Carole Freeman

[Criminal Code, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at second reading of Bill C-27 , An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).

I believe it is important to debate this matter. With the development of new technologies, we are all confronted, at one point or another, with a situation where we have to identify ourselves by using personal information. For example, we use PINs when doing our banking at an ATM. Just imagine the amount of personal data and the number of financial transactions circulating on the Internet every day. Do we know how businesses and governments manage their immense data bases that contain our personal information? These issues affect everyone, without exception. Our personal information is recorded, catalogued and stored somewhere.

Attempted identity theft is a common occurrence. A thief could find a useful document in your mail. He could use it to pass for you and commit crimes in your name. Scam artists steal names, addresses, and birth dates that they use to apply for loans and credit cards or to open bank accounts in your name. Imagine the damage they could do using your name, not to mention the serious consequences for your reputation and self esteem.

That is why identity theft is a security issue that cannot be ignored. This type of fraud will only grow with the passing of time. Those watching us surely know someone who has been a victim of identity theft. It has disastrous consequences for the victim. It can even lead to misunderstandings with the law because fraudsters can commit crimes and use the identity of their victims. How does an individual whose identity has been stolen prove to the police or government organizations that they were not the one who committed the crime of which they are accused? It is an almost impossible task.

Bill C-27 would curb identify theft by cracking down on the unauthorized collection and use of personal information for illegal purposes. This includes the possession of several private identifiers, such as a name, address, social insurance number, or any personal number that could be used to obtain a service. Bill C-27 would create three new offences that could be punishable by a maximum of five years in prison.

The first offence deals with obtaining and possessing identity information to commit a crime. The second deals with trafficking this personal information and targets individuals who sell or deliberately hand over this information to a third party, knowing that it could be used illegally. The third deals with individuals possessing or trafficking another person's government-issued identity documents.

I remind members that thieves obtain personal information in different ways. Some use direct means, such as highly sophisticated phishing techniques. The RCMP says that criminals also use e-mails or websites that look official, but falsely represent legitimate businesses, financial institutions and government agencies. The goal is to obtain sensitive, personal financial information by phishing the person who receives the e-mail. The public must constantly be vigilant against this type of fraud. This is why people must always be careful when giving out their personal information. They should also find out how their information will be used, why it is being collected, who will view the information and how the information will be protected.

Getting back to Bill C-27, it makes several changes to the Criminal Code in order to curb identity theft. It also creates offences for redirecting mail, the possession of a counterfeit mail key, the possession of instruments for copying credit card data, and the possession of or trafficking in counterfeit documents. In addition, Bill C-27 clarifies the meaning of “personating a person” and renames the offence of “personation” to “identity theft”. It gives the courts a new power to order that, as part of the sentence, the offender make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity.

Finally, the only people exempted are those who make false documents for covert government operations or who allow public officers to create and use covert identities in the exercise of their duties—meaning here law enforcement personnel.

Bill C-27 is intended to keep up with today’s realities because in the near future the identity theft problem is only going to get worse. It is imperative, therefore, to update the Criminal Code and adapt it to current realities as well as possible. According to the Department of Public Safety, identity theft has become one of the fastest growing kinds of crime in Canada and the United States.

I should emphasize, though, that we should be concerned not just about the increase in this kind of crime but also about the costs that we collectively incur as a direct result of this illicit activity.

The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimated that in 2002 alone, consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion as a result of identity theft. According to the RCMP, the total losses due just to credit card fraud in 2003 amounted to $200 million. The complaints filed with the Phone Busters program of the RCMP and the Competition Bureau provide a good example of the social cost of identity theft. Just in 2006, more than $16 million were stolen from Canadians by fraudsters. Phone Busters estimates, though, that this is still just a small percentage of the real losses due to fraud, perhaps about 5%.

Considering individual human beings, we must remember that victims of identity theft are often left with a compromised credit rating and a messy personal and financial situation. Everyone is affected, without exception.

I remember an Ipsos Reid poll in 2006 according to which one-quarter of Canadians or about 5.7 million people said that they had been victimized by identity theft or knew someone who had been. These figures are very telling and clearly demonstrate the need to update the Criminal Code.

