Debates of Dec. 8th, 2010

Safer Railways Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sudbury is absolutely right. The liability also has an opportunity built into it as well. As we tear up the tracks and relocate the rail line somewhere outside of the city, for safety and pollution reasons, it leaves us opportunities for green space within the inner city. I understand Windsor, Ontario has made very good use of the lands it made available.

The Forks in downtown Winnipeg, of which we are very proud, was in fact the old rail yard's maintenance shops. It was terribly contaminated and polluted, but with the co-operation of all three levels of government, we have turned an eyesore liability into one of our best assets.

I like the idea of bicycle paths along the routes where the rail lines used to run. In fact, it is natural to use that whole railway bed for a bicycle path.

We need a recommitment to rail transportation in our country. For years the tracks have been torn up in places we did not want torn up. The tracks should be torn up in our inner cities and urban environments to create more green space and opportunity to social housing. We can put that land to better use.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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 St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Government Spending; the hon. member for Labrador, The Hon. Member for Nepean—Carleton.

Criminal Code

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the debate on Bill C-30, Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act, an important bill that illustrates our government's desire to improve the safety of our communities.

This bill will help ensure that offenders respect prohibition orders on the consumption of alcohol or drugs, which will better protect our streets and communities from offences committed by people under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Bill C-30 will once again make it possible to require offenders to provide samples of bodily substances in order to ensure that they are complying with prohibition orders on the consumption of alcohol or drugs. The courts lost that power in the fall of 2006 as a result of the R v. Shoker decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Criminal Code does not grant the courts the authority to order that samples of bodily substances be taken in the context of prohibiting the consumption of alcohol or drugs.

This power is essential to solving one of the glaring problems facing our society: the harm caused by people who abuse drugs or alcohol.

Everyone in the House knows that in this country and around the world, drug and alcohol abuse often leads to all kinds of crime: property crimes, violent crimes and sex crimes. The sheer number of crimes committed by individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol is staggering. The Correctional Service of Canada estimated that about 50% of the 250,000 convictions handed down every year are directly related to alcohol or drug abuse. The more serious and violent the offence, the more likely it is that the individual committed it after consuming alcohol or drugs. Nearly 80% of the offenders sentenced to two years or more stated that alcohol or drug consumption was the cause of the offence.

We also know that most offenders commit crimes to get the substances they abuse. Approximately 38% of federal offenders dealing with substance abuse problems committed the crime that led to their incarceration in order to support their addictions.

This problem has serious repercussions on society. The victims suffer the most, but their families and the offenders' families suffer, too. Businesses suffer major losses, and the justice system has to bear a heavy burden. They health care system is struggling under the weight of efforts to treat victims' injuries and offenders' addictions. Furthermore, these crimes add to the financial burden on police resources and taxpayers.

We will continue to charge, try and sentence individuals who have committed crimes because of their abusive consumption of alcohol and other substances because, if we do not address their addiction problems, they will continue to commit crimes once they are released.

In Canada, federal and provincial correctional services provide inmates with addiction treatment and counselling services. But this kind of support has to continue once the offender is released. The best tools we have to manage the risk posed by an offender with addictions who is released are conditions that require the offender to participate in a treatment program and to abstain from drugs and alcohol. Such conditions can help eliminate the problem that led to the crime.

For example, every time an offender is sentenced to less than two years in prison, the court can also impose a period of probation that can last up to three years. Every probation order also includes a requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The court can also impose any other conditions necessary to ensure the offender's rehabilitation and public safety.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the most effective and most commonly used conditions is the prohibition of drugs and alcohol. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, approximately half of all probation orders include such a condition.

Until 2006, judges imposed this condition along with a condition requiring the offender to provide a sample of a bodily substance for analysis on the demand of peace officers and probation officers. This condition made it possible to monitor the offender's conduct and his sobriety after his release. This condition was a deterrent since the offender knew that if he breached his drug and alcohol condition, he might be caught, tried and sentenced to two years for breach of parole.

