Rob Moore

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will state at the outset that the government will not be supporting Bill S-211 but we want it to be completely understood that we do support and I support the need to reduce the human misery that results from gambling addiction.

However, we do disagree with the bill's approach of stripping the provinces and territories and their residents of their current ability to make local decisions locally.

We all want to end gambling addictions and its attendant economic misery, family hardship, employee theft and suicide. However, there is a very basic choice that Parliament must make, in light of Bill S-211, on the subject and, as we all know, when it comes to federal, provincial and territorial relations it is the delicate subject of decision-making relating to gambling and any other activity.

Will the federal government play big brother and take away the decision-making that the provinces and territories now have under the Criminal Code with respect to provincial government lottery schemes, or will local decision-making be left to the provinces and territories? It is as simple and yet as complex as that.

The general scheme in the gambling provisions of the Criminal Code is to prohibit all forms of gambling except those that are specifically permitted by the code. In 1969, Parliament expanded the legalized gambling provisions of the Criminal Code. A parliamentary joint committee had examined this topic, along with others, in the mid-1950s and recommended some expansion of legalized gambling.

By the time that Parliament was considering gambling amendments to the Criminal Code in the 1960s, some states in the U.S. had already amended their state constitutions, in some cases, in order to legalize a state lottery that could benefit the state economically. When Parliament amended the Criminal Code in 1969 to expand the forms of legalized gambling alongside the recommendations from joint committee reports of the 1950s, Canadian legislators of the day added permission for the provincial and federal governments to conduct a lottery scheme and permission for provincial government to license certain lottery schemes.

Later, in a 1976 federal-provincial-territorial agreement, Canada agreed not to use its permission to conduct a federal lottery scheme and the provinces agreed to make an annual payment to Canada that now amounts, in current dollars, to some $60 million.

In 1983, Parliament enacted permission for the federal government to conduct pool betting operations and provinces went to court arguing that these looked very much like lottery schemes that the federal government in 1976 had agreed not to pursue. The federal government, for its part, commenced litigation against certain provinces for operating schemes that it saw as illegal pool betting operations.

The litigation was resolved in 1985 with a new federal-provincial-territorial agreement that required the federal government to use its best efforts to place a bill before Parliament to remove from the Criminal Code the permission for the federal government to operate a lottery scheme. The provinces and territories agreed to pay to Canada $100 million to be used for the 1988 Calgary Olympics.

In 1985, a bill was tabled and passed that removed the permission in the Criminal Code for the federal government to operate a lottery scheme. It also clarified that a province or territory could itself operate a lottery scheme on or through a slot machine and a video lottery terminal, or VLT, a form of a slot machine, but a province or territory could no license to others to operate a lottery scheme on or through a slot machine.

The speed of play, games and internal computerization is essentially the same for what we traditionally think of as slot machines, which pay out by coin, and what we think of as VLTs, which pay out by a printout. Also, both traditional slot machines and VLTs meet the definition of a slot machine in subsection 198(3) of the Criminal Code:

...“slot machine” means any automatic machine or slot machine

(a) that is used or intended to be used for any purpose other than vending merchandise or services, or

(b) that is used or intended to be used for the purpose of vending merchandise or services if

(i) the result of one of any number of operations of the machine is a matter of chance or uncertainty to the operator,

(ii) as a result of a given number of successive operations by the operator the machine produces different results, or

(iii) on any operation of the machine it discharges or emits a slug or token, but does not include an automatic machine or slot machine that dispenses as prizes only one or more free games on that machine.

The premise of Bill S-211 is that Parliament should attack the problem of compulsive gambling by disqualifying, through an amendment to the Criminal Code, certain venues as sites for video lottery terminals that are operated by the provincial government.

Whether this would be a good idea or a bad idea is a matter for debate certainly, but what the government is saying is that we should maintain the existing Criminal Code approach that permits a provincial or territorial government to make that decision about where VLTs will be placed, if the province or territory chooses to operate any at all.

Bill S-211 would eliminate the possibility for provinces to place VLTs in locations other than racetracks or casinos. It is not just a matter of saying that Canada will pay any losses by provinces in moving provincial government VLTs from bars to racetracks and casinos. Clearly, this would affect federal-provincial-territorial relations even with provinces and territories that, to date, have chosen not to place VLTs in bars. None of the three territories place VLT terminals in bars and Ontario and British Columbia do not place VLT terminals in bars. Quebec, the Prairie provinces and the Atlantic provinces do place VLTs in bars which, of course, are age controlled premises that by law are not permitted to cater to minors.

