Marlene Jennings

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member's question, I was not rambling on. First, I was giving precise dates for the procedure and tracking of this bill in response to a comment from the parliamentary secretary of the member's own government.

Second, I was also making a point in response to a comment of his own parliamentary secretary on the delay of this bill, in pointing out that the Liberal Party, the official opposition, had on four separate occasions attempted to see this bill in particular, along with others, fast tracked. It was the member's own government that blocked it every single time. It is the first time that I have seen a government blocking speedy passage of its own legislation, but it is up to those members to explain that.

Yes, I believe that Bill C-22, with this amendment, actually is a good bill. It is a better bill because of the amendment.

We heard expert testimony from justice officials themselves that we are talking about a very small percentage, a handful of those cases every year. In fact, the justice official, Carole Morency, said that according to the justice department projections we would not be talking about more than five individuals under the age of 16 but above the age of 14 who, if this bill came into effect, would find themselves in a situation where we are talking about marriage, and there would be a defence because their legal spouse would be more than five years older.

Because that same expert was able to explain what the conditions are for the solemnization of marriage in each of the 10 provinces and the territories, it reassured members of the committee that there in fact is a very clear legislative process. In most cases, we would be talking about a judge having to give consent to a marriage of that kind of couple, where one partner is under the age of 16, but over 14, and the other partner is more than five years or more older.

Therefore, the opposition parties felt that, given that a judge or a magistrate under the provincial law would have to give formal consent, it meant that the couple would have been considered in regard to whether or not the relationship had been sexually exploitive, et cetera. Therefore, we were comforted by that testimony we heard.

So yes, I think Bill C-22 is a good bill, and that is why the official opposition, the Liberal Party, is supporting it. That is why for months on end we attempted to have it fast tracked. We are thrilled that the bill is finally in the House. We hope the government will stop stalling the speedy passage of its own justice legislation.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak at the report stage on Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection).

I would like to say, for those who are listening, that the Liberal Party of Canada supports this legislation.

Before I begin discussing the bill in detail, I wish to briefly address several remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in his speech several minutes ago. He said that there were delays with the bill and that the government was happy that the bill was finally at this stage.

I wish to inform people that the Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-22 in the House of Commons on June 22, 2006. The House then adjourned for the summer. It came back at the end of September.

It is the government's prerogative to determine when it wants to move second reading and debate of its own legislation. The government moved debate at second reading on October 30, 2006. This was after the Liberal justice strategy was announced, after Liberals and the then Liberal justice critic offered to fast-track Bill C-22 and a number of other justice bills that the Conservative government had tabled.

Debate at second reading ended on October 30, 2006, which meant that there was an agreement by all parties not to delay debate in the House and to get the bill into committee as quickly as possible. It was referred to the justice and human rights committee, which was already conducting hearings on a series of other government bills and private members' bills.

The justice and human rights committee held hearings on Bill C-22, the age of protection bill, on March 21, March 22, March 27 and March 29, 2007. Members will remember that there was a two week adjournment for the Easter period.

The House returned on April 16 and the justice and human rights committee, which is scheduled to meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays, met on Tuesday, April 17 and on Thursday, April 19. The committee concluded its clause by clause and reported the bill back to the House on April 23.

The government decides when to move debate at report stage and it only decided to move Bill C-22 at report stage this week. It was in a line of bills for which the government determines the order.

If any member of that government is dissatisfied with the length of time it has taken for Bill C-22 to pass through second reading debate, committee stage and reported back, and now be at report stage debate, they need only to look at themselves in the mirror.

As the House knows, the bill has returned to the House from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It has been reported with an amendment, as was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

The amendment added marriage as a defence where an accused is charged with: sexual interference, which is section 151 of the Criminal Code; invitation to sexual touching, section 152 of the Criminal Code; indecent acts, section 173.2 of the Criminal Code; and sexual assault, section 271 of the Criminal Code, in cases where the complainant is 14 years or older but under the age of 16. We Liberals worked alongside the other parties to bring this amendment through.

We are happy to see it included in the committee's report on the bill. We are also happy that, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative members on the justice and human rights committee, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, opposed the amendment in committee, those members have not brought forth a motion to amend the report stage bill and remove that defence.

I had proposed an amendment to the bill. The amendment would have repealed section 159 of the Criminal Code. This section sets out anal intercourse as a criminal offence. This outdated section of the Criminal Code is a relic of Canada's past and in fact has been found contrary to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Two appellate courts, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario, reached this conclusion.

When the government drafted Bill C-22, it could have acted then to remove this archaic section of the Criminal Code or, having failed to do that, perhaps through inadvertence--I gave them the benefit of the doubt that it was by inadvertence--the government at that point could have supported my amendment in committee, because even if an amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, if the government agrees to the amendment it is then admissible and can be debated, voted on and adopted.

