House of Commons Hansard #147 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crown.
Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with other parties. I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 scheduled for tonight, be deemed to have taken place and the 11th report of the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, February 28, 2007, be concurred in.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Justice and Human RightsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 7, 2007, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ed Komarnicki ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we promised Canadians we would crack down on crime. Upon taking office, we promised that we would move quickly to fulfill these commitments, and we have. That is why we have tabled this legislation to deal directly with serious, hardened, repeat offenders.
In a nutshell, we have identified problems with the dangerous offender provisions and section 810, peace bonds provisions, of the Criminal Code.
This bill addresses those problems in an effective way and in a fair manner to ensure that individuals who pose a clear danger to offend violently or sexually are properly managed and contained for the safety of all.
In my community of Whitewood, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, a number of individuals have gathered together to present a petition to this House. We have received between 24,000 and 25,000 signatures requesting that this government take some action. The petition reads:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:
Whereas, Canadians enjoy living in safe and secure communities and believe that the safety of their children is a basic right of all Canadians;--
Obviously, some of the events that have happened put some of that in question, but the petition goes on to say:
Whereas, from time to time young children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders;
Whereas, Canadians desire that steps be taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring;--
The petition then goes on to request specifically that the government:
Proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties to convicted pedophiles;
Make mandatory compulsory electronic or other form of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody;
Ensure compulsory public notification on movements of convicted pedophiles;
Ensure above noted repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders.
Indeed, this particular bill directly responds to the issues raised in the petition.
First, it addresses the potential inconsistencies in the use of the dangerous offender provisions by requiring Crown prosecutors to openly address whether an application should be brought. However, there are three serious violent or sexual offence convictions which certainly include sexual offences against children.
Second, the bill proposes to reverse the current onus on the Crown where an offender has been convicted for a third time of a number of serious and violent sexual and violent offences.
Third, the bill also clarifies that there is no onus on the Crown in regard to the fitness of a dangerous offender designation. The proposed changes to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code will make it easier for Crown prosecutors to achieve dangerous offender designation against repeat child sex offenders. About 80% of all dangerous offender applications are against sexual offenders and about half of these target child sexual offenders. Certainly, at some stage of the criminal process, there needs to be a provision where offenders are dealt with in a determined way.
Fourth, Bill C-27 also clarifies that section 810, peace bonds, include the ability to require defendants to submit to electronic monitoring. This peace bond is a powerful tool for police and Crown prosecutors which enables the imposition of severe restrictions on any individuals likely to commit a sexual offence against a child, even though they have not been charged with or convicted of any specific offence.
The section 810 provisions of the Criminal Code are quite encompassing and this legislation enlarges the jurisdiction from a one year term to a potential two year term.
What section 810 would allow the justices to do would be items such as these: prohibit the defendant from engaging in any activity that involves contact with persons under the age of 14 years, including using a computer system; prohibit the defendant from attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 14 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or in day care centres, school grounds or playgrounds; require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device as long as the attorney general makes the request; require the defendant to remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the provincial court judge; and require the defendant to return to and remain at his or her place of residence at specified times.
When we couple all of those potential conditions that can be imposed, along with electronic monitoring, it certainly brings those who are serious offenders, that have been convicted on three separate occasions of serious offences and are sentenced to two years or more, to a place where they can be accounted for and where these kinds of things can be prevented.
There is an argument made that at times we have to balance the rights of the accused against the rights of others, but when we are talking about the children in our society, certainly that balance should favour them at some point in the system. People should be given an indeterminate sentence with no entitlement to statutory release unless they can prove that they should be.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary's comments on Bill C-27 and the issue of the reverse onus.
The presumption is that if an application is brought for a dangerous offender hearing under Bill C-27, the offender would automatically be presumed to be a dangerous offender and would bear the burden of refuting that presumption.
I wonder if the member is aware that some provincial attorneys general have expressed concern that while they do want to see the dangerous offender system strengthened and made more effective, they have concerns that this provision, which reverses the presumption onto the shoulders of the offender, might in fact be deemed constitutionally invalid.
I wonder if his government has looked at that issue and what expert opinions they have on the question of the constitutionality of such a provision.
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am sure that the Minister of Justice has done his due diligence and obtained opinions, and there will probably be some range of opinions.
