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.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Canadian Wheat Board.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-27, which is before us for debate and has been for a bit of time now, there are two essentially different issues that are being addressed. Almost all the debate up to this point has been with regard to the dangerous offender portion. As we have heard from the three opposition parties, including the NDP, none of us intends to support this legislation at the vote on second reading.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, in response to the catcall from the Conservatives in terms of shame, there is a bit of a shame to this because the second part of the bill has a great deal of merit. In fact, I believe it would attract all party support in terms of dealing with a problem that existed even when I used to practise a lot of criminal law 30 years ago. It has to do with the use of the recognizance or what is more commonly called the peace bond, and the weaknesses in the code with the use of those instruments and the limitations that were imposed by the initial promulgation of those sections.
Coming back to the shame part, it is so typical of the Conservative government that it has combined two provisions in this one bill. The Conservatives badly want one of the provisions in order to keep their political agenda going. They are not really dealing with the reality in the streets, in our courts, of crime, nor dealing with criminals in a serious, effective and efficient way, nor the protection of our society and of all our citizens.
If the Conservatives were really serious about that they would not combine the two provisions. They know full well that constitutionally under the charter, and just about all the legal opinions that I have seen and which opinions I share make it clear that the approach that is being taken in this bill with regard to requiring accused persons to prove they are not dangerous offenders will be challenged. This bill requires accused persons to prove they are not dangerous offenders. This provision is simply not going to be sustained in our courts. It is going to be challenged immediately and at every level. I expect if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court that it will be struck down.
We have to understand from where those opinions flow. It is not only reversing the onus and reversing a long-standing tradition of a person's right as an accused party or even a convicted party to have the onus of both the accusation against him or her to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but also on the balance of probabilities to have his or her sentence imposed proven by the state, or by the Crown in our jurisdiction.
Most of the Conservatives do not appreciate how significant this is, that once found as a dangerous offender there is no time limit on when the offender would be released. There are opportunities to reapply, again proving that the person should be released under this system. The finding of a dangerous offender, that determination, means not only life as it is known for murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, treason and other such charges where there are definitive times when a person will be released, but if a person is found to be a dangerous offender, the person will stay in jail for the rest of his or her life.
We are changing a long-standing provision, and we are talking about 300 or 400 years of jurisprudence within the common law system and the criminal justice system as it evolved out of England, the presumption of innocence, the requirement of the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. We built that as a bulwark against abuse by the state. Imagine with the new provision, a judge sitting there and saying, “They are asking me to find that it is okay to do that, that it is within our accepted jurisprudence. And on top of that, if I do find that the person does not prove he or she is not a dangerous offender, I am then going to confine that person to prison for the rest of his or her life”.
Any objective person who understands how our court system works can see that it is highly unlikely that our judges are going to do that, whether it is a trial judge, an appeal court judge or a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. They are all going to be of the same mind. Any opinions that we are hearing from the Conservative Party and the government to the contrary have to be looked at in that context and with a great deal of suspicion.
What we have here is a government that is quite prepared to say, “It is likely that we are not going to get this bill through now, but in the next election, whenever that comes”--and given the way the Conservatives have approached the administration of this portfolio in particular, we would hope that an election would be fairly soon and the Conservatives would be turfed from office because of their ideological bent and quite frankly the abuse they are making of the system. Having said that though, what they are saying is they want to be able to win those elections to keep pushing those hot button items and say, “We are tough on crime”. Of course they are not smart on crime and this bill is a classic example of that.
More important, this bill is a very jaundiced, cynical approach by the government. The Conservatives are saying, “We know we are going to lose this but we also want to be able to say we tried to deal with the recognizance and peace bond issue. Out on the hustings we will be able to tell people that the three opposition parties are soft on crime, that they do not know what they are doing and that they voted this bill down”.
The provisions with regard to peace bonds are badly needed. Perhaps the most significant provision is to extend the use of peace bonds from one year to two years. I can say from my own experience in the courts over a number of years, both with regard to criminal cases and matrimonial cases, these are used most extensively where there is a dispute between partners in spousal relationships. Oftentimes, because of the procedures within the court and being slow in getting them started, my experience has been that most peace bonds are only effectively in position for about nine to maybe as little as six months by the time the paperwork gets done, the accused person understands what they are and the rest of it. It seems to take about three months, minimum, to make them effective. They really are only useful in deterring misconduct on the part of the person who is subject to those peace bonds for about six to nine months.