However, we are faced with a fundamental problem: Criminal Code offences were defined at the time with the traditional notion of property. The big problem with identity theft is that personal information is not considered property. To apply the provisions of the Criminal Code, there needs to be a direct causal link with an economic loss or serious harm.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to prove that a crime has been committed in the case of identity theft. Although some 40 provisions of the Criminal Code can apply to identity theft, the fact remains that the simple possession and collection of personal information does not constitute a crime. In this case, the Criminal Code becomes a cumbersome tool for fighting identity theft. Its evidence rules are quite strict as well.

On May 8, 2007, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, summed up the legal problem with identity theft quite well at the Standing Committee on Access to Information. She said:

I don't think it's just an issue of the Criminal Code. As you know, our law administrators hesitate to use the Criminal Code: the standards of proof are higher, and the charter may apply, and so very often you have to have a fairly clear-cut case to use the Criminal Code.

Bill C-27 is obviously a step in the right direction to updating the Criminal Code, but I want to reiterate that part of solution would definitely come from concerted action involving the different levels of government, private organizations and the public. Other measures will have to be implemented to effectively fight identity theft, since this is a broad issue that goes beyond the government's capabilities.

For example, the Privacy Commissioner suggested using civil sanctions instead of the Criminal Code for two main reasons: proof is easier to establish, and the procedures are easier for the public to understand.

Appropriately, the commissioner gave the example of small claims court, which could offer easily accessible ways to discourage the growing industry of identity theft.

However, the idea presupposes that the federal government will work closely with the provinces, because much of what is happening in the area of identity theft comes under provincial jurisdiction. I would remind this House that a number of solutions to the problem of identity theft are in the provinces' hands, because they have constitutional authority over property and civil rights, specifically under section 92, subsection 13, on property.

However, this minority government still has a long way to go in this area. True to form, this government, which should be working with the provinces to combat identity theft, preferred to make a few changes to the Criminal Code that do little to address the problem. Before giving the provinces new responsibilities for enforcing the Criminal Code, did the government make sure they had the resources to enforce the new provisions on identity theft?

The government should try leading by example when it comes to protecting and managing personal information. The federal government is proposing to penalize people who make fraudulent use of identity documents such as social insurance cards. Yet in June 2006, we learned that the Auditor General estimated there were 2.9 million more social insurance numbers in circulation than the estimated number of Canadians aged 30 and over. It makes you wonder.

What is more, in September 2003, six computers were stolen from the Laval offices of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, including a laptop containing personal information on 120,000 taxpayers and 600 federal taxation employees. I am dismayed by the government's behaviour, which tells me that a number of practices need to be reviewed.

Several federal departments and agencies are interested in identity theft, but these efforts do not seem to have produced a concerted strategy for dealing with this enormous problem. Nonetheless, identity theft is an issue that the federal government cannot tackle on its own, but this should not stop the federal government from developing a more focused strategy for channeling its efforts.

It would also be worth having better definitions of the concepts that identity theft involves. Although the subject has received a great deal of attention from the media, academics, enforcement agencies and government, there is still debate over the definition of identity theft. The term is used to include everything from simple cases of fraud when someone forges a cheque or uses a stolen credit card to purchase goods to very sophisticated cases of “synthetic identity theft” where the impostor creates a new identity using a combination of actual information and fabricated personal information.

Similarly, we do not have a clear idea of the sources of the personal information being used. Some studies have suggested that much of the information comes from within organizations; other studies claim that identity theft is usually perpetrated by people who are known to the victims. Media stories about large scale data breaches in which laptops have been lost or hackers have been able to gain access to credit card information have become commonplace, but we do not have a clear picture of how often these data breaches result in identity theft.

I would nonetheless point out that Canada has privacy legislation that places limits on the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by the private sector. It requires organizations to protect the information they collect. There are several provisions in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) which, if the organizations covered by the Act respect those provisions, can significantly reduce the risk of identity theft.

That Act also imposes limits on how long organizations engaged in commercial activities should retain personal information. By getting rid of information they no longer need, organizations reduce the risk of identity theft. But the destruction process must involve more than throwing paper records or hard drives into the nearest dumpster, as we have seen happen.

I would conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-27 on second reading so that it can be sent to committee. Nonetheless, I, like my colleagues, strongly believe that merely amending the Criminal Code will not be sufficient to solve the identity theft problem.

Other measures will have to be developed by the various governments to combat this problem. One that we are proposing is that the public be educated in order to reduce victimization. Educating people about how to protect themselves against identity thieves is another key element to fighting this kind of fraud. As well, strengthening the regulations to provide more stringent oversight of how personal information is managed by businesses can only be a good thing.