However, we are not talking about someone who comes before the court presumed to be innocent of any offences and with a clean record. In this case, we are talking about someone who has been before the courts on a violent or sexual offence that has encountered a two years sentence, sentenced once to two years, and then repeats the offence. The individual comes before the court, is convicted of a serious offence, either injury or sexual offence, with another two year sentence, and then appears before the court yet again. The individual is not innocent, but is proven guilty of that offence and has a sentence of two years or greater. At that point the court is saying that this individual must then be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless the individual can prove otherwise.
That is an appropriate thing to be done. I would hope that our constitution, at some point, would say that these individuals have done enough damage to society, they have hurt enough young children in society, they have done enough damage to them emotionally, physically and otherwise that it is incumbent upon them to show why they should not be put away with an indeterminate sentence where society is protected.
Of course, they could raise that issue, but at some point the threshold is crossed where it is constitutional. Certainly, in other cases where there has been reverse onus positions in either bail provisions or other ones, the court has found them to be constitutional and to stand the test of constitutionality.
There may be a test that we would like to see happen, but if we ask any mother or father of a young child, they would be very much concerned and would be very much offended if our Constitution did not allow them that additional avenue of protection that is specified in Bill C-27.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intent in terms of protecting Canadian citizens from people who could be considered dangerous offenders.
One of the concerns I have is the right of all Canadian citizens, regardless of being innocent or guilty, to have access to legal aid or to lawyers.
An awful lot of people in my riding bring up the issue of the inability to seek legal aid, and legal aid in various provinces is getting harder and harder for people to access in order to have their grievances or whatever heard by the judiciary.
Can the hon. member indicate, in the premise of the bill or in any future aspects of the bill, that everybody, under that premise, will have full and equal access to legal assistance to defend themselves under any circumstances?
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the provinces determine how the legal aid system works from province to province and certainly provide for that.
I can also say that some courts appoint counsel if they feel that representation is needed. It is not a question of whether or not one should be represented. The issue of the bill is that at some point a person ought to be declared a dangerous offender and society should be protected, and every avenue should be used to make that process happen. Province by province will make that determination, I am sure.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition's justice critic I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace). Members will no doubt be familiar with this bill as it has been debated at second reading on a number of occasions.
I would like to preface my remarks today with the following facts.
First, it is important to point out that in spite of the fearmongering rhetoric that emanates from the government benches, crime in Canada is, and has been for some years now, in general decline. Though media reports and the occasional sensational story may lead us to believe otherwise, Statistics Canada reported that crime fell by 22% and the violent crime rate fell by 13% between 1992 and 2004. These facts unmistakably belie the government's propaganda to the contrary.
I also wish to state that we Liberals support strong, effective criminal legislation. There is no doubt about that. We want to see tough and smart legislation being introduced in the House, the kind of legislation that will actually make Canadians and their communities a safer and happier place. We will not accept a Prime Minister who pushes a petty, partisan agenda using front line police officers or a Minister of Public Safety who dismantles or tries to dismantle Canada's widely used gun registry. We want legislation that achieves results, not headlines.
That is why our party on numerous occasions tried to fast track a number of justice bills. Inexplicably, these offers have been met with deafening silence from the government. Thus, we are not amused when we hear government members claiming shamelessly and falsely that we are soft on this or that.
With respect to the bill currently before us, we have heard from several members of all parties. I would like to thank them for their contributions. In particular, I would like to thank my colleague from London West, who gave us an eloquent and intelligent analysis of Bill C-27. She highlighted the bill's shortcomings, which I would like to review here.
First, the proposed new section 752.01:
If the prosecutor is of the opinion that an offence for which an offender is convicted is a serious personal injury offence that is a designated offence and that the offender was convicted previously at least twice of a designated offence and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for each of those convictions, the prosecutor shall advise the court, as soon as feasible after the finding of guilt and in any event before sentence is imposed, whether the prosecutor intends to make an application under subsection 752.1(1).
This section would require prosecutors to notify the court as soon as possible after the finding of guilt of their intent to seek dangerous offender designation . The problem with this is that subsections 752.1(1) and 752.1(2) already govern the submission of such applications. The amendment proposed by Bill C-27 is therefore redundant because the relevant provisions already exist in the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, as my colleague from London West explained, there were problems concerning jurisdiction because the list of designated offences included a large number of offences under provincial jurisdiction. Everyone except for the minority Conservative government knows this. The administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction. There is also a problem in terms of application because failure to comply with this provision carries no consequence. It seems the government was not being very careful when it drafted this clause.