What the government is proposing, and I salute the Conservatives for that, if it was not for their cynical approach, is to extend it to two years. That would be a much more effective use of this tool in terms of controlling misconduct. A person is simply ordered by the court to be subject to this recognizance, which the person signs. If the individual breaches it, there are penalties that flow from that in terms of additional criminal sanctions.
There is another thing it does, and again this is a major plus that we need in our courtrooms just to make it possible for the police, prosecutors and judges to do their jobs in terms of controlling this kind of conduct. It gives substantial additional powers to the judiciary in terms of conditions that can be imposed on the people who are subject to peace bonds, including requiring them to wear a bracelet that identifies where they are at all times. We know from a number of cases across the country, and I can think of some in my home province, where there has been the need for that kind of a tool in order for the judiciary and police to monitor people. This would give them the authority to do that.
I want to conclude by saying I have made a proposal to the minister, which I will make more formal shortly, that we split this bill and allow this legislature to vote on both aspects of it. It is possible procedurally to do that. I am suggesting that may be the way out of this very inappropriate approach that has been taken by the government with regard to these two issues.
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Windsor has been working on justice issues for a number years for the New Democratic Party.
Many people in the Conservative movement in Canada often say that courts should not be legislating, but there is an inverse to that logic, which is that legislatures should not prejudge what courts are going to decide.
This legislation has gone through the process within the justice department and the issue of whether or not it is constitutionally fit was dealt with. Therefore, the core issue is the issue of principle that we are dealing with, with regard to criminal justice reforms. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said a minute ago, this is unanimously supported by deputy attorneys general across the country, including those in the NDP Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
I know for a fact that Mike Farnworth, the NDP MLA in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, the riding that I represent, takes a very strong stand on criminal justice issues as the justice critic for the NDP in British Columbia. He understands that the public is, frankly, tired of laws that do not seem to hold people accountable, which is what the first part of this legislation is about.
On the principle of this legislation, which is that if somebody, after having had all his or her rights respected and having gone through the process, is convicted of sexual interference, inviting sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, attempt to commit murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, or sexual assault with a weapon or threats of bodily harm, any three of those crimes, after the third conviction the person needs to demonstrate to the public that he or she is not a dangerous offender and is no longer a threat.
What in the world is wrong with that basic principle? How in the world can the NDP be opposed to that?
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was just flipping through my file while my colleague was asking his question. I am sitting here with a letter from the Attorney General of Saskatchewan who is opposed to this section. I am not sure what consultation went on.
One of the problems with the government, as opposed to the pattern and the protocol that has been long established going back 50 years, is that it has not been consulting with a lot of people. It has been going through a very narrow channel of people it consults with, those it fully expects will support its ideology, much as it is now doing with the appointments to the screening committees for judicial appointments. The government thinks that if it can talk to just certain people, it can get enough support for these types of very radical departures from our traditions within the criminal justice system. As a member of an opposition party, I am not prepared to go along with that.
If the government had consulted meaningfully, the opinions that I have expressed today on behalf of a lot of groups would have been given to it and it would have realized that this is not sustainable.
The member talked about a person who has been convicted of this specific offence and that then justifies changing the reverse onus and exposing that person. We are not talking about many cases. It may be as few as 10 or 12 cases. I am not sure where the figures are coming from that it may be 100 or 120. It may be as few as 10 or 15 cases a year that we are talking about.
If the government were really serious about this, it would give the prosecutors the resources they need to present the cases that need to be presented and we would put those people behind bars just using the traditional methodology that has withstood the test of time and that has served us very well as a society.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, when the bill was first debated at second reading last October, I think October 30, some of the interventions had indicated that the Department of Justice itself had admitted that this legislation would likely be subject to a challenge.
Could the member explain how it is that the government can come forward with a bill in the face of the likelihood of a challenge? Is there something that can be done to remedy that or is it simply the combination of reverse onus and the indeterminate--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Order, please. Time has run out but I will allow the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh a short response.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a way to remedy the bill with regard to dangerous offenders. I think the opinion the government received or all sorts of indications it received from the Department of Justice that this would not fly under the charter is very accurate and I do not think there is any way around it.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
February 14th, 2007 / 4:40 p.m.
Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam B.C.
Conservative
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important legislation.
In my community there is no more important issue that has been expressed by my constituents in the past couple of campaigns than the issue of criminal justice reform.
The Vancouver area and the lower mainland have some of the highest property crime rates in all of North America and violent crime is also on the rise. This is a growing concern in my community and a growing concern across the lower mainland.
My colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, mentioned that to a lot of Canadians and certainly to a lot of my constituents there is a concern that our justice system is like a fisheries program. It is like a catch and release program rather than a real true justice system where people are held accountable for their behaviour, particularly dealing with the issue of dangerous offenders.
Dangerous offenders is what this legislation is about. It specifically deals with people who have been convicted, who we know are dangerous, who we know are threat to our communities and we know the reality of recidivism rates with people who are particularly sexual offenders and we have an opportunity to hold them accountable and to protect the public. We should take that responsibility seriously and we should enact legislation to protect the public when we know we can. We know we can and our government is trying to do that with the bill.
The dangerous offender provisions have a long history in Canada and have been used as a sentencing tool going back to 1947 with legislation creating the habitual offender designation. That legislation created specific sentencing measures targeting persistent dangerous criminals engaged in the more serious forms of crime. The provisions allowed the courts to impose either a determinate or indeterminate sentence where the crown was able to satisfy the court that the individual's habitual criminal activity was not likely to be deterred by a regular sentence and the individual had been convicted of three or more indictable offences.
Courts were guided by fundamental principles of justice in sentencing to determine that while an offender might be of extreme risk to commit further offences at the time of sentencing, if there was evidence that after a sentence of incarceration and parole that the threat would cease to exist, the court had the duty to impose a determinate as opposed to an indeterminate sentence.
The provisions were amended a number of times but the next major redrafting occurred in August 1997 with the passage of Bill C-55. The most significant amendment in the 1997 legislation was an attempt by the government of the day to do away with the judicial discretion afforded prior to that time for a dangerous offender to be given a determinate or fixed sentence.
The rationale behind the move was that a new sentencing option, the long term offender designation, would be offered to those individuals who did not quite meet the dangerous offender criteria. It was perhaps believed that in doing so, the loss of discretion regarding the indeterminate sentence was acceptable to the courts from a charter perspective, given the availability of the lesser long term offender designation.
As has been mentioned many times during the debate on the bill, in 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Johnson that while Parliament could do many things, it could not remove the discretion of the sentencing judge in a dangerous offender sentence and still respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court reiterated the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada's previous leading case on the charter viability of the indeterminate sentencing option in R. v. Lyons handed down in 1987.
As a result of the 1997 amendments and the decision in Johnson, we ran into a new, albeit unanticipated, problem regarding the sentencing and management of dangerous offenders. The impact has been that a number of individuals who were originally intended to receive the indeterminate sentence of dangerous offender are instead being sentenced under the lesser long term offender option, with the result that these individuals will eventually be released into the community under a long term supervision order of up to 10 years.
From the perspective of the crown prosecutors, the impact of the Johnson decision was that, in many cases, they are now under an additional burden. Not only must they approve beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender meets the dangerous offender criteria, as was the case prior to the decision in Johnson, but they must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser sentence of a long term offender designation could not be used to successfully manage the risk that the individual posed to society.
Offenders who otherwise arguably would qualify for an indeterminate sentence on evidence that they are very likely to repeat their sexual or violent offences when released, can now argue much more easily that they will be manageable under a regular sentence followed by a 10 year supervision period in the community. Let us be clear that post-Johnson, the offender often strategically decides to simply refuse to cooperate with the evaluation process knowing this will frustrate the crown's ability to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If the crown cannot meet this burden then the court cannot impose the indeterminate sentence.
Clearly, action was required to resolve these new anomalies. Bill C-27 does take some bold steps but the suggestion that this proposal is unconstitutional in any way is not founded on an accurate understanding of either the current state of the law on dangerous offenders or what Bill C-27 actually does propose.
The concern appears to be centred on an assumption that there is a constitutional requirement in a sentencing hearing to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This argument cites the need to respect section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While I agree that it is a fundamental principle of justice that a person charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty, as enshrined in the charter, this tenet simply does not apply to the sentencing process.