The government, however, decided on two occasions, when it was forced to take on the issue with this outmoded, archaic section of the Criminal Code, which is clearly a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that it would instead champion discrimination and homophobia. I think this speaks volumes to that Conservative government's values and the members of that government.

Be that as it may, the bill did pass through the committee without other changes. The committee hearings on Bill C-22 proceeded smoothly and brought forth the views of many Canadian individuals and organizations who have a stake in this issue. Most stakeholders spoke in favour of the bill, while some did speak against it.

Among all parties there was a strong desire to support the bill and to see it clear the committee process quickly and efficiently. I believe the dates that I mentioned show that this is exactly what we achieved.

I would like to repeat that our party supports Bill C-22. Since October 2006, we have repeatedly offered to fast-track a number of justice bills. Surprisingly, the minority Conservative government has refused our offer. It would seem that the government addresses justice issues only when it thinks it can manipulate them for political gain. This is a government that would have Canadians believe it is taking action, but that is not delivering the goods. This is a government that is far more interested in grabbing headlines than getting results that will make Canadians and Canadian communities safer. This is a pattern that has been repeated a number of times already, as in the case of Bill C-22.

In October 2006, my colleague, the member for London West, who was then our party's justice critic, offered the government the chance to fast-track a series of six justice bills that the government had tabled in this House, including Bill C-22. The government turned us down flat. With my colleague, the member for Wascana, who is the Liberal House leader, I made the same offer again in mid-March, and again the government turned a deaf ear.

Towards the end of March, the Leader of the Opposition also made the same offer. The government again did not listen and completely ignored this last offer. To top it off, the government even had the audacity to oppose a motion I tabled to immediately move to third reading of four bills that the government itself had tabled, that is Bills C-18, C-23, C-35, and of course C-22.

Bill C-18 deals with DNA identification. Bill C-23, which is presently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, is an omnibus bill that makes corrections and technical amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to various procedures. Bill C-35 deals with the reverse onus of proof in bail hearings. This government has stated that this bill is all-important to its agenda and to its justice policy but has flatly refused to accelerate the process in the House. The last bill is Bill C-22, which we are currently debating. This is the first time, in my almost 10 years as a member of Parliament, that I have seen a federal government impede the progress of its own legislation. Who would have thought it possible? Anything is possible, its seems, for this minority Conservative government.

In conclusion, I simply wish to say that, from the time Bill C-22 was tabled in this House, in June 2006, the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition, has shown its support for this bill and has attempted to convince this government to fast-track it. However, it was the government that blocked any attempt by the official opposition to quickly adopt Bill C-22. We are very pleased that, finally, this bill is in the House at the report and third reading stage. We intend to vigorously support this bill.

[May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the Conservative government. The Conservatives knew about the alleged atrocities and they hid it.

Now it has come to light that there are serious allegations about possible torture and atrocities being committed by Afghan authorities, to whom our Canadian military has turned over suspected terrorists, yes, but also other people, and there is the presumption of innocence, which the Conservative government appears to have forgotten about.

The Conservatives literally obfuscated the truth. They change their story every single day.

Here this junior minister sits as the mouthpiece for that Conservative government and that Prime Minister and does not address the issue. The issue is a Minister of National Defence who misled the House repeatedly--

[May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on March 23 during question period I asked several questions of the Minister of National Defence. I pointed out that he had already misled the House and had to apologize and that it appeared he had done so again, and I called for his resignation.

How just a little bit of time causes things to evolve. Since then, it is not just the defence minister who is now missing in action who has misled the House, we have had changing stories, shifting sands from the Conservative government on the issue of the Afghan detainees since that time. Virtually every day the Conservatives have changed their story.

The Conservatives, for instance, were warned of possible human rights abuses in Afghan prisons as early as last year, and the number of disturbing reports grows with every passing day, but the government continues to deny the existence of a problem. To make matters worse, as I just mentioned, the Minister of National Defence has been missing in action in this House. Every single question that has been directed to the Minister of National Defence has been answered by another member of the Conservative cabinet.

If the Prime Minister does not have enough confidence in his own defence minister to allow him to answer questions in the House, how can he possibly allow that defence minister to remain the leader of our armed forces? The Prime Minister must fire the national defence minister and appoint a new one who hopefully will get to the bottom of this issue.

Let me give a few salient points. Every single one of the national defence minister's assertions regarding the Afghan detainees and the assertions of the Conservative government itself has been contradicted at every turn by top military officials, international organizations and the media.

We learned they denied the existence of a report on the state of Afghan prisons authored by Canadian diplomats. Then lo and behold, the report was found. They denied the presence of torture and human rights abuses in Afghan jails. Then media reports proved that there were numerous accounts of instances of torture and abuse. The diplomats' report contained blacked out sections. Then it was revealed that the blacked out sections contained information confirming widespread abuse and torture. Now the Information Commissioner is investigating why such critical sections of that report were censored when they present no threat to national security.