As a final point, measures to promote greater uniformity and security in the process of issuing and verifying identification documents seem to be essential.

[Judges Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join the debate on something that directly affects the proper functioning of our justice system and thus the people of Quebec and Canada. I am talking about Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act.

The purpose of the bill is to allow a greater number of judges to be appointed to superior courts of the provinces, or 20 more judges than the current limit. The intention of this increase is to improve the flexibility of the justice system in order to process the many cases before the superior courts more quickly and more efficiently. The bill will also allow judges from superior courts to be assigned to the new specific claims tribunal, which was created by the Specific Claims Tribunal Act.

I should mention, with respect to this bill, that my constituents have often talked to me about how cumbersome and slow the current justice system is. However, let us make a distinction between cliché and reality. We have to acknowledge that the complexity of the cases, the proceedings, the needless procedures and a shortage of judges are causing delays. Nonetheless, I know that the increased number of cases, in family law in particular, is such that parents in Quebec sometimes have to wait several months before their alimony or custody case is finally settled by a judge.

This is an unfortunate situation, but it is so because the number of judges provided for under the Judges Act has not changed for years. Accordingly, the Act does not take into account the population increase and the resulting new social realities, including divorce and increasingly complex cases.

At present, the Judges Act provides for a Chief Justice, a Senior Associate Chief Justice and an Associate Chief Justice for the Superior Court of Quebec, and for 140 other judges. For anyone who knows a little bit about the judicial system in Quebec, I would point out that the Superior Court hears civil and commercial cases where the amount at issue is over $70,000, administrative and family law cases, bankruptcy cases, jury trials and criminal trials, and appeals in summary conviction cases.

Under paragraph 24(3)(b) of the Judges Act, the Superior Court of Quebec may still appoint 30 new judges, above and beyond its current 144 judges, to meet the needs that arise. Under Bill C-31, it could go ahead and have 50 additional judges. Clearly, that amounts to a ceiling that is higher than the one we have now by 20 judges.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois and myself, adding judges to handle the many cases before the courts is part of the solution for improving access to justice. Undeniably, it is the government’s duty to make sure that the public has access to the courts when they need it, that all accused persons are able to stand trial within a reasonable time, and that the system is not handicapped by a shortage of judges.

However, this must not become a panacea! I say this while at the same time believing that Bill C-31 is not a bad bill—quite the contrary—but the intended effects could be diminished by the ideology of this minority government, focused as it is on “law and order”. This approach concerns me, and I would like to share my concerns with my distinguished colleagues and with the general public watching us today.

In my speeches in the past, and in my work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have frequently referred to my grave concern about the enforcement-oriented approach taken by the Conservatives. It has expanded considerably since this government changed the rules for the judicial advisory committees. In my view, this manoeuvre by the Conservatives, along with a number of others I will talk about later, suggests that these amendments are somewhat secondary details in their minds.

Why is it so important to debate this? Because every one of our fellow citizens expects to have an impartial, objective judicial system, where they feel protected from any political or ideological position that might influence a judgment. It seems, however, that the recent judicial appointments made by this government do not adhere to the idea of impartiality that the public expects. This interventionist attitude is extremely disturbing, and I believe it is important that people be made aware of what this minority government is doing and planning to do to ensure that its “law and order” ideology can be implemented smoothly.

In the case of judicial appointments, my colleagues will stand firmly behind me when I say that we have to try to strike a balance. That is why our judicial system is founded on an independent judiciary.

The Bloc Québécois has been saying for a long time now in this House that we are looking forward to the day when there will no longer be partisan appointments to the judiciary, when we will have independent committees selecting our judges, selecting people with the very best qualifications.

I am not saying the current judiciary is not qualified, but I am saying that often judges are appointed in a partisan and political manner. The media regularly decries this practice and shares its displeasure with the public, who in turn become cynical. The government must not try to appoint judges that suit its ideology, because that could interfere with the impartiality of the courts, a fundamental rule of justice shared by all citizens.

Once again, to all those who are not very familiar with the judicial appointment system, it has often been debated because of the political interference that has been found.

The problem currently before us is twofold: on one hand this minority government has changed the judicial appointment process; on the other hand it is taking advantage of these changes to ensure a position on the judiciary for candidates who are ideologically in favour of or well connected, directly or indirectly, to the Conservative Party.

