This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was health.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Not only are we going in the wrong direction because repression is not the solution to the problem of crime, but this repression runs the risk of having a perverse effect. With the new provisions introduced into the Criminal Code, many accused will prefer to plead not guilty in the hope that they will drag out the process and clog the judicial system rather than negotiating prison sentences or other types of punishment with the Crown.

From every perspective, this bill is not only ineffective but it creates the illusion of security and runs the risk of having a perverse effect on the judicial system. That is why the government must redo its homework.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the previous speaker. He indicated that our government is not interested in rehabilitation or prevention measures. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over $20 million was invested in our 2006 budget and targeted specifically at youth at risk. Clearly, we on this side are very interested in prevention and rehabilitation.

The member also mentioned that serious crime rates are falling. Does the member really believe that average Canadians today feels safer in their communities than they did 20 years ago?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem with this bill is that it will probably give many Canadians and Quebeckers the impression that they live in a world that is less safe today than it was 10 years ago. That is not the case.

Unfortunately, sensational reporting by certain media that practice so-called yellow journalism, fueled by certain statements by Conservative members and ministers or individuals who share their ideology, have led them to believe it. We should look at the facts. The crime rate is going down.

I know very well what the member is saying. Every day I have to convince those around me. I always carry statistics proving that their perception does not correspond to reality. With its talk, this government is fostering a misunderstanding of the facts.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Souris—Moose Mountain Saskatchewan

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of this bill. After listening to the comments from the hon. member for Joliette, it seems the Bloc is more concerned about the dangerous offender than the victim, or the young child who has been abused, injured or sexually mistreated, or the mother or father of that child, or those potential children who might be abused. If we pass this legislation, this could otherwise be prevented.

As we know, safe streets and communities are important to all constituents in Canada. We are rightly proud of the history of having safe streets and homes, but times are changing and Canadians are experiencing not only an increase in crime, but an increase in a crime of the most heinous kind, one that is violent and abuses the sanctity of people, particularly children. They have called upon the government to take action. They have called upon the government to pass legislation not only in this area, but in other areas as well. We cannot ignore this problem. We must roll up our sleeves, do the job that needs to be done and work in committee to get the bill passed.

During the last election, we promised Canadians that we would crack down on crime, and that is exactly what we propose to do. We promised, we made a commitment and we are moving on it. We have tabled Bill C-27 in that regard.

In a nutshell, Bill C-27 deals with dangerous offenders and provides for ways of dealing with them. In particular, it also deals with section 810, peace bonds, which can put certain restrictions upon them should they ever get released.

To make it clear, many are calling upon the government to take action. Recent events in the area of Whitewood, Saskatchewan have brought many constituents together. They have presented a petition to the government asking for action. They have said that dangerous offenders should not be out on the loose or if they are released, they should be subject to some of the severest of conditions, so the public is not endangered by their actions. They have not only united the community in that area, but all of the constituency that I represent, including Saskatchewan, as well as provinces beyond.

We have received petitions signed by up to 24,000 to 25,000 Canadians who urge this government to take action. Today, I had the opportunity to file those petitions. It is fitting that we would do it on the day we are introducing Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. Let us see what they call for in that petition.

They have asked the government to proceed with changes to the justice system in legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles. They have asked for mandatory or compulsory electronic or other forms of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody. They have asked for compulsory public notification and movements of convicted pedophiles. They have asked that we ensure repeat offenders are designated as dangerous offenders.

Why has this situation incited such an interest in the many constituencies, people and communities of Canada? Because the public is fed up. People have had enough of this easy justice, especially where people have been convicted of the same serious offences on at least three occasions, offences that require two or more years of jail time. They are saying there comes a point in time where something needs to be done. These people need to be contained or released under very strict conditions.

I am quite pleased to say that the Government of Canada has responded to the petition that my constituents have filed, and its response is interesting to note. It says that the Government of Canada is fully committed to protecting children from sexual offenders. In the last Parliament, Bill C-2 introduced mandatory minimum penalties for many sexual offences committed against children. These offences are, therefore, not eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Also, a number of criminal law reform initiatives have recently been introduced in this regard, including: Bill C-9 to restrict the availability of conditional sentences, which I just mentioned; Bill C-22 to increase the age of protection; Bill C-27, regarding dangerous and high risk offenders, about whom I speak today; and Bill S-3, regarding improvements to the national sex offender registry.

As introduced, Bill C-9 would toughens penalties for a number of sex offences, including offences against children, by making it clear that the conditional sentence is no longer available. Who could argue against that? Bill C-22 would better protect against youth adult sexual predators by raising the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years.

Who opposes this legislation? The opposition parties, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Party and the New Democratic Party have been obstructionist in committee. They have taken clauses out. They have watered them down. They have made them almost of no effect, when just the opposite is what the people of Canada expect. They expect us to get at least that tough, and tougher. They try to use the argument that it might not be constitutional.

However, these individuals, these victims, need protection, and that is exactly what we are about to do. Most Canadians are calling for us to take that action. It would be a good point for the opposition to take that into account, get behind us and have this legislation passed, as opposed to delaying it in committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time for debate has expired. I know he is just getting started, but he has about four minutes left in which to wind up the next time he gets the opportunity.

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-288.

Call in the members.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #108

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare Motion No. 1 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, with the approval of the sponsor, and the unanimous consent of all members present this evening, I wonder if you would seek unanimous approval to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 2 and 3 and to the concurrence motion at report stage of this private member's bill.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

Vote #109

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #110

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare Motions Nos. 2 and 3 carried.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

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

Vote #111

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the bill concurred in at the report stage.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

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

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.