that are available, if they are treated improperly because they do not have proper legal representation due to legal aid funding cuts and do not get a balanced trial and feel as if they have been stuck in a place where they are being improperly punished, they perhaps in the end will come out being more dangerous. That is one of the unintended consequences.

The other, which we see in minimum sentences as well, is that the prosecutors simply do not charge at the appropriate level sometimes when they do not believe that the minimum punishment, or in this case the dangerous offender designation, is appropriate. They will undercharge and the person may get away with an inappropriate sentence because it is a lesser charge, so then the streets are more dangerous as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat dismayed and rather surprised and shocked to hear the comment made that this side of the House is creating fear. With all due respect, there is fear all across our nation because victims of crime are just afraid to come out onto the streets.

What do we tell the family of the woman in Winnipeg who was swarmed the other day by children 12 years of age and under who kicked and beat her until she died? What about her rights?

What about Mr. McLaughlin? What do we tell him when his son is murdered behind a hotel in Fort Garry because he was beaten up and the offender gets out in a very short time?

What about the rights of the victims of crimes, the rights of Canadian citizens who want to live and work in their communities and walk on their streets at night? What about their rights?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, a short response, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite raises an excellent point. I thank her for doing it. There are dangerous people in our society and there are horrible crimes committed, but what we as legislators have to be very careful of is not to take those horrid examples where people are terribly victimized and spread the idea that this is a general situation in society, because then we get public pressure to overreact and we create the more dangerous situations that I have already described.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for St. Catharines.

I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend part XXIV of the Criminal Code, dangerous offenders, and sections 810.1 and 810.2, peace bonds.

Few issues trigger more emotion than how the government treats our most dangerous criminals, especially when it comes to sex offences against children. While it is one thing to be convicted of such a crime, it is quite another to see someone commit a child sexual offence who has been convicted three, four, five times or more and is back out reoffending.

As such, I support this legislation. I urge every member of this chamber to do the same. It is time to move forward with tougher legislation that protects Canadians and their families.

Quite simply, the current provisions are not working as well as they should. It saddens me to think of the Canadians whose lives have been changed forever because of a hardened repeat offender. We can and we should do something about this now.

I have looked over the bill and I wonder how anyone can stand against these reforms. I look at the requirement for a crown to stand in open court and declare whether, on a third serious violent conviction where the prior offences received a two year sentence, a dangerous offender designation would be sought, and I ask “why not?” Why we should not require a crown to specifically consider this issue and declare his intention?

I see the proposal to reverse the burden of proof onto the offender convicted for a third time of a third serious sexual offence in a dangerous offender hearing. I look at the reform of the peace bond provisions that seek to extend the duration from 12 months to 24 months for convicted offenders in the community. I note that judges will be called upon to consider more vigorous conditions to ensure the public safety. Again, the question should not be why, but why not.

So far the only real reason given by members opposite as to why the bill should not be supported has been that the rights of the offender have been compromised. I find myself greatly disturbed by the claims of the opposition. In my opinion, the opposition members, who cite the rights of offenders being that more important than the rights of victims and survivors, should be ashamed of themselves.

I listened to the comments of the Minister of Justice. He indicated that these provisions were carefully crafted to ensure constitutionality. He has indicated, for example, that the provision imposing a reverse onus on the offender where there has been a third violent or sexual offence conviction is constitutional.

He indicated it was constitutional because it was narrowly designed, that it reflected the types of convictions that commonly led to a dangerous offender designation. He said that these offences were violent and harmful by their very nature and that they all required intent to harm another person. He spoke of how these qualifying offences were restricted to instances that carried a two year or more sentence. It appears to me, therefore, that the criteria to trigger the reverse onus were not simply drawn from a hat. These were not randomly chosen offences, nor should they be.