Let us be clear: this practice was not invented by the Conservatives, since they themselves have criticized the Liberals for doing the same thing in the past. However, these accusations illustrate the extent of the problem of appointing judges and the impartiality of the justice system.

For those who are watching us, I will provide some context by saying that judges are appointed by the government from a list made by a judicial advisory committee whose members voted for the candidate they deem best qualified.

Before the changes made by the Conservatives, the advisory committees had seven members. Out of seven evaluators, four members were politically independent, in other words, there was a representative from the Canadian Bar Association, another from the bar of the province concerned, a representative of the provincial department and, finally, someone to represent the judges. The three other members were appointed by the federal Department of Justice came from the public. These individuals frequently subscribed to the ideas of the government of the day.

It is important to realize that, as it turned out, the federal government was in the minority on that committee and therefore could not impose a candidate.

Nevertheless, the Conservative government was not happy about this situation because it would have had a hard time passing its political “law and order” agenda for justice. So without consulting the legal community, my colleague from Provencher, who was then Minister of Justice, changed the makeup of the advisory committees as follows: First, in addition to the three members of the public, he decided to appoint a police officer, thereby ensuring that four members would be government supporters. Then he denied the judges' representative the right to vote except to break a tie. And there you have it. The government gave itself a majority on these committees and was able to impose its repressive “law and order” ideology with ease.

I can already hear people protesting that this will not compromise the qualifications of those appointed, that we are exaggerating, or that we think this creates opportunities to interfere even though it does not.

However, various events have proven us right. I am not just talking about a few isolated cases. I am talking about a system that has a direct impact on the objectivity of our legal system.

I would like to draw to my distinguished colleagues' attention the results of The Globe and Mail's investigation into the matter, published on February 12, 2007, which showed that, apart from the police officers, no fewer than 16 of the 33 individuals appointed to 12 advisory committees were connected in some way to the Conservative Party. Sixteen of them. Coincidence? Unlikely. The newspaper revealed a number of cases where the connection was extremely clear.

Once again, some may say that this does not mean the individuals are not well suited to the job, that there is no conflict here, and that nobody is trying to push any agenda whatsoever. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In response to repeated questions about these appointments, the Prime Minister's own statements indicated that our concerns about changes to the advisory committees were well founded.

The Prime Minister said, on February 15, 2007, in this House, “We want to make sure we are bringing forward laws to make sure that we crack down on crime, that we make our streets and communities safer. We want to make sure our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives”. The result is that they add a police officer and make partisan appointments to the advisory committees and take the vote away from the judiciary!

I have no hesitation in saying that our police officers do very honourable work. That does not mean, though, that they are necessarily the best qualified to participate in the appointment of judges who hear mostly non-criminal cases. I should say as well that police officers represent primarily the executive branch of government, which is subject to judicial control. The presence of a police officer on a committee of this kind would further undermine the separation of powers on which our constitutional state is based.

It is blatantly obvious, therefore, that citizens cannot count on an impartial judicial system so long as this scheme is in place. When it comes to justice, this government should think long and hard about its real objectives.

When we look at the concerns I have listed—the political manoeuvring surrounding the evaluation committees, the elimination of a program like the legal challenges program, and the law and order ideology of this government—I am puzzled by the proposals in Bill C-31 to improve the legal system.

Certainly, more judges should improve access to justice, but if the Conservative ideology is rapidly implemented, how will the proposed change in Bill C-31 be enough to meet the demand? If the Conservatives want to punish rather than prevent, the legal system will quickly become overloaded. At the other end of the spectrum, adding judges will not do any good when people do not have the means to exercise their rights.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-31. Maybe some things can be clarified during study in committee. In any case, though, the problem remains: partisanship will always play a major role in the selection of judges regardless of the total number of judges on a superior court. The Bloc Québécois will always continue the fight to eliminate partisan appointments to the bench. It will do all it can to help the people get truly independent committees that choose judges in such a way that we get those who are most competent.

[Judges Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. With regard to the bill we are debating today, increasing the number of judges appointed may seem very pertinent given that every citizen has the right to have access to justice and the courts are backed up. This could be a very interesting bill.

However, over the past two years, we have become accustomed to having the governing party introduce very repressive laws, which have multiplied the number of trials. On the one hand, they wish to appoint more judges and, on the other hand, they have increased considerably the burden of access to justice because of the multiplicity of trials.