I note that the Supreme Court of Canada, in the landmark case R. v. Lyons, canvassed the issue of whether rights associated with trial proceedings could be extended to dangerous offender proceedings. The court in Lyons was clear that the section 11 charter right regarding the procedural protection to be tried by jury does not extend to the sentencing phase. In my view, this rationale applies equally to the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In other words, it does not apply to the sentencing process. It is very clear.
This fundamental right is analogous to the other procedural rights enumerated in section 11 and, as such, it is hard to suggest that the logic applied previously by the court in Lyons would be any different. The individual has already been presumed innocent, has been tried and has been found guilty. The right to be presumed innocent has been preserved and nothing in Bill C-27 touches the sanctity of this basic principle of justice or charter right.
While I respect the opinions of members opposite, it is nonetheless my view that the presumption of dangerousness after the third conviction is constitutional given that it is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Lyons.
I recognize the opposition's concerns. Nonetheless, I believe that it would be a great disappointment to all Canadians if the bill were to fail to proceed further than this debate.
I support Bill C-27 and I support sending it to committee for further study and consideration. Indeed, this is where I believe these issues can be more thoroughly considered, addressed and discussed.
We need the bill to pass to ensure more consistent consideration of the dangerous offender provision by crown prosecutors and to ensure more effective management of high risk offenders. That is what Canadians expect of us, that is why the legislation should pass and that is why I encourage all members of the House to support the legislation. We must hold criminals and multi-convicted criminals accountable for their behaviour. Let us stand up and do something right for victims for once.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Before I recognize members on questions and comments, I would like to get a sense of how many questions there might be so that I can attribute the time fairly.
We will now hear the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech made by the parliamentary secretary on Bill C-27.
The Liberals support all efforts, actions and legitimate measures that respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while seeking to protect Canadians and to punish offenders who pose a real threat to our community and our safety.
We Liberals wanted to propose changes to the justice system regarding dangerous offenders. Some very serious concerns were raised by the legal community about the constitutionality of this bill.
Why would the Conservatives bring in legislation that would bring amendments to the dangerous offenders system which have the great potential of being declared unconstitutional and, with such a decision on the part of our courts, could threaten the dangerous offenders system that we have right now?
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague, the new justice critic for the Liberal Party, will bring a lot of important ideas to the debates.
Frankly, this is not an argument. When legislation is brought before the House of Commons, the justice minister or any minister responsible must put it through a vetting process to ensure that it recognizes and respects Canada's Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That process has been done.
As I said at the beginning of my comments to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, some people in Canada often say to courts in this country that they should not be legislating. They should be judging the law but not be legislating law from the bench. The reverse reality to that is that Parliaments and legislators should not be assuming what the Supreme Court or any court will say.
This is a common sense provision. If my colleague looks at the cases that have taken place, this reverse onus provision is constitutional. It is respected and it has gone through the appropriate vetting processes to ensure that those standards are met before the legislation was introduced here in the House.
If my colleague is sincere in her request to have criminal justice reforms put through this Parliament and enacted on behalf of her constituents, I look forward to seeing her stand in her place and vote yes to the legislation to send it to committee for further examination. If she does not do that, then we know how sincere she was.
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to reread very carefully the Mitchell and Johnson rulings made by the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not agree with what the hon. member just said. When I sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we asked questions of Justice officials about Bill C-27, and they told us that they were not sure.
Therefore, do not come and tell us today that this bill may be constitutional. Based on the two rulings made by the Supreme Court in 2003, it is almost certain that this legislation is unconstitutional.
Why not target section 761 of the Criminal Code, dealing with the powers of the National Parole Board, because that is where the problem lies?
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was not present at the committee meeting my hon. colleague referred to. I can however assure him that every bill that this government introduces in this House respects our Constitution and our laws.
This is the first time since I was elected to this place in 2000 that I see the Bloc Québécois finally support our Constitution. This is a great day for Canada; the Bloc Québécois wants to respect our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This bill is in the interest of Canadians and Quebeckers. It is proposing changes that are respectful of voters in the member's community and of those in mine as well. I think that, after having been debated in the House, this bill should be referred to committee for further consideration.