As I understand it, the inclusion of any offence on the primary list of offences is based on the following criteria: that there is at least a 10 year maximum sentence allowed; the nature of the offence is such that there is a sufficient element of brutality and harm intended; there is a common occurrence of the offence in the historical application of dangerous offender applications: and, the offence is not so overly broad by its nature so as to possibly allow an absurd result by its inclusion in the primary list of offences.

I looked closely at these offences. I wanted to know what would justify triggering the reverse elements. After checking, I completely support the Minister of Justice.

In the first place, I note that of the 12 primary designated offences that trigger reverse onus, 7 are sexual offences, divided between sexual offences committed against adults and offences against children.

It was 15 years ago that I entered into the rape crisis centre and received training in crisis intervention. I volunteered there for seven and a half years. I want every member of the House to know that the statistics, which were so alarming back then, have not changed. I suggest to the opposition parties that are so opposed to the bill that what we have been doing for the past decade has done nothing. It has not worked. It is time to change the strategy.

I note that according to analysis from Correctional Services Canada, over 80% of all dangerous offenders were designated as a result of a predicate conviction for one or more of the seven listed primary offences. About half of these offenders committed their offences against adults and half against children. Of the remaining 15% to 20% of offenders who were designated as dangerous offenders for other offences, about three-quarters of them were so designated as the result of a conviction for one of the five remaining listed primary offences. The remaining handful of offenders were convicted of a wide variety of offences including, for example, arson and fraud.

This seems to illustrate that there is a clear and precise logic behind the design of the primary offence list. For example, I look at the kidnapping offence. Interestingly, a quick look at existing case law indicates that a large number of non-sexual dangerous offender designations had one or more kidnapping convictions, but also many of them had sexual assault offence histories prior to the dangerous offender application.

A review of case law indicated that a total of 15 individuals were subject to a dangerous offender application since 1997 based on a kidnapping offence. Fourteen were designated as dangerous offenders and one was a long term offender. Again, this illustrates that kidnapping belongs on the list.

Then I looked at the same period for the offence of forcible confinement. I could see only five incidents of a dangerous offender application being sought in those cases. In four of those cases there were one or more of the other primary offences also listed. In addition to the low incidence of such an offence triggering a dangerous offender application, I noted that in half of these cases the dangerous offender designation was denied.

Finally, I note that while there are typically about 1,500 convictions each year for forcible confinement according to Statistics Canada, there are less than 100 per year on average for kidnapping. While forcible confinement offenders receive an average sentence of about six months, the average conviction for kidnapping is about three years. What this tells me is that the offence of kidnapping should be a triggering offence for the reverse onus, but forceable confinement should not. Kidnapping meets the criteria; forceable confinement does not.

The bottom line is the list of triggering offences makes sense. While I am sure there will be much discussion in the chamber and at committee about which offences should be in or out, at least it is clear to me that there has been some consideration in the development of the list.

I have the utmost confidence that these reforms will accomplish what the Minister of Justice has set out to do. A lot of concerns have been expressed by police, by victims, by many volunteers in crisis centres and by provincial ministers of justice that in too many cases individuals were being set loose in the community even though they were clearly uncontrollable.

There was a broad consensus that since 2003 the dangerous offender provisions had become difficult to use even as the shield of last resort against predators who were bound to reoffend if released. I believe these reforms address those problems, but I also belive they do so in a very measured and balanced way that fully respects fundamental principles of justice and human rights.

As such, I fully support these measures that seek to restore to a reasonable level the protection that Canadians want and need against the very worst sexual and violent offenders in the country.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of the efforts to protect Canadians and punish repeat offenders. My riding of Newton—North Delta used to be called the capital of car thieves.

The legal community has come to me and raised some issues. In Canada an individual is considered to be not guilty until proven guilty. In this bill the people would be considered guilty until they prove they were not. How would we handle this situation?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the hon. member and I sense some support for what we are attempting to do here. However, he is in fact incorrect. I think he is referring more to the “three strikes you're out” law in the United States. With this legislation, it is not an automatic sentence on a third conviction. People need to have the convictions before a crown can go forward to seek dangerous offender status. Once they have been convicted of a third crime, afterwards a crown can seek the dangerous offender status.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague's remarks and I note her experience in the rape crisis centre. As the father of a daughter, who is long grown now, one of the things I always feared was a sexual offence against my daughter.