Some Prairie provinces have held municipal referenda to remove VLTs from bars. They have respected those votes and removed VLTs from such establishments in those municipalities. A few years ago in New Brunswick there was a provincial referendum on whether to remove video lottery terminals from bars and the decision was to keep them. In fact, some Prairie and Atlantic provinces and Quebec have taken decisions to reduce or cap the number of VLTs that will be placed at bars in the province.

The choice that we have with this bill is to keep the jurisdiction for the video lottery schemes where it is currently with the provinces and territories or to take that back into the federal realm. The government's position is that we will leave that to the provinces and territories, which will allow for local decision making. Ultimately, residents of a province or territory are free to make their provincial or territorial government accountable for its decisions at the polls. Also, there is ample room for public debate on VLTs in the assemblies and legislatures of the provinces and territories.

As I just said, those debates and those referenda in some provinces and in individual municipalities are taking place, they have taken place and they will take place. It is at that level that individuals can have input into their own communities. There is no need for the federal government to change the existing provisions.

While advocates of Bill S-211 would prefer to do one stop shopping here in Parliament rather than to fight the battle in each province that places VLTs in bars, I am convinced that provincial and territorial governments and their residents should be left to determine what is appropriate in their local circumstances.

Therefore, I urge members of this House to vote against Bill S-211 and to leave provinces and territories the ability to make local decisions with respect to where they will place their provincial or territorial VLTs. We may disagree with the decision they take but that is for the province, the territory and, in some cases, the municipalities and their residents to determine.

This is an area that has been handed over to the provinces and we encourage residents to give input to their local province, territory, municipalities when these issues arise. It is the government's position to leave that local decision-making at the local level.

[Statutes Repeal Act, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill S-202, the statutes repeal act, on behalf of the government.

This bill has been tabled several times in the other place since 2002. Its main objective is to improve Parliament's oversight of the coming into force of its legislation. The government supports this objective.

Bill S-202 would provide for the repeal of any act or provision of an act that has not been brought into force 10 years after its adoption by Parliament. Sometimes acts come into force on royal assent. It is also common to provide for a particular day on which they come into force. For practical reasons, Parliament sometimes chooses to delegate to the governor in council the power to make orders setting the day or days on which an act or its provisions will come into force. The government then has the discretion to decide when it is the appropriate time to bring the act or provision into force.

Members of the House can and do of course ask the government to explain why a particular act or provision is not yet in force. Bill S-202 would go further. It would ensure that every year a global view of all acts and provisions of an act that had not been brought into force within 10 years was presented to Parliament.

Under Bill S-202 the Minister of Justice would be required to table before each house of Parliament within the first five sitting days of every calendar year an annual report listing every act or provision of an act that was not still in force at least nine years after it had been assented to. Officials from the Department of Justice have already prepared and updated such a list in the course of reviewing Bill S-202. The current list includes three complete acts and provisions of approximately 60 other acts. It is expected that the first list will be the longest because of the long period it would cover. The list should be somewhat shorter in subsequent years.

As I have already noted, if an act or provision is on the list, it will be repealed at the end of the year unless the government brings it into force before then. However, there can be valid reasons why legislation might take a significant time to be brought into force. These reasons often have to do with the need to make administrative arrangements before implementing new programs or measures or the time required to coordinate them with provincial, territorial or foreign governments.

For example, the Contraventions Act establishes a ticketing regime for federal offences to be prosecuted under provincial procedures. Over the years, the federal government has concluded agreements with a number of provinces and territories whose regimes are then used to prosecute federal offences committed in those territories or provinces. However, if no such agreement can be concluded with the other provinces and territories, the Contraventions Act provides an alternative federal regime for those provinces and territories.

The provisions creating these alternative regimes have not yet been brought into force because the negotiations with the remaining provinces and territories are still ongoing. Clearly, the alternative regime should not be repealed because it could become necessary to implement it if the negotiations failed.

Legislation implementing international agreements provides another example where long delays are common. Implementation usually depends on the ratification of the underlying agreement by other states. This is something which Canada has no control over.