The second problem is a big one because it is constitutional. As I said, several constitutional experts believe that section 7 and paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be violated by the clause in the bill that establishes the presumption that an offender is dangerous.
The Liberals believe that this bill can be improved in a way that respects the charter and our Constitution and guarantees real safety for Canadians and Canadian communities. That is why we intend to draft some amendments. We hope that the government will take a close look at them and agree to them. I will explain them.
First, one of the problems with this bill is that there is no obligation, on a third conviction of the most serious personal injury offences, for the crown prosecutor to actually apply for a dangerous offender hearing. It is all very well and good to say that we are going to if an application is made and that the offender will be presumed to be a dangerous offender, but if the crown prosecutors do not make the application, there is no dangerous offender hearing.
We on the Liberal side, we of the official opposition, are open to the idea of reform of the dangerous offender sections. We want to toughen the legislation in committee and address some of the serious concerns that remain regarding the way this bill is designed.
One of the proposed amendments that we will bring is in regard to the fact that currently when a judge is making a determination as to whether or not the dangerous offender designation is appropriate, one alternative already exists after disposition, and that is the long term offender designation. However, if the judge designates someone a long term offender and gives a supervision order that can be as long as 10 years after that offender completes his prison sentence, and if the long term offender violates a term of his supervision order, he cannot, under the current system, be compelled to face a new dangerous offender hearing. He can only face a new dangerous offender hearing if he commits another new and serious criminal offence.
This is a hole in the system that the experience of actually putting it into practice has brought to light. We on the Liberal side, the official opposition, are of the opinion that if an offender has received a long term offender designation that is because he went through a dangerous offender hearing. If that offender violates and is found guilty of breaching the supervision order for a long term offender, it is already a criminal act. That criminal act should be designated as one of the criminal acts that would automatically trigger a new dangerous offender hearing. This is a provision, if it is put in place, that would actually strengthen the entire system and make Canadians safer.
The second is as I mentioned. Currently, and even if Bill C-27 were adopted as is, there is no obligation that a crown prosecutor make an application to have a dangerous offender hearing upon a third conviction of a serious personal injury offence. We believe it should be mandatory. We believe that among the list of the designated offences there is a whole series of offences where it is clear that it should be automatic.
Therefore, we wish to bring an amendment to Bill C-27 that would make a dangerous offender hearing automatic if there is a third conviction on a series of very violent personal injury offences and possibly even those criminal acts that are very violent and in which a firearm is involved. We are prepared to look at that as well.
However, we wish this bill to get into committee so that we can explore this, hear from expert witnesses on the various issues and bring forth our amendments. I would hope that the government would support these amendments, because the amendments the Liberals are proposing would actually strengthen the dangerous offender system, much more than the particular reverse onus or reverse presumption that the government is proposing.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. At one point she accused us of a petty partisan agenda. I can assure the member that in my riding people of all political stripes are asking us to take action on the matter of criminal offences in Canada. For a long time, people have been aware that the system is out of balance in terms of taking into account the victims' needs.
She also commented that the violent crime rate has dropped by 13%. That may be true or it may not be true. My question is this: if in her riding the murder rate was 100 per year and then dropped to 87, would that be acceptable? Would the rate of sexual offences dropping to 87 still be acceptable?
Is it not true that we still have an obligation to deal with an unacceptably high incidence of these kinds of situations where young people are being exploited and sexual offences continue to occur? We are talking about this happening after three convictions, not just accusations. I think it is time for us to act. Canadians are asking us to act. I would appreciate the member's response.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am continually astounded by the deafness of the members of the government. I clearly stated that the Liberal caucus, the official opposition, is in favour of strengthening the dangerous offender system. That is point number one. Our proposed amendments would actually make this stronger rather than the proposed amendment the government is proposing to reverse the presumption.
On the issue of the falling violent crime rate, the member presumes that because I quoted Statistics Canada, which said violent crime rates have actually gone down, it means the rate as it is now is perfectly acceptable to me. That is a presumption which is completely wrong. To quote Statistics Canada is to provide a context so that people understand. No murder, no homicide, is acceptable, but if people think it is getting worse that in fact is not what the statistics and Statistics Canada are telling us.