We talk about the rights of victims as well and the things that victims carry for years and years. Has the hon. member any personal experiences in dealing with victims, which I am sure she has, which might illustrate that point?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after seven and a half years, I have a great deal of experience, some things I wish perhaps I had not had the opportunity to experience. Nonetheless I value the experience and the education I gained from my volunteer work at the rape crisis centre.

It was very much a learning experience for me. I will explain one specific situation to try to get my point across as to why I am specifically supporting this legislation from my personal experiences, unlike listening to the Liberals who are suggesting we are doing this based on slogans or trying to create fear that goes beyond reality.

I have seen too much of the reality. Part of my responsibility as a rape crisis volunteer was to provide support in the courtroom for victims who were survivors. All the volunteers in the centre became very close and very supportive of each other.

I remember a volunteer who was working with one of the survivors in court. She was a survivor herself. She sat there for two weeks, listening to testimony and supporting the survivor. She listened to what the victim had to say about what happened to her. Then this woman, who became a good friend of mine, broke into a cold sweat. It was at that very moment during the trial when she saw the accused that she realized the person was the exact same person who committed the crime on her. It was a very violent crime.

It is for those reasons that I support this legislation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a low income inner city riding of downtown Winnipeg Centre where 47% of all families live below the poverty line and 52% of all children. While there is no direct connection, it is statistically proven that low income people are more likely to be exposed to or victims of something to do with crime, violence or the criminal justice system. That relative connection cannot be denied. I can say without any fear of contradiction that crime and safety are the number one top of mind issue for the people I represent.

I have been listening to this debate all through the day as we try and get our minds around the reverse onus concept. I would ask my colleague perhaps to consider one thing. Overwhelmingly, the face of poverty in my riding is North American Indian, aboriginal. We cannot discuss crime and justice without at least recognizing the appalling overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our criminal justice system and in our prisons.

Does she not agree that the bill will exacerbate and even compound that social inequity, which exists in our prison system today, that overrepresentation of poor aboriginal people from places like the inner city of Winnipeg?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, if the hon. member had been listening to my remarks today, most of my focus was on the sexual offences. He is absolutely wrong if he was trying to explain to the House that perhaps an economic situation of someone would perhaps be more inclined to be sexually offended. One of the biggest myths out there, with respect to sexual assault and sexual violence, it is geared to only one person in society or one group. It actually happens to anyone and everyone and it is very unreported, so we also need to address that.

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

Mr. Speaker, among the many duties of government perhaps none is more important than the protection of our citizens from crime. Not only is it our duty, it is also part of the commitment the Conservatives made to the citizens of this country. It also flows from what was learned in my community earlier this summer when the Minister of Justice participated in a round table discussion with people involved in or affected by our justice system. This bill is a crucial part of our justice package aimed directly at that goal.

Those of us who live in St. Catharines understand all too well the absolute necessity of effective dangerous offender legislation. It was 15 years ago that our city was gripped by fear, sparked by the horrific crimes of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. The brutal murders of Kristin French, Leslie Mahaffy and Tammy Homolka have not been forgotten in St. Catharines, and I doubt that they ever will be.

Arising out of this horrific situation was the fact that Paul Bernardo was determined to be a dangerous offender and will remain in prison indefinitely. The people of St. Catharines breathed a huge sigh of relief when that decision was made. We know that some people, like Bernardo, are not capable of being rehabilitated. We know that for some criminals reoffending is not just a statistical probability, it is a certainty.

Many Canadian communities have been victimized by repeat sexual or violent offenders who have somehow slipped through the cracks of the justice system and have been allowed to repeat their crimes again and again. This cannot stand. Catch and release is a great way to spend an afternoon fishing. It is not the way to protect Canadians.