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very interesting and important debate. Many of my colleagues come to this from a legal background. I come to this with an engineering background, so I might take a little different approach.
I will begin by looking at the big picture, and the big picture is that overall, serious crime rates in this country are falling. Yes, we can find exceptions within certain demographics, possibly, and certain types of crime, but overall, serious crime rates are falling.
Secondly, from outside Canada, other countries look at our judicial system as one of the finest in the world. The best example of proof that I can provide is that Canada played a key role in establishing the international court system in The Hague, and our judicial experts are called upon on many occasions to provide advice to China and to other developing nations when it comes to creating their judicial systems.
I start from the premise that our system is not perfect. We can agree on that, that there are always ways to make things better, including when it comes to dangerous offenders and I agree with my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. We are not against improving measures to deal with dangerous, long term offenders, but we are against the way the government is approaching this task.
Again, we have a system that, while not perfect, is among the best in the world. Yes, we have very sad incidents where terrible people do terrible things to other people, to innocent people, and none of us here would ever say or do anything to support such activities. At the same time, we must not compromise the balance that we are seeking to achieve in our judicial system, and that balance will be put to a test in a serious way when the reverse onus is applied in situations like this.
It is easy to say when on the front page of the paper a serious crime is being reported, but we cannot make our decisions in moments of passion or moments of panic. We have to make our decisions for the country in times of calm, in times of reflection, and using the best wisdom available to us.
I would like to see improvements to the dangerous offenders legislation. Nobody wants to see dangerous offenders in situations where they are going to repeat. Unfortunately, the government did not send this to the justice committee but instead to a legislative committee. Had it gone to the justice committee, I assume we would have seen a full range of consultations and input from all quarters of the country, from stakeholders interested in crime issues.
We did not have that and clearly we have the Criminal Lawyers' Association that says this is dangerous ground upon which to tread. The justice minister and attorney general for Saskatchewan has expressed grave reservations about this, and there are others.
Let us encourage the government not to take what I call a lazy approach of throwing something out there and just seeing what happens. That is pretty careless because as my colleagues from Windsor, Montreal and others have suggested, there is a very good chance, that the constitutionality of these measures will be proven not to be supportable. In so doing, it is very possible that other sections of the dangerous offenders legislation could also be compromised.
There is also the question of whether we are going to really be putting more people in jail as a result of this because there will be less plea bargaining. I know there are concerns over the plea bargaining process but there is a place for it, if it is handled wisely. It will only mean higher rates of incarceration. What thought has been put to the extra resources that provinces will need in order to deal with more people in jail?
There are certain unintended consequences and there may be others that I am not mentioning which could happen. We are simply saying to the government to stop, catch its breath and let us take some more time. This is not an issue that needs to be resolved tomorrow.
Let us take some more time and ensure that it is right. Let us not take the lazy approach. Let us do some more homework. Let us ensure that those who have a say on this, whether they are for or against it, let them speak up and be heard, and let us find a way to improve measures dealing with dangerous offenders, but do so in a way that will not test the constitutionality of not only those sections, but of sections related to dangerous offender legislation.
I am certain there will be an election sooner or later and I know the Conservative Party certainly has a history of using jingoism in terms of getting support for its often radical and extreme views. I am reminded in this debate of what George Bush, until he got into trouble the last year or so, would say to those who criticized his position on the Iraq war, “oh, you don't support our troops”, as if speaking freely in a free society was against the troops because the troops are there to protect democracy.
In the same way the Conservatives would argue that if we do anything to provide dangerous offenders with anything but unconstitutional remedies for society, then we support dangerous offenders. That is not fair. It is not true. It is not the case.
We are as much interested in dealing with dangerous offenders as anyone in this House, but we want to do it in a smart way. We want to do it in a way that respects the opinions on both sides of the debate and in a way that will not fail before the courts.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. He seems to be making the same point that a few of his colleagues have made which is to question the constitutionality of the bill which is not for members of Parliament necessarily to determine ultimately. I suppose that would be determined by the courts. Our legal opinion is that the bill is constitutional.
This bill deals only with the most serious criminals in Canada. I would like to know most of all, why would he not support the bill? Why would he not support the bill in the interests of the safety of Canadian citizens? It is about justice, nothing more. In principle, does the member support keeping Canadians safe, yes or no? It is that simple.