I would like to know what the parliamentary secretary has to say about this situation. They are trying to solve one problem but the proliferation of laws has created another. How do we find balance?

[Human Rights Day, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Human Rights Day, which is an opportunity for the international community to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its desire to eliminate torture once and for all.

This year's theme is “End torture now!” The Bloc Québécois is very concerned about the Conservative government's attitude towards human rights, particularly when it comes to Afghan prisoners. It originally denied allegations of torture, then it hid reports, and in the end, it reluctantly admitted that there was a possibility the prisoners were tortured.

In November, Amnesty International actually expressed its doubts about Canada's willingness to get to the bottom of these allegations of torture. On top of that, this government will not call for a moratorium on the death penalty at the UN.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I are very worried.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate at second reading on Bill C-423, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (treatment for substance abuse).

Essentially, Bill C-423 adds two new provisions to this act to flesh it out more with respect to young addicts.

Briefly, the bill introduced by the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont provides that a police officer must, before starting judicial proceedings or taking any other measures under this act against a young person alleged to have committed an offence, consider whether it would be sufficient to refer the young person to an addiction specialist for assessment and, if warranted, treatment recommendations.

Bill C-423 would also add a clause at the end of section 6 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act stipulating that if the young person enters into a treatment program as a result of such a referral and fails to complete the program, the outcome may be the start of judicial proceedings against that young person.

In my opinion, Bill C-423 is a welcome change from the justice bills introduced by this government since it came to power. Instead of the usual Conservative “law and order” ideology that, under the pretext of protecting public safety, would send more people to prison without reducing the root causes of crime, Bill C-423 offers valid alternatives to incarcerating minors, which is more important.

To all those who are watching us, I want to say that a strictly punishment-oriented public safety strategy will never make our societies more vibrant or our prisons less overpopulated. In my opinion, when young people become involved in the criminal justice system, it can exacerbate the problem and be very costly. These are negative results that have an impact not only on the individual involved, but on society as a whole. This situation must therefore be avoided whenever possible.

Consequently, the approach taken by Bill C-423 is commendable: the bill presupposes that prosecution is the final step in the fight against crime and is warranted only if all other valid options have been tried. This bill could reduce the number of young people in court and consequently the number of youth in our penitentiaries.

I would also like to remind all of my distinguished colleagues here in this House that prison will always be a crime school, a place where individuals harbour lingering, disgruntled resentment toward society. The decision to incarcerate an individual should be based on the seriousness of the crime committed and on how dangerous the criminal is.

That is why I have always promoted “restorative justice”, an idea supported by the Bloc Québécois that seeks to rehabilitate the offender by creating awareness of the seriousness of the crime and by repairing the damage done to the community or the people affected.

Not only does Bill C-423 attempt to keep young addicts from appearing before a court, it calls on the law enforcement community to use good judgment in order to give an offender a second chance. In a way, it emphasizes the confidence that we have in police officers and their duty to ensure a safer society.

This is an interesting element that would reinforce a positive image of police forces in public opinion. It is also in line with section 6 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which gives police officers the option to keep young offenders out of court by making it possible to choose another remedy, such as a drug treatment program.

However, I do have some concerns about this bill. With respect to the provisions in Bill C-423, we must ensure that the provinces are responsible for providing these drug treatment programs. For example, in Quebec, these programs are administered through health and social services agencies. Sufficient resources must be made available to offer the treatments called for in this bill.

I am also a little confused about how effective this bill can be within the framework of the minority government's vision for justice. I think that the intent behind Bill C-423 would be directly or indirectly affected by the new anti-drug strategy announced on October 4. I think that this approach, which is a repressive one, as usual, does not acknowledge the importance of prevention in the war on drugs.

Also, it is unfortunate that so little money, only approximately $10 million, is being allocated to measures to ensure the rehabilitation of our young people.

With that in mind, it would be nice to see this government take greater inspiration from the ideas proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont in the context of Bill C-423. His proposals should resonate even more within his caucus, which focuses too much on a repressive ideology centred on an illusion of safety that, unfortunately, did not produce the desired results for our neighbours to the south in terms of effectively reducing crime.

Once again, as I was saying earlier and as I have said during several debates on previous bills, specific realities are breeding grounds of crime and drug use. One such reality is poverty, which appears even more obvious to us now, with the holiday season just around the corner. Like my colleagues, I firmly believe that a greater sharing of riches, working toward better social integration and emphasizing rehabilitation represent essential solutions for the prevention of crime and substance abuse. Unfortunately, this government always has that unproductive tendency to ignore those approaches. It thinks it can achieve security by filling the penitentiaries.