An article in last Thursday's Edmonton Journal underlines the glaring hole in our justice system that Bill C-27 is needed to fill. The article is entitled “Notorious rapist deserves prison forever, 1969 victim says”. It details a lengthy criminal record of Stephen Ewanchuk. His 1969 victim was choked, beaten and raped. He was later convicted for that rape and sentenced to three years in prison. Between that rape and the later conviction, he was again convicted in 1969 for a different rape.

In 1972 he was sentenced to 10 years for yet another rape. In 1986 he was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 15 months in prison. In 1994 he was convicted of another sexual assault and sentenced to two years. I am not done. In 2005 he was convicted of sexually assaulting an eight year old girl. There is an old saying that says once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is a pattern.

With Ewanchuk it has been six times and that is a farce and a mockery of justice. Now, after six sexual offences, it is the Crown that must prove that Stephen Ewanchuk is a dangerous offender. After six offences, this should not be a question. Under our legislation it would be Mr. Ewanchuk who would face the burden of proving that he is not a dangerous offender. Justice demands no less.

In addition to this reverse onus provision, this legislation will strengthen sections 810.1 and 810.2, high risk peace bonds, by doubling the duration to 24 months and clarifying that a broad range of conditions may be imposed in order to protect the public. It should be obvious that no one's rights are more grievously violated than the victims of violent sexual offences, but for 13 years the rights of victims were ignored. Today we are taking an important step toward rebalancing the scales of justice. Canadians want these laws in place. They know that the coddling of violent criminals must end.

A couple of weeks ago I received an email from a constituent named Les Hulls. He was forwarding me a message that he had sent to the member for Mount Royal. Mr. Hulls was upset that the Liberal member had criticized Bill C-27. He wrote, “If you look to the United States for the 'three strikes you're out parallel', you'll find that they've been moving away from it...”

In his email to the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Hulls also said, “Canadians want tougher laws when dealing with repeat offenders of violent and sexual crimes. I am a voter and I do not care what the Americans are doing”.

I could not put it better myself. Canadians are fed up reading stories about crimes committed by five, six and seven time violent offenders, and rightly so. Canadian streets belong to hard-working and law abiding citizens. This legislation is a big step toward winning those streets back. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

Of course, not everyone agrees that the legislation is the right thing to do. A Toronto defence attorney, Clayton Ruby, had this to say about our bill: “The Tories get votes from bashing criminals and Canadians simply seem stupid enough to bite on this again, and again and again.” Judging by the slipshod logic of some of the criticisms I have heard of the bill, Mr. Ruby is not the only one who thinks Canadians are stupid.

At this point I would like to discuss two criticisms. In particular, that Canadians are far too smart for them. One criticism made by a number of people, including the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, is that the reverse onus provision will be struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the charter guarantee of the presumption of innocence.

I would note first of all that this is a peculiar position for my friend from Windsor—Tecumseh to take when one considers his party's platform from the last January election. That platform claimed that the NDP would introduce an omnibus safe communities act. It went on to list a number of measures, one of which was, “Support a reverse onus on bail for all gun related crimes”.

We believe that was a good idea, so you can understand my confusion, Mr. Speaker, upon hearing that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the NDP justice critic, now believes reverse onus provisions are unconstitutional.

More generally, I think anyone who claims the bill violates the principle of innocent before proven guilty is being disingenuous. Unlike Mr. Ruby I recognize that the Canadian people are anything but stupid. They cannot help but see, therefore, that the provisions of the bill apply only to those offenders who have already been proven guilty. Again, for those who have already been proven guilty for a third time no less of designated sexual or violent offences, the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with sentencing. Sentencing is the only area that the bill will affect.

I know this is clear enough for Canadian voters because a number of them have contacted me to express their strong support for the bill. I hope I have made this clear enough for my friends across the aisle.

There is a second criticism that has been levelled at the bill. I know that Canadians are too smart to buy this one as well. That criticism is that California's three strikes has not worked, so therefore our legislation will not work. The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that our bill barely even resembles the California law.

