Marlene Jennings

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

What Canadians may not know is that a dangerous offender hearing costs approximately $100,000. Therefore, many crown prosecutors, even if they believe the offender is a dangerous offender, may decide not to make an application for a hearing because they do not have the budget for it or because it is very time consuming. Therefore, it should not be left to their discretion. It should be made mandatory. I hope, given the comments of that Conservative member, that he at least would support such an amendment to the bill.

I hope that he would also support an amendment that would make a breach of a long term offender order an automatic trigger for a dangerous offender hearing. I hope he would support it and talk to his justice minister and other ministers, including the Minister of the Environment, who seems to be having a great deal of fun heckling while I am speaking, to convince them that they are good amendments.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

So therefore, the dangerous offender system needs to be improved and we believe that our amendments, which would make dangerous offender hearings mandatory on a third conviction of the most serious personal injury criminal acts, would actually strengthen the dangerous offender act; it would not be as the Conservatives intend to do with Bill C-27 as it is now written and leave it to the discretion of the crown prosecutor.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

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.

[May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary wants to give a few quotes, let me do the same.

We've always said that information is the lifeblood of policing.

The more information we can give our front-line officers, the better position they're in to perform their duties. If the registry is shut down or even if the long-gun registry is shut down, they're going to lose an important database of information and that would be very unfortunate.

That was stated by Chief Jack Ewatski, President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Chief of the Winnipeg police force, in the Globe and Mail, on May 16, 2006.

“Our last six or seven police officers were killed with long guns. That's very sad”. That was said by Tony Cannavino, President of the Canadian Professional Police Association on May 16, 2006 on CTV news explaining that gun—

[May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on April 18 during question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety a question concerning whether or not the minister would bring forth the government's own legislation, which would abolish the firearms registry, for debate at second reading in this House and whether he would have a vote on the firearms registry. I asked him if he did in fact bring it forth if he would respect the will of Parliament once and for all.

The Minister of Public Safety simply went around the question. He did not answer it. He talked about how he has met with the president of the Canadian Police Association and that we are getting there and we are going to begin the process of seeing 2,500 more municipal officers right around the country.

There are two things here. First, the Conservatives' commitment during the last election in 2006 that they would engage and allow provinces to hire 2,500 more municipal police officers has been a big fat zero. It is a promise that this government has not kept. It has not budgeted money in its 2006 budget, nor in its 2007 budget, in order to provide extra resources to the provincial and territorial governments so that they might have money to hire more police officers at the municipal level.

Second, and even more important, this is a government that has been trying to make political hay and headlines by saying that the opposition is stalling its justice and law and order agenda. This is a government that brought in legislation last June to abolish the firearms registry, to virtually gut the firearms registry, and this government has not had the courage to move a motion to have that bill debated at second reading. It is almost a year to the day since the Conservatives tabled that legislation. Why have they not brought a motion to have this House debate their bill that would gut the firearms registry, to have it debated in this House and voted on?

If he wants to talk about Tony Cannavino, the president of the Canadian Professional Police Association, let me read for members the association's firearms registry motion: “The Canadian Professional Police Association (CPPA) supports a firearms registry system that provides accurate information on all firearms”, not just handguns, but long guns as well, “and is accessible to police officers in a timely manner to improve the safety of all police officers and community members in Canada”.

That is interesting. The Canadian Professional Police Association has recommended to this government not just to maintain the firearms registry but to ensure that all firearms are in fact registered. That is in direct opposition to what this government has attempted to do with its legislation.

However, this government will not put its pants on and put its courage behind its political decision. If the Conservatives are so certain of their political position on the firearms registry, I ask the Minister of Public Safety, as I asked him on April 18, to move a motion for second reading debate of the Conservatives' bill on the firearms registry. Let us have the debate in the House. Let us have the vote in the House. Let them abide by the results of the vote.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member about the issue of the repeal of section 159. Section 159 is the section of the Criminal Code that makes anal intercourse a criminal act for anyone under the age of 18. Right now all other sexual acts are legal as of the age of 14. This legislation would make 16 the age of consent, meaning that sexual activity under the age of 16 would prima facie be criminal, but there is protection for closeness in age.

However, the government, knowing that two appellate courts, that of Ontario and that of Quebec, have ruled that section 159 is a violation of the charter, is anti-constitutional and should have no effect, decided in its wisdom not to harmonize the age of consent for all sexual activity. Rather, it preferred to leave that section on the books. Not only did the government do that, but it then opposed an amendment that I attempted to bring in committee in order to repeal that section.

I would like to know what the member thinks about a government that has an opportunity to ensure that a discriminatory and homophobic section of the Criminal Code, which has been deemed to be that by our appellate courts, but decides not to take advantage of its Bill C-22, which we Liberals do support, to harmonize that and to ensure that there are no longer any homophobic and discriminatory sections in the Criminal Code.

[New Democratic Party, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to denounce a bizarre political alliance, a sort of perverse marriage between the NDP and the minority Conservative government.

To everyone's surprise, we learned earlier this week that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh supported a series of retrograde amendments to Bill C-10. These amendments were tabled by none other than the member for Fundy Royal. Who would have believed it?

It is sad to see the NDP's enthusiastic support for such a reactionary government. This is not the first time; we all remember the travesty of the income trusts and the loyal support provided by the NDP.

There is no longer any doubt about the fact that the real opposition to the current government is the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that members of the Liberal caucus take very seriously the preoccupations and concerns that she raised about the possibility that the objective of this bill, while being the protection of our young people, could in fact have an unintended consequence in the sense of discouraging young people from getting sex health information. I am very aware of that. It is a real concern and we do share it. However, we have decided that we will nonetheless support this bill.

One question I do have, though, which I am not sure if this member addressed in her remarks on Bill C-22, is the issue of the government's decision not to repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code. That section, as the member would know, makes anal sexual intercourse for anyone under the age of 18 a criminal act and has been found to be a violation of the charter. It was found to be unconstitutional by two appellate courts, a court of Ontario I believe and the appellate court of Quebec.

This government had the opportunity, when it addressed the age of consent, to harmonize all pieces of the Criminal Code in order to ensure that there were no discriminatory sections of the Criminal Code and decided not to repeal section 159. Then again, in committee, when I brought an amendment to committee, it decided not to support that.

Even when there is a ruling that an amendment is outside the scope of a bill, the government, if it chooses to decide that it may be outside the scope of a bill but is something that was neglected and is in favour of it, can allow the amendment to go forward, and this government did not. I would like to hear what the member from the NDP has to say on that particular issue.