The Conservative government and the Minister of National Defence claimed there was no evidence that Afghan authorities were blocking access to prisons, but days earlier the head of the human rights commission in Kandahar said that while legally his commission had permission to visit prisoners, the Afghan authorities in those prisons do not permit it.

The defence minister suddenly announced a new detainee monitoring agreement had been reached, but it was to the surprise of the foreign affairs minister and Canada's chief of defence staff. The next day the Prime Minister said that no such deal had been concluded.

They then changed tactics and claimed that Correctional Service of Canada officials had been monitoring detainees all along. Then officials in Canada and Afghanistan contradicted these claims, clarifying that the two Correctional Service of Canada officials were there to conduct training and improve prison conditions, not to monitor detainees.

I ask simply--

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to my colleague from Etobicoke North. I appreciated hearing his comments on the issue of mandatory minimums and on the importance of the fact that in all studies virtually all experts are in agreement that mandatory minimum sentencing can be effective on a first conviction, because that then lays the groundwork if there are subsequent offences for the judge to take it into consideration and tailor a harsher sentence, a sentence that is tailored to the accused, to the circumstances of the crime, to the victim and to the impact on the community.

However, studies have shown consistently that if one also creates mandatory minimums on a second and subsequent conviction it in fact is counterproductive. I believe my colleague mentioned something about 25 states that had mandatory minimums and escalator penalties, which is what the Conservatives have attempted to do with Bill C-10, and those states in fact have now moved away from the escalator minimum mandatories. Perhaps the hon. member would like to give us a few gems from his thoughts on that.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the experts in committee generally said that mandatory minimum sentences did not provide the desired results, except in a few very specific cases, and only when it was a first conviction and a first offence.

In cases where subsequent mandatory minimum sentences apply—during a second or third conviction—the intended purpose is not achieved. The experts generally said that minimum sentences did not work for reducing crime, except when very specific crimes were targeted and if mandatory minimum sentences were imposed only on a first offence. Going any further would limit judicial discretion and prevent judges from taking into consideration the suspect's reality, the victim's reality, the impact the commission of the crime had on the victims and the community where the crime was committed and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. This could be justified for a first conviction because society has decided that a certain type of criminal offence is reprehensible and that a clear message must be sent. We want to ensure that the offender is removed from society for a set amount of time. However, according to some studies, mandatory minimum sentences in cases of recidivism do not make the community more safe; they make it less safe.

The Conservative and New Democratic MPs heard the same testimony that the Bloc and Liberal MPs did in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. These two political parties, the one forming the government and the other one forming the smallest opposition party, have decided to disregard the expert testimony they heard. They have decided to disregard all the studies, the experience in the United States—

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the ruling you have just made that allows me to speak to the admissibility of the motions for subamendments that I have just tabled.

In fact, those of us on this side, the Liberal caucus, believe that these amendments in fact are admissible because they speak to the very heart of Bill C-10. If we look at Bill C-10, we see that it says very clearly “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act”.

I do understand that the legislative summary talks about increasing or “escalating minimum penalties”, but I think the Speaker is wise enough to know that the legislative summary that is found in a bill is not something that is debated or voted on in committee. It is not. What is in fact debated on and adopted or modified, for instance, is the title of the bill. The bill talks about “minimum penalties for offences involving firearms”. It does not talk about escalating. That is the first point.

Second, it is clearly what we heard in committee and it is clearly what the original bill itself did, which was to increase the minimum mandatories. Our subamendments do that. I believe that our subamendments are in fact admissible, because were they to be deemed not admissible I think it would be creating a dangerous precedent, like the precedent the Speaker set by ruling that a parliamentary secretary could table subamendments to the amendments that his own minister and government tabled.

I am not aware in the 10 years that I have been here that a competent Speaker has made such a ruling, because in doing so it effectively precludes any opposition party from bringing subamendments to report stage amendments that have been tabled by the government itself. That, Mr. Speaker, is a dangerous ruling.

On the other hand, a ruling to rule the Liberal subamendments at report stage admissible is a ruling that would follow in the tradition of precedents in the House. I will rest at that point, but I believe I have made the point very clearly, and I feel that I have made the case very clearly.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my amendments are actually subamendments that—

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You said that, for the time being, you would not rule my motions out of order and that you would take the matter under advisement. I would like to take a few moments to provide the Speaker with some additional considerations before he makes a ruling on the admissibility of my motions rather than presenting them after the Speaker has made his decision, which could be an unfavourable one.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, given that you said you would not rule my motions out of order and would take them under advisement, I have a few points to raise, since I was unable to do so while tabling my motions.

The ruling to--