Under California legislation, any third felony conviction automatically results in a life sentence. Our bill however significantly improves on that legislation in two crucial aspects. First, it is not automatic. Offenders will still have the opportunity to prove to the judge why they should not be labelled dangerous offenders.

Second, and unlike California law, our legislation will only apply to violent or sexual offenders. It is true that we will not declare anyone a dangerous offender for stealing a slice of pizza, not even three slices of pizza.

According to the justice policy institute, an American think tank, approximately two-thirds of convictions under California law were for non-violent offenders. By avoiding that defect, our bill would avoid all of the associated problems while still acting as an effective deterrent against violent and sexual offenders.

Again, unlike Clayton Ruby, I do not believe that Canadians are stupid. I know that Canadians understand the points I have just made, but I hope the members opposite do as well. Our job is to protect Canadians. I stand here in my place and say that we will fulfill that duty by passing this important piece of legislation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a statement earlier by the member's colleague that the only opposition to this bill by the other parties was the argument that they were in need of protecting the rights of the offender. If the members would look at the record, the member for Vancouver Quadra laid out some interesting possibilities which would be a bad outcome for all Canadians, and that is with regard to the constitutionality issues.

The member will know that should this bill pass and get royal assent and be proclaimed to become law, it can be subject to a charter challenge. That could hang up the law for years of very protracted constitutional hearings, which is a problem. The second is the ultra vires argument or the problem whether the federal government can tell the provincial government who to charge and with what to charge the individuals. This was also another constitutional matter.

I raise it for the hon. member that the arguments are not so much about what about the offender, but it could very well turn out that the legislation would never be operable until charter questions were dealt with in the courts, which maybe is an issue we can deal with now before we have the risk of falling into that protracted delay and having good legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I take them, certainly, at face value. In terms of weighing this whole issue of whether it actually is constitutional, there are dozens of reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. I will provide a few for the member: bail provision, sex offender registry applications and, also, not criminally responsible. These certainly indicate that there is clear evidence that the reverse onus clause, certainly from a constitutional perspective, is open and possible.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. Catharines is showing a level of optimism here that is not warranted when he says that he is looking forward to working hard to implement this bill. I have been listening to the opposition parties here and all three of them are opposed. This might be the first bill that I have ever seen that goes down at second reading, that does not even make it to committee.

I have a question for my colleague. What kind of flexibility are the Conservatives going to show that would garner some level of support from the other opposition parties? Without some generosity of spirit or some accommodating of the legitimate points of view that have been raised by all three of the other opposition parties, and put forward very respectfully, I might add, where are the Conservatives going to give and where are they going to move to ensure this bill does not die right at second reading?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the fascinating pieces of information that I picked up while researching this legislation, in terms of how it is going to move forward, how we are going to work with each other, and how we are going to understand it, was indeed that part of the NDP platform. The member's party was in fact implicit and spoke directly to reverse onus. I would simply say to the member that in that context this bill addresses some of what his party was trying to get at during the election in order to form government, that is, to implement some form of a justice strategy. This reaches out to the exact area he and his party were trying to reach in terms of reducing crime in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues opposite to listen to what I have to say. I hope you will forgive me at once, Mr. Speaker, if, in the course of making my argument, I refer to you as “your honour” because my 25 years of practising criminal law will have shown through and caused me to err in that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would be showing you respect because if I were to call you “your honour”, your salary would increase by nearly $100,000. This is why we have judges who, as a matter of conscience and in the work they do every day, are able to decide the appropriate sentence for any individual appearing before them. There is a fundamental flaw in the bill before us; Bill C-27 is making a big mistake and the party in power must realize that. If we have to, we will defeat it before it even reaches second reading because this bill seeks to punish crimes, not individuals. Allow me to explain.