What is more, it is essential to get a sample of a bodily substance to present as evidence at a trial for breach of parole. This is so important that crown prosecutors who do not have a sample that tested positive are generally reluctant to initiate these types of proceedings. The ability to try an offender for breach of condition prohibiting the use of alcohol or other substances is important, because failure at this point means that the substance abuse would continue, leading to new crimes being committed and more people being victimized.

As I was saying, it used to be common for a sentencing judge to impose a condition requiring the offender to provide a sample of a bodily substance. This practice ended following the Supreme Court ruling in Shoker.

In 2004, the accused was convicted in British Columbia of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit sexual assault. Mr. Shoker, who had a history of abusing methamphetamines, heroin and cocaine, was sentenced to 20 months in prison followed by 3 years of probation. The probation order stated that he must abstain from consuming drugs or alcohol, participate in a treatment program and, at the request of a peace officer or probation officer, allow the seizure of bodily samples.

The accused appealed, arguing that the condition that he provide bodily samples was unconstitutional because it violated his right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, as guaranteed under section 8 of the charter. The case went to the Supreme Court, which concluded in October 2006 that the condition requiring the offender to allow the seizure of bodily samples was illegal.

I should note that the court did not declare that requiring an offender to allow the seizure of bodily samples was fundamentally unconstitutional under section 8 of the charter. It clearly established that Parliament could, if it so decided, enact legislation to authorize the seizure of bodily samples. According to the court, the provisions of the Criminal Code simply do not authorize the sentencing judge to impose such a condition in a probation order. Furthermore, the court rejected the Crown's argument that the probation provisions implicitly authorize the imposition of conditions regarding the seizure of bodily samples.

As a result, the courts have since been unable to impose a condition in a probation order requiring offenders to provide bodily samples.

The Shoker case also had repercussions on Criminal Code provisions related to conditional sentences and peace bonds because they involve conditions similar to those imposed under probation orders.

Bill C-30 proposes to amend Criminal Code provisions related to probation, conditional sentencing and peace bonds by clearly establishing that if a court chooses to impose a condition prohibiting alcohol or drug consumption, it can also impose a condition requiring the offender to provide a sample of a bodily substance to ensure that this person has abstained from alcohol or drugs.

Under the proposed amendments to these three regimes, the court could impose two specific conditions requiring an offender to provide a sample of a bodily substance. First, an offender can be required to provide a sample of a bodily substance at the request of a peace officer or a probation officer, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the offender has breached an order requiring them to abstain from using drugs and alcohol.

In addition, the bill provides that the court can also impose a condition requiring the individual to provide a sample of a bodily substance at regular intervals. This supplementary condition could be appropriate in cases where there is an increased chance that the offender will have difficulty abstaining from drug or alcohol use or when increased monitoring is needed.

At least seven days must elapse between each sample, but the intervals may vary. Because the probation officer has a direct role in supervising the offender, it is up to the officer to determine the length of the intervals.

This regime contains another important aspect. It offers the possibility of taking samples of more then one type of bodily substance. This concern was raised when the justice department consulted provincial and territorial justice bureaucrats, specialists, police and probation officers in the wake of the Shoker case. All those consulted indicated that the legislation should confer the authority to take various kinds of samples. Thus, any substance included in the growing list of illegal drugs could be identified. It could also be determined when the drugs were taken and what methods offenders use to avoid detection.

Following the consultations, we concluded that, to be effective, a sampling system must be flexible enough not only to meet current requirements, but also to add new requirements over time. To that end, the bill gives the government the power to make regulations governing the types of samples and the authorized methods for taking samples, and to make changes as requirements evolve.

The bill makes it possible for the federal government to confer, by regulation, the authority to take and analyze samples of urine, breath and blood, for example. It may also designate certain types of sampling when the provinces and territories have confirmed their ability in that regard.