Also, circumstances sometimes change after legislation has been enacted. Such changes can pose problems for bringing it into force, requiring further amendments to take them into account. When a lengthy period has elapsed after enactment, the possibility of needing amendments to reflect changing circumstances is all the greater. In all these circumstances, it is appropriate that the House have the opportunity to review the matter as it sees fit, and if it feels necessary, defer the repeal.

If the government or indeed any member of the House were to consider that a particular act or provision should not be repealed after 10 years, then a resolution to that effect could be proposed to either house of Parliament. This would provide an opportunity for members to hear from the responsible minister on the matter and would increase the accountability of the government to this House.

Such a resolution could not, however, be used to protect legislation indefinitely. It would only remove an act or provision from the list for the current year. This means the following year the Minister of Justice would again have to include it on the list for that year and the process would be repeated. At the end of the year, the acts and provisions of acts that would not have been exempted by resolution would be repealed. During the following year, the Minister of Justice would publish in the Canada Gazette the list of acts and provisions of acts that had been repealed.

Bill S-202 contains an interesting exception in favour of legislation amended by Parliament in the nine years prior to the coming into force of Bill S-202. In the case of these amended provisions and of the provisions necessary for them to have effect, the nine year period should be calculated from the moment of their amendment and not their original adoption. This exception recognizes that if Parliament has amended a provision, it implies that the provision is still relevant and should not be repealed soon.

However, the exception applies only in respect of amendments made prior to the coming into force of Bill S-202 since it is presumed that once Bill S-202 would apply, it might be tempting to resort to minor technical amendments to reset the clock and avoid a difficult debate in respect of controversial provisions.

In order for the government to prepare a report to Parliament, Bill S-202 provides that it would come into force two years after it is assented to. It is expected that the first report would be the longest because it would include all acts and provisions of an act that have not been brought into force since the last statute revision of 1985 which repealed a number of obsolete provisions.

Another way of looking at Bill S-202 is to think of it as a tool for assisting in the ongoing revision of our statutes.

One of the functions of statute revision programs is to repeal obsolete provisions. This could also be accomplished through miscellaneous statute law amendments which the Minister of Justice introduces from time to time as the opportunity presents itself.

The advantage of Bill S-202 over statute revision and the miscellaneous statute law amendment program is that it would launch a review each year of legislation that has not been brought into force in the previous nine years.

This bill has been significantly modified since it was first introduced in the other place in 2002. The most significant amendment has established a mechanism for deferring the repeal of a particular act or provision. This would be done by a resolution of either house of Parliament to remove any act or provision of an act from the repeal list of the current year.

This process is transparent and it is flexible. It is transparent because the removal would be debated and approved by Parliament. It is also flexible because it would not require the approval of both houses of Parliament, but only one.

The resolution process is also flexible in terms of timing since a resolution could be adopted at any time during the year as long as it was done before December 31, at which date all acts and provisions of an act remaining on the list would be repealed by the operation of Bill S-202.

Another important amendment was the addition of a requirement to publish every year in the Canada Gazette the list of acts and provisions of an act repealed under Bill S-202 in the preceding year. This would ensure a public notice of the repeals.

Finally, a transitional provision was added. It would delay the repeal of provisions amended within nine years of the coming into force of Bill S-202. This would avoid a premature debate on provisions that Parliament had considered in the recent past.

In conclusion, Bill S-202 would put in place a fairly straightforward and inexpensive mechanism to improve our legislative process. It would increase government's accountability before Parliament for the exercise of the powers delegated by Parliament to bring legislation into force.

The acts and provisions that have not been brought into force would be brought to the attention of Parliament, and in some instances I suspect, to the attention of government itself.

[Judicial Appointment, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, our government firmly believes in broadening the number of voices that we listen to for input on recommendations for potential judges. We know the Liberals in the past used judicial appointments as plum patronage positions. This will not be the approach of this government.

[Judicial Appointment, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the judicial advisory committees provide the minister with advice on judicial appointments. We are very proud to be expanding the scope of the judicial advisory committees to include police officers, who we all agree play a very important part in our judicial system.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is a little rich. I can understand the hon. member's concern about his party having a record of being soft on crime. We only need to look at the evidence. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc are ganging up in committee to frustrate any attempt to get tough on crime. They gutted Bill C-9 on conditional sentencing. They opposed mandatory minimum sentences when they said during the election that they would be in favour of them. Now, on Bill C-27, which deals with the most violent and most serious offenders, people who have a third time serious offence, those members are not willing to get tough on these individuals. However, we are.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with many of my colleagues and we found, disturbingly, that was the case in many of our ridings. I know it was the case across the country. It was certainly the case when we looked at the platforms of the national parties because both the NDP platform and the Liberal platform called for getting tough on crime.