When an accused person appears before the court, he is accused of an offence and must answer for his actions and, of course, his offence. Let us take, for example, one of the offences this bill seeks to punish: attempt to commit murder or invitation to sexual touching. Actually, take any one of the offences mentioned in the bill. If we take attempt to commit murder, the individual who appears before the court must be sentenced.

The party opposite is forgetting one of the fundamental principles: the sentence must be individualized. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it must be individualized. This means that the judge addresses the individual and hands down a sentence that takes into account the sentencing criteria established by the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. For the information of my colleagues opposite, these are called “sentencing principles”.

We humbly believe that this bill is contrary to all those principles, because what the Supreme Court has said over and over, and will say again if this bill has to end up before the Supreme Court, is that a sentence is unique. It must be addressed to the individual who is before the judge. That is not what this bill is trying to do. What this bill is trying to do is make it so that if an individual is convicted of a serious crime for the third time, he or she is then “out” for life. The person is in prison.

That is not what must be done. It is unacceptable to think like this. Yes, there really are dangerous criminals in society. But saying that is not a solution to all our problems. We have to make it so that people who do not deserve to live in society are excluded from society, for as long as possible, when they exhibit such little respect for the laws of this country and continually reoffend.

We have before us a bill that goes even farther, in that it reverses the burden of proof. I am going to provide some further explanation for my colleagues opposite. One of the most important principles, as stated by the Supreme Court and by the Privy Council in London, a principle that is the backbone of the legal system, the criminal justice system, in Canada, is that the Crown has the burden not only of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is guilty, but also of showing what sentence must be imposed on the individual.

What this bill is trying to do is to reverse the burden of proof. I can tell this House, from experience, that it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will give this bill its approval, for more than one reason. First, and particularly, because of section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which our good Prime Minister prides himself on his respect for. He is not respecting it with this bill. He is placing the burden of proof on the accused.

It seems to me that we did a good job. In fact, the Bloc Québécois was not always opposed to this bill. The evidence of that is that as recently as yesterday I was saying to this House that Bill C-22 was a good bill. The people on the other side of the House can get things right. I will keep saying it: unfortunately, they are trying to punish the crime rather than the individual who committed the crime. That is unfortunate, and it is unacceptable. The Barreau du Québec, the Law Society of Ontario and the Canadian Bar Association have said so repeatedly and will say so again when they appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, of which I am a member.

Members will realize from this introduction that the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. I hope that is quite clear. The Bloc is against it for a number of reasons. This bill proposes a harmful and ineffective approach that will not improve public safety. Worse yet, it would allow for automatic sentencing, which is dangerous and irresponsible. I rise in this House to say that reversing the burden of proof is not justified.

If my colleagues opposite had had good lawyers, they would have turned to section 753 of the Criminal Code. Section 753 of the Criminal Code is clear, or at least I think it is. I have relied on it a number of times in court. This is what that section says:

753. (1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied—

The court may find the offender to be a dangerous offender if all the conditions are met. The Criminal Code has all the arguments, all the elements and all the clauses to control dangerous individuals.

Section 753 asks that the following conditions be met:

753. (1)(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752—

I will spare you all these details and focus on the essential point. When arguing before the court, the Crown must show:

753. (1)(a)(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour—

I did not make this up. It is in the Criminal Code. I repeat, it is in the Criminal Code. We do not need Bill C-27. Paragraph 753(1)(a)(ii) adds:

753. (1)(a)(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour—

I will spare the House the rest but will translate it into plain language for my hon. colleagues across the aisle.

This is what is happening now, this very day, before a court somewhere in Canada. I have had to argue cases and can tell the House how it works.

It can happen as early as the first offence or the first charge. An individual is brought before the court accused of attempted murder. He shows no signs of remorse. He even says and repeats that if he is freed, he will take care of a few other people too. That has already happened.

Here is another example. A serial rapist says, “If I get out, don’t get all worked up, but all women are going to get it”. That is totally unacceptable.