I would also like to point out that the authority to make regulations under Bill C-30 has another important role. In fact, it makes it possible to ensure that provincial and territorial representatives responsible for administering the taking of samples do so in accordance with national standards established by the federal government. Although the provinces and territories may determine their own rules for the operational aspects of the system—designating the persons that may take samples, where and when sampling can occur, as well as the manner for storing and destroying samples—the provincial rules are subject to the federal regulatory framework.

This serves two specific objectives. First, each administration can manage the system in its own territory. It can decide on the applicable operational characteristics, which may vary from one administration to the next.

Second, the administrative aspects of the sampling system will not affect the subject's privacy or the samples' integrity. It guarantees that the offenders concerned are treated fairly under this system.

The attorney general of the province will thus be able to designate the persons authorized to take blood samples; however, this discretionary power will be limited by the federal regulations. The regulations could give only qualified doctors the authority to take blood samples; however, the attorney general of the province could choose to further limit the types of qualified doctors authorized to take blood samples in the province. This type of approach could be used to determine not only who is authorized to take the samples but also the types of containers and the methods for storing, analyzing and destroying the samples.

This framework would provide enough flexibility to meet the operational requirements of all 13 provinces and territories while maintaining minimum national standards. In practical terms, this initiative should encourage each administration to collect samples from offenders more frequently, which will result in increased compliance with the prohibition conditions.

I am pleased that we were able to address this major operational issue for the provinces and territories without compromising the need for national privacy and equity standards.

During the consultations held with the provinces and territories following the publication of the Shoker decision, all administrations agreed that authority must be granted to take samples not only in the case of probation orders, but also in the case of conditional sentence orders and recognizances to keep the peace. As I already mentioned, Bill C-30 makes it possible to achieve this objective.

I would like to specify that all provinces and territories are in favour of the sampling regime set out in the bill.

Before closing, I would like to mention the measures taken by the Attorney General of Canada to guarantee the constitutionality of these changes. Given the numerous factors involved, we are convinced that the proposed changes would survive a charter challenge.

Consider the following points. First of all, the use of samples collected by police or probation officers would have to be strictly limited to verifying compliance with a court-ordered abstention condition. Second, the results of the analysis could be disclosed to the offender. Third, the probation officer would have to provide the offender with comprehensive written notice of any obligation to provide a sample at regular intervals, including information as to where and when the sample will be taken. Fourth, there must be a provision whereby a sample may be taken only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has breached the abstention condition. Fifth, anyone who takes part in the taking, handling, storing or destruction of samples would have to obey very specific rules. Sixth, the samples and the results of the analysis would have to be destroyed when the condition expires, unless the analysis is needed as evidence in legal proceedings resulting from a breach.

In closing, I am proud to say that I believe we have introduced a good bill that deserves the support of all members of this House. It is an effective, appropriate response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v. Shoker. It gives police and probation officers the tools they need to ensure that offenders with substance abuse problems take their rehabilitation seriously. It allows courts to impose conditions with the assurance that those conditions can be monitored and enforced. Lastly, this bill has the support of all 13 provinces and territories.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this important initiative.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the government has finally decided to move ahead with this bill. I noticed that the member who just spoke on the government's behalf talked about the fact that ever since the Supreme Court of Canada's 2006 ruling in Regina v. Shoker—and I am trying to cite it correctly—the courts have been unable to force individuals to provide bodily fluid samples. That is why the Conservative government went ahead with this bill. At the end of his speech, he mentioned that the government acted quickly and efficiently after the Shoker decision. That decision came in 2006 and it is now 2010. The government introduced its bill for the first time in 2009, three years after the Shoker decision.

Why did the government wait three years to introduce the bill, let it die when it prorogued the House and then wait 191 days before bringing it up again during the current session of the 40th Parliament? Why?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for her question. Like me, she is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice. This bill required a lot of thought. We must not forget that the Supreme Court of Canada expressed its opinion on the illegality and told the government to redo its homework.