In any case, I would like to conclude by emphasizing the noble intention of the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. In my opinion, this bill offers an important balance between rehabilitation and the vigilance needed when people refuse to take advantage of opportunities presented to them. It also respects the tenets I listed earlier regarding ways to reduce crime, giving young substance abusers a second chance by taking part in a detox program.

I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of initiatives that propose serious alternatives to incarceration, especially when it comes to minors. This is why we will support Bill C-423, so it may be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further study.

[Foreign Affairs, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today the opposition members of Parliament are sending a joint letter to the Governor of Montana calling for Ronald Smith's death sentence to be commuted by reason that under Canadian law, the death sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to take this opportunity to join his voice to the voices of the opposition members to intervene with the Governor of Montana in order to have Mr. Smith's sentence commuted?

[Foreign Affairs, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's position on criminal justice abroad is completely inconsistent. On one hand, the government is saying it does not want to reinstate the death penalty here, but, on the other hand, it is refusing to sponsor a UN proposal for a moratorium on the death penalty.

Could the government explain this moral double standard of abolishing the death penalty here and tolerating it abroad?

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, as the Bloc Québécois and Quebec society are doing, if the government were to approach—

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the dangerous offenders bill would make the following amendment. A third primary designated offence would trigger reverse onus, making the accused responsible for proving that he is not a danger to society. The dangerous offender principle remains the same for the other offences. A person may be declared a dangerous offender upon committing a first offence.

This bill would amend the legislation so that after three primary designated offences, onus is reversed. The list comprises 12 offences, so it would be too long to read here. This means that it is no longer up to the Crown to prove that an individual is a dangerous offender; it is up to the offender to prove that he is not.

I would note that this is a perilous undertaking, and a difficult one. Individuals must prove what they are not and must show that they will not pose a risk. Proving that one will not pose a risk in the future is next to impossible. As such, members of the Bloc Québécois find this proposal very unusual.

To get back to my colleague's question, a person can be declared a dangerous offender after the first or second offence. This bill only amends things with respect to the burden of proof. I would note that every step of the way, this Conservative government has been introducing legislation that reverses onus. We have to take a closer look at this because it is getting pretty serious.

Our criminal law system is based on presumption of innocence. It is becoming increasingly clear that with its various bills, this government is using a variety of excuses to constantly reverse onus in its attempt to distort the criminal law system that has been in place since the Constitution.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate at report stage of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Briefly, on October 18, the Minister of Justice tabled omnibus Bill C-2, which regroups the main “law and order“ bills that were introduced by the government, during the first session of the 39th Parliament.

Indeed, Bill C-2 includes defunct Bills C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

Those who are listening to us should know that this government bill provides nothing new. During the last session, I had the opportunity to take part in the debate and to express Quebec's vision on justice, as it relates to several of those bills.

In fact, before prorogation, three of those bills were already before the Senate, namely Bills C-10, C-22 and C-35. As for the other two, that is Bills C-27 and C-32, they were in the last stages of the parliamentary process in the House.

However, all these bills died on the order paper, when the Conservative government itself decided, for purely partisan motives, to end the parliamentary session and to present a new Speech from the Throne.

Today, we find ourselves debating again the work that has already been accomplished in the House. This is why, when the government pretends to be the only one going to bat for innocent people through rehashed and amended legislation, I cannot help but wonder about such a preposterous claim.

The people of Quebec deserve that crime be tackled seriously, without playing petty politics with fundamental rights, and, above all, they deserve to be presented with the real picture. For those interested in politics, I point out that the Bloc Québécois was fully involved in the review process for Bill C-2, in spite of the very tight timeframe, to consider all aspects of that bill. My colleagues and myself believe that any bill of such importance, which could have such a significant impact on the people, has to be thoroughly examined.

It would, however, be somewhat tedious to examine again amendments made previously. With respect to former bills C-10, C-22 and C-35, in our opinion, the parliamentary debate has already taken place and the House has already voted in favour of those bills. We therefore respect the democratic choice that has been made. As for former Bill C-32, which died on the order paper before report stage, we had already announced our intention: we would be opposing it. This brings me to the part stemming from former Bill C-27, about which we expressed serious reservations at the time but which we nonetheless examined in committee so that it would be reviewed responsibly.