So what do we do? What does the crown attorney do? He asks the court to declare the person a “long-term offender”. That is done now. There is no need for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Legal precedents and the testimony of people who know the accused are submitted and the court hands down a decision. It is true that this decision can be appealed, but it certainly is not easy. Once a court has handed down a judgment and supported it well, it is virtually unassailable. That is how it is. We have already been through it. This procedure exists and can be implemented as early as the first offence.

So why Bill C-27? In the Bloc Québécois—I am one of those who say it along with my hon. colleague from Hochelaga—we say that justice must be based on a personalized process that is geared to each case and based on the principle of rehabilitation.

I will put that into plain language for my hon. colleagues across the aisle. One of the most important principles established by courts of appeal and supreme courts is that punishments must be just and proportional to the offence but also aimed at rehabilitating the accused. With this bill, the government wants to get rid of rehabilitation. There is no place for rehabilitation in a country with a bill like this, and it does not look as if the government wants reconsider its position.

Let us take this even further. As if that were not enough, we have section 761 of the Criminal Code, which is also clear. It exists. It is still there, just as it was there yesterday when I looked at the Criminal Code. It has not disappeared. Section 761 states, and I quote:

—where a person is in custody under a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period, the National Parole Board shall, as soon as possible after the expiration of seven years from the day on which that person was taken into custody and not later than every two years after the previous review, review the condition, history and circumstances of that person—

What does that section mean? It means that if we have a dangerous, long-term offender as identified by the court, the court sends that offender to an institution where he is held in custody. After seven years, the National Parole Board will again carefully review that individual's case to determine if that individual can possibly, I repeat possibly, be rehabilitated or if that individual has begun a rehabilitation process. If that is not the case, the National Parole Board must justify its decision.

We already have all the tools we need. We do not need Bill C-27. Neither Quebec nor Canada needs it. I hope this is clear enough. We already have all the tools we need to put away individuals who do not deserve to be and should not be in society.

Only after a fair and equitable trial, after the court has declared an individual to be a dangerous, long-term offender, can this apply. Then, the sentence will be individualized. That is what this bill does not do. We must not forget that this is extremely dangerous.

This bill would make changes to the process of declaring someone a dangerous offender. An accused person would be presumed to meet the criteria for designation as a dangerous offender as soon as he is convicted of a third serious offence. There is no middle ground, it is all or nothing. Rehabilitation is no longer an option.

Even worse, that presumption would shift the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused, who would then have to prove to the judge that he should not be declared a dangerous offender.

With respect, I must say that the Canadian judicial system will never tolerate that. In my opinion, reversing the burden of proof is unfair and would violate section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which entitles us to a full defence. In Canada, it is not up to the accused to defend himself—we will have to explain this again to our colleagues opposite—it is up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

If the Conservatives want to change that, if they want to reverse the burden of proof and take a new approach, let them table a bill, but not one like Bill C-27. This new bill would probably be unacceptable as well because the Bloc Québécois does not believe that Canadian and Quebec societies would accept the reversal of the burden of proof.

If the colleagues opposite, in government, believe that this bill will fight crime, then I have good and bad news for them. The goods news is that is false. The bad news is that it will completely choke the justice system. Before a case is closed, what will happen when an accused discovers that he may be declared a dangerous offender with the reversal of the burden of proof? It is not difficult to see that all proceedings will be taken as far as possible and the court rooms will be overflowing.

We already have this problem. In Quebec City, Toronto, here in Ottawa, Kingston and Vancouver the court rooms are full. It is not this kind of bill that will solve the problem of crime in Quebec and in Canada.

As I only have one more minute I will conclude my speech. Time goes so quickly that I will allow myself to answer the questions.

Based on my 25 years of experience in criminal law, this reversal of the burden of proof is wrong and unacceptable, and I believe that we would be going in a very dangerous direction, to the far right, were we to accept even considering this bill and having it adopted by Parliament. I therefore urge all members of this House to vote against the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Labour; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Minister of Public Works and Government Services; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Homelessness.