Given that we did not want to fall into the same trap—creating a bill that would be challenged again—we had to start by ensuring that everything happened in consultation with the territorial and provincial attorneys general. Then we had to ensure that we were fixing not one problem, but three. We had to maintain public order, which is covered in section 810 of the Criminal Code. In each case, we had to ensure that both the individual and society would be protected. That can take time, but it is better to introduce something complete than to risk another challenge in a few years' time.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government member whether the bill is complete this time. Are there provisions in this bill to ensure that a sample will be given to the person from whom the sample was taken, so that they can take it to an analyst they trust to verify whether the government or the police properly carried out the analyses?

When we wanted to be able to force someone to provide an alcohol breath sample when there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are driving while impaired, we made provisions for this. So it is nothing new. Is that provision in Bill C-30?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, when we were studying the clauses regarding being under the influence, one clause was not implemented. This clause asked the following question: if someone is arrested by the police and provides a bodily sample, can they take that same sample and have it analyzed by another chemist? This clause was not implemented.

In this case, the mechanics of it are completely different. The primary goal of the bill is to allow society—probation officers, police officers or the courts—to ensure that an individual will not continue to consume alcohol. Otherwise, this individual will cost us a fortune. We must absolutely be able to protect this individual from himself through orders that allow for samples to be taken on different days, for example, every seven days, in order to have proper control over the offender and to ensure that he comes back in good shape. That is what we want.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his introduction of what is now Bill C-30.

I was looking at the Supreme Court of Canada decision made in October 2006 and, as the Liberal member pointed out, it has been over four years now that the government has let this situation deteriorate. The parliamentary secretary just explained that it had to go through some procedures, but a proroguing of the House also delayed matters. The fact is that during all of this time there have been many cases that have passed by us by virtue of the government's delaying.

Does the member have any accounting of how many missed cases have gone by now because of this delay of over four years?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked an excellent question, but I have absolutely no answer. All we know is that many cases are related to drugs and alcohol. I cited some examples in my speech earlier. We do not have any specific information on cases after October 2006. That information might be available in Juristat, but I do not have it on hand. However, I can try to find out.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to how long it has taken this government to take action on this bill.

The Conservative member said that the government did not act immediately after Shoker because it had to hold consultations and it wanted to be certain that the bill was legal and constitutional. It took the government three years, from 2006 to 2009, to introduce its bill for the first time.

I accept that explanation in good faith. However, that does not explain why, after finally introducing the bill, the government waited 62 days, let the bill languish at first reading stage and killed it with prorogation. Prorogation lasted two and a half months. Once the Speech from the Throne was delivered on March 2, 2010, did the government take the first opportunity to reintroduce its bill? No. The government waited 98 days before reintroducing the bill. What is more, instead of immediately moving debate at second reading, the government let this bill languish for 191 days. It was not until today, at the request of the three opposition parties, that the government finally took action. Why?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's question. I would like to point out to her that we introduced a whole series of bills. We have about 20 that are either before the House or the Senate.

I would also like to point out that, until just recently, there have been many bills, Bill S-10 for example, that will soon come before the House. I worked on this bill for almost a year. But what did the Senate do with it? It arrived in the Senate and they ripped it to shreds. We had to start from square one. Sometimes it is our own fault but, other times, both sides are to blame. What is important is that we present a united front in helping the people of Canada. We will also be helping offenders who will now be monitored and who may be forced to obtain treatment for a drug or alcohol addiction. This may help them become better members of our society.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot express how pleased I am to finally be speaking about this bill here in the House at second reading. I have been waiting for four years, almost five, for the government to make a move on this issue. Anyone who knows House procedure knows that the government controls its own agenda.

I can accept the reasons given in the House by the parliamentary secretary to explain why the government waited three years after the Shoker decision to introduce this bill for the first time. However, that explanation became irrelevant once the bill was introduced for the first time.