I want to use one quick example. Our bill on mandatory minimum sentences would bring in, for the most serious offences involving gun crimes, three, seven and then ten year escalating sentences. The proposal put forward by the NDP was to have a four year mandatory minimum sentence for any firearms offence, serious and non-serious, on the first offence. The Liberals were proposing a doubling of the current mandatory minimum sentence from four years to eight years. Our bill brings in what we feel are constitutional measures, proportional measures, escalating so that on the first offence the sentence would be less severe than on the second and so on. It ramps up in severity. The more someone repeats the offence, the more severe the penalty.

The NDP and the Liberal platform went way beyond what we are proposing right now and yet they are not supporting any of our legislation that is designed to protect Canadians. Why will they not get on board?

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

We have heard all the rhetoric from the other side time and time again. I have seen this in committee. I have the privilege to serve on the justice committee. We have seen on Bill C-10, which would bring in mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, how all of the opposition, the NDP, the Liberals and Bloc, are united in opposing getting tough on crime, even though the NDP and the Liberals ran on a platform in the last election of getting tough on crime. Actually, they were promising to bring in measures that were even tougher than what our bill contains. For them to now say that our bill goes too far, is ridiculous.

We saw the same thing with Bill C-9, the bill that would have brought an end to conditional sentences for people who commit serious crimes, like arson, break and enter into a home and car theft. Again the opposition ganged together to gut that bill.

I think Canadians are saying enough is enough. Three of the four parties in the House were elected with a mandate to get tougher on crime. The NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives said that we would get tougher on crime.

A few months later, we brought forward Bill C-9 dealing with conditional sentences, Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory minimum sentences, and legislation dealing with raising the age of protection. When our party is putting forward the legislative initiatives to protect Canadians, we see the opposition parties dragging their feet, standing in the way and flip-flopping, when they should be cooperating with us so we can make Canada safer.

I reject the premise of some of the remarks today that crime is not getting worse. The crime statistics that were just released yesterday say that violent crime is up, gun crime is up and gang-related crime is up. I do not say that to be an alarmist. It is just that we on this side of the House have decided that we will face the facts that Canadians want us to take crime seriously, that crime is serious and that effective measures need to be put in place.

I want to speak today to Bill C-27, a bill involving dangerous offenders, a bill that addresses the worst of the worst, as it were, when it comes to criminal offenders, those who prey on innocent Canadians, those who have been shown to be perhaps repeat offenders and those who commit the most serious crimes. This is not about any low level crime. It is the most serious crimes and the most serious offenders.

The bill responds to our government's goal of tackling crime by strengthening measures to protect families from offenders who are of a high risk to offend sexually or violently in our communities. Most of these amendments are the result of changes that the provinces, the territories and other stakeholders, including victim's groups, have supported. That is important to note.

The bill amends the dangerous offender and long term offender provisions, as well as sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code dealing with peace bonds.

The dangerous and long term offender amendments in the bill seek to strengthen and enhance those provisions. One of the amendments deals with applications for a dangerous offender hearing under part XXIV the Criminal Code. It requires a prosecutor to advise a court, as soon as possible after a finding of guilt, which is important to note, and before the sentence is imposed, whether it intends on proceeding with an application.

However, for this provision to apply, the prosecutor must be of the opinion that the predicate, or current offence, is a serious personal injury offence as defined in the code, and the offender was convicted at least twice previously of a designated offence as newly defined in section 752, and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for these prior convictions. This person has to have committed a serious crime for which he or she were tried and sentenced twice before for this particular provision to come into play. When that is the case, the crown prosecutor must indicate whether he or she will be pursuing the designation of dangerous offender.

Another amendment ensures that a court cannot refuse to order an assessment where it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offender might be found to be a dangerous or long term offender. This was a technical amendment recommended by provincial and territorial ministers of justice.

The bill also imposes a reverse onus on the offender in some situations where a crown prosecutor has sought a dangerous offender designation. If a prosecutor is able to satisfy a court that an individual was convicted of a third primary designated serious sexual or violent offence, one of the most serious offences under the Criminal Code, the crown is deemed to have met its case that the individual is a dangerous offender and the individual must then prove on a balance of probabilities that he or she does not meet those criteria. We are shifting the onus, after a third offence, on to the offenders to show why they should not be designated as dangerous offenders. This brings some balance and fairness into our system.