In short, the provisions in Bill C-2 which stem from former Bill C-27 amend the Criminal Code to provide that the court shall find an offender who has been convicted of three serious crimes to be a dangerous offender, unless the judge is satisfied that the protection of society can be appropriately ensured with a lesser sentence.

At present, the dangerous offender designation is limited to very serious crimes, such as murder, rape and many others, and to individuals who present a substantial risk to reoffend. An individual may be found to be a dangerous offender on a first conviction, when the brutality and circumstances of the offence leave no hope of the individual ever being rehabilitated.

We have some concerns regarding Bill C-27, particularly the impact of designating a greater number of dangerous offenders and reversing the onus of proof, two processes that definitely increase the number of inmates and that are contrary to the wishes of Quebeckers as to how offenders should be controlled.

We are not the only ones who have expressed concerns with regard to this aspect of Bill C-27. My colleague for Windsor—Tecumseh is proposing an amendment today that would remove the reverse onus of proof found in this bill. He believes it would not survive a charter challenge. Even though we realize that this amendment could lead to improvements in Bill C-2, we will reject it because the Conservative government, in attempting to govern with contempt for the majority in the House of Commons, would link this amendment to a confidence vote.

With regard to amendments, I repeat that the Bloc Québécois is aware that many improvements must be made to the current judicial system and that changes to the Criminal Code are required. The government must intervene and use the tools at its disposal enabling citizens to live in peace and safety. In our own meetings with citizens we identified specific concerns as well as the desire to change things by using an original approach. We wanted to make a positive contribution meeting the aspirations of our fellow citizens.

We therefore proposed a number of amendments that my colleague the member for Hochelaga, right here, worked very hard on with the caucus. We prepared a series of amendments to improve the bill and the justice system. These are complementary measures that will strengthen its effectiveness.

We proposed, among other things, realistic amendments to eliminate parole being granted almost automatically after one-sixth of a sentence has been served and statutory release once two-thirds of a sentence has been served, by having a professional formally assess inmates regarding the overall risk of reoffending that they represent to the community.

Another amendment was aimed at attacking the street gang problem—with which my colleague from Hochelaga is very familiar—by giving the police better tools, in particular, by extending the warrants for investigations using GPS tracking.

We put forward many other amendments. Unfortunately, none of them was accepted, even though some amendments are unanimously supported by the public security ministers of Quebec and other provinces. Consequently, Bill C-2 was not amended in any way during committee review. It is a shame that the Conservative government once again preferred an approach based on ideology rather than democracy. It preferred to combine bills that, for the most part, had already been approved by the House of Commons, rather than focusing on some others that deserved very close examination. Above all, it is refusing to improve Bill C-2 with respect to practical priorities.

In putting forward its amendments, the Bloc Québécois has remained consistent with its objective of using effective and appropriate measures to evaluate the relevance of each bill. It has also demonstrated its concern for prevention of crime, which should be high priority. Attacking the deep-rooted causes of delinquency and violence, rather than cracking down when a problem arises is, in our opinion, a more appropriate and, above all, more profitable approach from both a social and financial point of view.

That must be very clear. The first step must be to deal with poverty, inequality and exclusion in all forms. These are the issues that create a fertile breeding ground for frustration and its outlets, which are violence and criminal activity.

However, it is essential that the measures presented should actually make a positive contribution to fighting crime. It must be more than just rhetoric or a campaign based on fear. It must be more than an imitation of the American model and its less than convincing results.

I mention the important fact that for the past 15 years criminal activity has been steadily decreasing in Quebec, as it has elsewhere in Canada. Statistics Canada confirmed just recently that for the year 2006 the overall crime rate in Canada was at its lowest level in more than 25 years. What is more, Quebec recorded the smallest number of homicides since 1962. Indeed, in violent crimes, Quebec ranks second, just behind Prince Edward Island. Quebec also recorded a drop of 4% in the crime rate among young people in 2006, which was better than all other provinces. Those are solid facts which should serve as an example to this government and on which it should base its actions.

I will close by saying that we will be supporting Bill C-2 at third reading, on its way to the Senate. However, I remind the House that we were in favour of four of the five bills that are now included in Bill C-2 and those bills would have already been far advanced in the parliamentary process if the government had not prorogued the House for purely partisan reasons.