As I mentioned during questions and comments, the government introduced its bill in 2009. This bill concerning the R. v. Shoker decision was stalled at first reading for 62 days. The government had 62 days to move debate at second reading, but it did not do so. The Liberals cannot do it. The Bloc cannot do it. The New Democratic Party cannot do it. According to the Standing Orders, only the government can move the motion to begin debate at second reading. But for 62 days in 2009, the government decided not to move debate at second reading.

And what did the government do? The Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decided to prorogue the House and Parliament. He shut and locked Parliament's doors from December 2009 to the beginning of March 2010. That brought cries of protest from hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were shocked by this undemocratic move by this Conservative Prime Minister.

I am almost there. The throne speech was read on March 2, 2010. The government could then have reintroduced its bill concerning the Shoker ruling. The NDP asked the following question: how many offenders subject to conditions requiring them to abstain from the consumption of illegal drugs or alcohol are no longer required to comply with these conditions to provide samples of bodily substances as a result of the Shoker ruling? The Conservative parliamentary secretary was unable to answer the question. However, we know that the answer is several thousand.

The government introduced its bill for the first time in the fall of 2009, but killed it with prorogation. Subsequently, in the new parliamentary session that began in March 2010, instead of introducing the bill right away—to ensure that it would be adopted as quickly as possible and to allow the courts to set conditions requiring offenders to provide samples of bodily substances to determine whether they were complying with conditions to not consume alcohol or illegal drugs—the government waited 90 days after the throne speech before again introducing the same bill. A comparison of Bill C-30 and the bill introduced in the first session of the 40th Parliament, in the fall of 2009, shows that not one word or comma was changed.

The government waited 90 days before introducing it again. The government introduced the bill on May 31, 2010.

The House was sitting. We sat until the end of June. With the consent of the official opposition—the Liberal Party of Canada—, with the consent of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—the three opposition parties had already indicated that they were in favour of the bill and that they had no problem with it—the government could have done what it is trying to do today. The same day that it introduced its bill, May 31, 2010, it could have moved debate at second reading, as we are doing today, and then, with the unanimous consent of the House, the bill could have been deemed debated and passed at all stages and immediately sent to the other chamber.

What did the government do instead? People who were convicted of a crime or who were on parole awaiting trial were subject to court-ordered conditions to refrain from consuming alcohol or illegal drugs. What did the Conservative government do to ensure that judges and courts have the legal power to force offenders to provide bodily samples? The government that brags every day about taking care of victims of crime and about combatting crime, what did it do? It waited 191 days before moving debate at second reading. Today is the 192nd day.

This shows the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party of Canada and the hypocrisy of this Conservative government.

If I seem to be angry, it is because I am angry. The government does not cease in saying that it is tough on crime and that it is the only party that is concerned with victims.

How did the government show its concern for victims of all of the crimes that have taken place since the Shoker judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada in 2006 until today and the delays that the government submitted this bill to when it knew that the three opposition parties were prepared to accelerate the movement and adoption of this bill through every stage of this House?

When I was justice critic from January 2007 until January 2008, I personally informed the Conservative government that the Liberals were in favour of this bill and that we would be prepared to accelerate the bill if the government would only bring it forward. Well, the government did not. It only brought it forward in the latter days of 2009. The government knew that the opposition parties were in favour of it, so why did it not move it quickly? Why did it not take advantage of the agreement of all opposition parties to deal with this bill quickly?

I believe it is because the government is not interested in protecting victims. The government is not interested in seeing that we have effective government. The government is interested only in getting political hay from justice files and in sending out thousands of letters begging for donations because only the Conservatives can protect victims.

In fact, when one looks at the actual record of the government, the government does everything not to protect victims. Bill C-30 is the perfect case. It spent 191 days at first reading and waited 98 days between the throne speech and actually re-tabling a bill.