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the hon. member for proving the point I made in the last few sentences of my remarks. I thank him for pointing out exactly the argument the Conservatives will make. It is hollow. It is empty. It is jingoism.
I am sure he will not find a member of the House who does not want to deal effectively with dangerous offenders, but the government has taken the lazy approach to this. Its members are not listening to all the stakeholders on both sides and in so doing are throwing up their hands asking: what is the simplest thing we can do? The simplest thing we can do is a dangerous option because we may lose it all in the courts.
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to the comments made by my colleague from the Liberal Party that the views of the Conservative Party are somehow radical or extreme and he just used terms like “hollow”, “empty” and “jingoism”. Quite frankly, that is very unparliamentary language from a member who has been in this House long enough to know better. I do not understand how jailing dangerous offenders in order to keep them off the streets somehow affects the rights of Canadians. The other question I have is one of the Liberal record of 13 years where the Liberals did nothing on this subject--
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I am sorry. If the hon. member asks his other question, the member will not get a chance to respond.
The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the previous Liberal government brought in a number of very useful amendments to the dangerous offenders sections of the Criminal Code which have proven the test of time. We are only saying to the government that we will work with it on this, that if it listens to everybody, there is a way to make things better, but it cannot take a chance like this and have the whole thing thrown out. Therefore, we only encourage the government to catch its breath, fill those voids, and let us find a way to do this better.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an extremely important debate because even though it is about a bill that is—if not exactly technical—fairly precise, it encompasses the Conservative government's vision of the balance between justice and security, a balance that, unfortunately, seems to be more and more upset because of an extremely dangerous ideological approach.
When I see a bill like this one, I cannot help but think of how debates are run in this House and in public by this government, particularly by the Prime Minister.
In that sense, we have good reason to be very worried about the fact that they are taking so lightly a bill to amend the Criminal Code and other acts—a bill that may have enormous consequences for a large part of our population—by using arguments that, more often than not, are not based in fact. That is what I found during question period again today.
When the Prime Minister said that the Bloc Québécois did not support the upcoming bill on income trusts, he was deceiving the people. He was misleading them. What we are trying to do is fix the Prime Minister's broken promise. During the election campaign, he said that he would not touch the tax laws on income trusts, which was completely irresponsible. Then on October 31, he made a surprise decision to break his promise, a decision that affected 2.5 million small investors.
The Bloc Québécois is trying, in a responsible way, to minimize the negative impact on those Canadians and Quebeckers who unfortunately believed the promise the Prime Minister made during the election campaign.
Recently, the Minister of Industry was distributing a document in the riding of a colleague of mine. The document stated that the government had passed a law allowing pension income splitting between spouses and doubling the tax credit for private pension income. Such a bill has not even been tabled yet. We do not even know if that will be in the budget or in a separate bill.
It is not true. The government is disguising the truth for partisan and ideological purposes.
It reminds me of a hippocampus. I am not referring to the sea horse, the little fish that swims in an upright position. When I speak of a hippocampus, I mean the mythical animal that was half horse, half fish. This government makes me think of a hippocampus, because it has two sides and it is manipulating morality by presenting only one side of this issue. This is unacceptable in a debate as important as this one.
I would remind you that this bill seeks to declare someone convicted of three serious crimes a dangerous offender, unless that person can prove that the definition does not apply to him or her. The burden of proof is therefore reversed. In our opinion, this bill is harmful and ineffective and will not help to improve public safety.
What is the government doing to sell this ideological vision of repression? It is implying that safety in our cities is being compromised, in Canada and Quebec. Yet for decades the crime rate—especially the rate of violent crime—has been declining. I am not trying to trivialize the problem. I recognize that we must ensure that, especially in our major cities—I am thinking about street gangs, for instance—the necessary social and economic measures are in place to prevent this problem. But this is not where the government is headed. We are fooling ourselves.
Studies show that automatically applying harsher penalties will not produce the desired results. The real question, then, is: What is the best way to prevent crime? What is the best way to protect the public? It is certainly not to toughen the Criminal Code in this way, but to invest in literacy and women's groups and to maintain funding for programs such as the summer career placement program. But this is not the approach the government has chosen.
In that sense, this bill is not an isolated measure. It is part of an overall ideological approach that is extremely dangerous to the future of Canada.