However, the bill also clarifies that even when the conditions to make a dangerous offender designation have been met, the court must consider whether a lesser sentence, including a long term offender designation, would be adequate and neither the prosecutor nor the offender has the onus of proof in that matter.

These amendments clearly strengthen the dangerous and long term offender provisions and will ensure that prosecutors can more readily seek a designation for violent and/or sexual criminals who will in turn receive some of the toughest sanctions in the Criminal Code.

I also want to touch on peace bonds. Bill C-27 seeks to amend the provisions related to section 810.1 peace bonds for the prevention of sexual offences against children. The member for Wild Rose spoke passionately about his desire to protect children from sexual offenders and this bill deals with just that. I commend him and all members who have taken this up and are concerned about protecting children. Also, section 810.2 peace bonds target more serious violent and/or sexual offences.

These types of peace bonds are preventive in nature. They are instruments that are available to law enforcement officials to protect the public. It is not necessary for an offender to have committed a criminal offence for a judge to make such an order. These orders require individuals to agree to specific conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. They aim to protect individuals and the general public from persons who are a danger of committing sexual offences against children or are likely to commit a serious personal injury offence. These situations we know all too often do exist.

Once granted, failure or refusal to enter into peace bonds could result in an immediate term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. They can be renewed and breaches of any of the conditions in the peace bond would be considered a criminal offence and can be prosecuted in any provincial or territorial court with criminal jurisdiction, providing up to a two year prison sentence.

Specifically on a peace bond, where there is fear of a sexual offence, the current section of the code allows anyone who fears, on reasonable grounds, that another person will commit an offence under specific provisions of the code against a person under the age of 14 years, may lay an information before a provincial court judge for the purpose of having the defendant enter into a peace bond. The specific offences covered include sexual assaults, sexual assaults with a weapon, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touch and child pornography offences.

Obviously, those are very serious offences and this bill seeks to protect young children from them. The peace bond can set out certain areas, for example, where an offender is not allowed to go.

Bill C-27 also clarifies and outlines several additional conditions available to a judge if the judge considers it desirable to secure good conduct from the offender.

Our new government was just elected in January. We said that we would tackle crime to make our streets safer. What is a bit ironic is that the NDP and the Liberals also said that they would take steps to tackle crime but we have seen no evidence of that so far in this session.

Bill C-27 is one of the many initiatives the government has taken toward attaining the goal of making our streets safer. We consider offenders, who are at high risk of offending sexually or violently, to be a very serious threat to public safety.

I support this bill, as do all members on this side. I hope other members of the House will see how important these provisions are and how they are necessary measures that can be implemented as soon as possible to protect Canadians, protect children and protect society from the worst offenders.

[Commonwealth Games, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the start of the one-year countdown to the decision of selecting the city that will host the 2014 Commonwealth Games.

Canada is proudly represented by the Regional Municipality of Halifax. The successful candidate city will be announced in Sri Lanka on November 9, 2007, during the Commonwealth Games Federation annual general assembly.

The historic role of Halifax within the Commonwealth is well known. Being selected to host the games will only reinforce that role in the future.

Canada's new government is proud to support Halifax and the province of Nova Scotia in their bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games. The whole Atlantic region stands to benefit because of the increased exposure that will lead to the creation of jobs, increased tourism, economic investment and the development of state of the art sport infrastructure.

I have every confidence in the ability of Halifax and the entire region to host the Commonwealth nations should the Commonwealth Games Federation give it the opportunity, and I say way to go, Halifax.

[Judges Act, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, our government has in every way followed our constitutional obligations and our obligations to the taxpayers by putting forward a very reasonable proposal. I am very pleased that we followed those constitutional obligations. I would certainly encourage the member to support this legislation, but also, in the area of transparency and accountability, urge him to use all of his influence as the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe to get that federal accountability act passed.

[Judges Act, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his mention and I am definitely proud to be representing Albert County and proud to be representing my constituents of Fundy Royal.

Is there anything he can do to encourage the Liberal dominated Senate to pass the federal accountability act, so that we can bring and restore some sense of transparency to the appointments process, and so that we can have a director of public prosecutions, and the member is aware of how important that is, so--