The government is not serious about defending victims because, had it been serious, it would have taken up the offer of the opposition parties to deal with it quickly and this bill would have been the law back in 2009 when the government first tabled it, after waiting almost four years after the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Shoker case.

We would have had thousands of offenders and defendants who would have been submitted to the obligation to provide bodily samples to ensure they were not in breach of the condition not to consume alcohol or use illicit drugs. But, no, the government wanted to play, as it does with virtually every bill, political politics.

Another bill with political politics is the faint hope bill. The parliamentary secretary talked about that bill when he was trying to scramble for a reason that his government waited 98 days, 191 days in this session of the 40th Parliament, and 62 days from tabling first reading in the 1st session of the 40th Parliament, and almost 4 years from the Shoker decision before actually tabling the bill for the first time.

I felt a little sorry for the parliamentary secretary because he seemed to be scrambling to find a reason to justify his government's laxness and lack of seriousness when it comes to protecting victims and ensuring that our justice system is actually effective and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the proper tools to keep our communities safe and to keep Canadians safe.

Why was the parliamentary secretary scrambling? He was scrambling because the government, and he knows it, is not serious about protecting victims. What it is serious about is using the issue of criminal justice to gain some political advantage and to raise money. Virtually every December, just before the House breaks for the Christmas break, we see the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety trot out for a scrum in front of all of the media and talk about how criminal justice is a number one priority for the government, and if only the opposition was not soft on crime and was not trying to back up and delay their bills, all of that would go through.

However, when one looks at the actual record, the party that is slowing down and backing up bills is none other than the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative government.

If one looks at the faint hope clause bill, it was actually adopted by the House of Commons in the last session. It was sent to the Senate and the government's unelected, unrepresentative Conservative senators never moved the vote at second reading.

As I explained right at the beginning, opposition does not control the government's agenda, so opposition members, whether it be in the House or in the Senate, cannot move second reading debate or a vote at second reading. The government has to move it but, guess what? The Prime Minister forgot to tell his senators that the faint hope clause was so important to the Conservative government because it is so concerned about victims. He forgot to tell them because they never moved the vote at second reading in the Senate and only it could move it. Is that not interesting?

Then, the government prorogued, killing its own bill. There were two and a half months of prorogation. The House resumed with the new session of the 40th Parliament on March 2 with the throne speech. Did the government, at the very first opportunity permitted by the rules and procedures of either the House of Commons or the Senate, re-table its faint hope clause bill? No, it did not. How many days did it wait before it re-tabled--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to ask hon. members to wait till questions and comments for the opportunity to raise issues. This member has the floor at the moment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, how many days did the government wait before re-tabling its faint hope clause bill in the identical form it was in when the Conservative government killed it with prorogation? It waited 48 days after the throne speech. Then did the minister immediately move second reading debate because this is a bill that is so important to the Conservative government? No, it did not.

Not the Conservative justice minister, not the Conservative Prime Minister and not one Conservative member of Parliament moved second reading debate. Guess how many days they waited. They waited 98 days. This government and its members, who sit there saying they are tough on crime and are the only ones who care about victims, waited 98 days after waiting 48 days. They are shameless. They are absolutely shameless.

They have no qualms whatsoever about standing in the House day after day and repeating things they know to be completely untrue. They have no qualms about going to the public and repeating things and saying things that they know to be completely untrue. When they are called on their hypocrisy and their untruths, they never answer them directly, never. This is a government and a party without shame.

For the Conservatives to say victims matter to them and then play political football with justice bills is shameless. Shame on each and every one of the Conservative members of Parliament. Shame on them. I have yet to hear one of them stand and scold their own government for delaying their own bills. I have yet to hear that. When the Liberals were on the government side, I did hear Liberal members scold their own government. I have yet to hear it from this Conservative bunch of people.