This is true for Canada and for Quebec. What we are defending is a model of justice based on a process tailored to each case and based on the principle of rehabilitation.
We have already had a debate in this House on young offenders. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois was the only party to propose this approach that is characteristic of Quebec society, whereby prevention and rehabilitation are better avenues than repression for ensuring the safety of our cities, our land and our people. In that sense, the U.S. example is striking and should serve as a lesson. Unfortunately, it seems that the government is blind to this reality. A procedure already exists.
In Quebec, the justice department reached agreements with the Philippe-Pinel Institute to conduct psychological assessments. I know some experts at this institute because they are members of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the union for which I was the secretary for eight years. These experts have credibility before the courts.
Based on the findings of the assessment report, the prosecutor decides whether or not to seek a dangerous offender designation. The experts assess the person, his or her psychological weaknesses and his or her rehabilitative potential. With the assessment, a fully informed decision can be made.
This bill proposes that after the third offence, the alleged criminal would automatically have to demonstrate that he is not a dangerous offender. There is a system. After the assessment report is presented to the judge, the defence can present a second opinion. In the end, the judge makes a ruling.
Perhaps we can improve on certain criteria and make sure of certain things. Nonetheless, we already have a procedure that has been proven to work for the past number of years. What this government is proposing is totally excessive.
As I said, it will provide a false sense of security. Thus—and we will see in the next budget—the provinces and Quebec will have few resources to successfully address the real causes of crime, namely poverty, isolation, addiction and a host of other social problems.
I would like to reiterate that we believe this approach is not only ideological, but it also deceives the population because it does not allow us to address the underlying problems. This places a much heavier onus on the accused. Any accused person who wishes to challenge the assessment filed in support of designating him or her as a dangerous offender will have to ask for an expensive second opinion. Not everyone will have the means to do so. Not everyone will have access to the necessary professional legal services. Since the offender could spend the rest of his or her life in prison, it seems reasonable that the government should have to bear the burden of proof when designating dangerous offenders. We could ask ourselves what this government's next step will be. Will they begin to question the entire existing principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty? It would then be up to defendants to prove their innocence.
As the statistics remind us, there are scores of adverse effects. In this regard, I would like the Prime Minister to use his hippocampus, and I am not talking about the mythical animal I referred to at the beginning of my speech, but rather that complex neural structure shaped like a sea horse, which is the part of the brain that controls memory.
If the Prime Minister could just listen to the facts and remember them when the time comes to draft legislation, all Canadians would be now much safer.
Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague, who talked about ideology. It seems that the ideology I have heard all day long from the other side is “blame the victim and blame society” for those people who are dangerous criminals.
I think it is fair to say that the only people logically opposed to this legislation would be the dangerous criminals themselves, people who have committed three of the most heinous criminal offences.
This legislation is not to be used lightly. It does not allow for that.
I heard the hon. member use the words “it's harmful and vindictive”. Could he tell the members of the House and Canadians in general who the legislation would be harmful to or vindictive to?
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is not how we should be looking at the problem. We have to consider the facts and address the real challenges posed by crime-producing social problems.
I will take Quebec as an example. Statistics show that prosecutors choose the long term offender designation procedure used in Quebec over the dangerous offender procedure to deal with repeat offenders. As we know, under the long term offender designation, offenders who go back to the community after serving their sentences remain under correctional supervision. They do not just go off like that. This supervision may go on for up to 10 years. This is more conducive to rehabilitation, while being less expensive to the State. That is something that might catch the attention of the Conservatives. Fewer violent crimes per 100,000 of population are committed in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada.
As we can see, the Quebec model, which is based on rehabilitation—especially for young people—instead of repression, appears to be working quite well.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think the member has raised an interesting approach to this. First of all, he established that the government is not trustworthy, as shown by its decision to break a promise on taxation of income trusts, and then he pointed out that the approach to the criminal justice system has absolutely nothing to do with crime prevention, remediation and, in fact, rehabilitation.
He went on to point out that if we put forward a piece of legislation like this, which the justice department itself has indicated will likely require challenges in the courts at all levels, a lot of people will slip through the cracks while this judicial process goes on, so this is totally a wrong-headed approach. I wonder if the member would like to amplify a little further the reason why the bill is just a wrong-headed bill.