Liberals are pleased that the government has finally moved second reading debate. Liberals have given their full and unreserved support for this bill. In fact, it is as a result of the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP that the government finally decided to move a motion to deem this bill to have been dealt with and adopted at every stage, a bill that will be consented to unanimously.

That is because of the opposition parties. Not one Conservative member of Parliament stood up for the victims and told his or her own government that it had to move on this and that what was being done was not right, not one of them.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened for the last 15 to 20 minutes and all we have heard in the House was a rant. There was nothing constructive. The bill, apparently, is supported by the Liberal Party. It is correcting an oversight that is going to allow police to do the kind of work needed to apprehend criminals.

The member referred to the faint hope clause. It was debated in committee just two weeks ago. Even though the Liberal Party says it wants to get tough on crime, in fact this is what the member said about eliminating the faint hope clause. These are her words. She stated:

On the issue of repealing the faint hope clause for those...[going forward] Liberals do not support that.

Liberals do not support getting rid of the faint hope clause.

...but we will abstain from voting in [favour of or against that clause] because we believe there will be a window of opportunity of 15 years in which to correct that particular piece of legislation.

It is very clear that the Liberal Party and the member are soft on crime. How does she justify doing something like guaranteeing that her party will some day reinstate the faint hope clause? How can she justify that when Canadians overwhelmingly oppose it and want to get rid of the faint hope clause?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, more to the point is the question of how the member can sit there and watch his Conservative colleagues on the justice committee vote against a Liberal amendment. That amendment would have required the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to notify families of victims of first and second degree murders that the offenders, who are right now in prison, have not used their right to the faint hope clause, to early parole review. It would have required the commissioner to inform them in that same notification of the next date, which under the faint hope clause bill would be five years hence, in order to do exactly what the government says it wants to do with the faint hope clause. That is to alleviate the horror and anxiety that families of victims of murderers have to live with right now, where an offender can apply repeatedly every two years or every year. As soon as he or she is refused, he or she can apply again. Under the faint hope clause it would not allow those applications. It would have to be done at the 15th year, within 180 days, and then if refused, the individual would have to wait five more years.

The government, with its members, voted against requiring the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to notify the families that they are going to have five years of peace. Shame on them. That is not putting victims first.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect.

Surely she noticed that I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice a question regarding the fact that the bill does not contain any clauses to specify that, when a sample of bodily fluids is taken, two should be taken and one of them should be given to the person from whom the sample was taken. The law stipulates that the person can provide evidence to the contrary but how can this be done if the person does not have a sample? I would therefore like to know whether the hon. member's party is open to considering this aspect of the law.

I am astounded that the Conservative government is expecting the people from whom the samples are taken to put all their trust in the machinery of government, when the Conservatives themselves are so suspicious of that machinery. These people are given the theoretical right to dispute the analysis but are not given the means to actually do so. Does the hon. member think that making such an amendment to the bill would improve it?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that this bill does not establish the need to provide a sample to the person from whom the bodily substances were taken. However, I have always thought that, at least in penitentiaries and halfway houses, the entire sample of bodily substances is not usually required for the diagnostic test. Thus, the accused, the inmate or the person subject to the sampling may request that a portion of the sample be sent to a laboratory of his choice, or one that is certified, for example, by the Correctional Service of Canada. This should be carefully examined because we must ensure that procedures are put in place to permit an independent analysis. I hope that the Senate will take a closer look at that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my colleague from the Liberal Party, one of the concerns I have had, and I share with her, is the length of time it has taken to get through. I have been making some inquiries as to how many cases were impossible to enforce.

I am just wondering if the member has had any opportunity to do similar research, because I have not been able to get any indication of that. However, from my own experience in practising law, I would have to think that there are literally hundreds of cases per year, so that we are getting up perhaps to 1,000 to 2,000 cases where our police officers, people who are enforcing probation or parole orders, could not do that effectively.

I am just wondering if the member agrees with that estimate or if she may have more specific knowledge in that regard.