39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 078
CONTENTS
Friday, May 4, 2007

Criminal Code

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we promised Canadians we would crack down on crime. Upon taking office, we promised that we would move quickly to fulfill these commitments, and we have. That is why we have tabled this legislation to deal directly with serious, hardened, repeat offenders.

In a nutshell, we have identified problems with the dangerous offender provisions and section 810, peace bonds provisions, of the Criminal Code.

This bill addresses those problems in an effective way and in a fair manner to ensure that individuals who pose a clear danger to offend violently or sexually are properly managed and contained for the safety of all.

In my community of Whitewood, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, a number of individuals have gathered together to present a petition to this House. We have received between 24,000 and 25,000 signatures requesting that this government take some action. The petition reads:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:
Whereas, Canadians enjoy living in safe and secure communities and believe that the safety of their children is a basic right of all Canadians;--

Obviously, some of the events that have happened put some of that in question, but the petition goes on to say:
Whereas, from time to time young children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders;
Whereas, Canadians desire that steps be taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring;--

The petition then goes on to request specifically that the government:
Proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties to convicted pedophiles;
Make mandatory compulsory electronic or other form of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody;
Ensure compulsory public notification on movements of convicted pedophiles;
Ensure above noted repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders.

Indeed, this particular bill directly responds to the issues raised in the petition.

First, it addresses the potential inconsistencies in the use of the dangerous offender provisions by requiring Crown prosecutors to openly address whether an application should be brought. However, there are three serious violent or sexual offence convictions which certainly include sexual offences against children.

Second, the bill proposes to reverse the current onus on the Crown where an offender has been convicted for a third time of a number of serious and violent sexual and violent offences.

Third, the bill also clarifies that there is no onus on the Crown in regard to the fitness of a dangerous offender designation. The proposed changes to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code will make it easier for Crown prosecutors to achieve dangerous offender designation against repeat child sex offenders. About 80% of all dangerous offender applications are against sexual offenders and about half of these target child sexual offenders. Certainly, at some stage of the criminal process, there needs to be a provision where offenders are dealt with in a determined way.

Fourth, Bill C-27 also clarifies that section 810, peace bonds, include the ability to require defendants to submit to electronic monitoring. This peace bond is a powerful tool for police and Crown prosecutors which enables the imposition of severe restrictions on any individuals likely to commit a sexual offence against a child, even though they have not been charged with or convicted of any specific offence.

The section 810 provisions of the Criminal Code are quite encompassing and this legislation enlarges the jurisdiction from a one year term to a potential two year term.

What section 810 would allow the justices to do would be items such as these: prohibit the defendant from engaging in any activity that involves contact with persons under the age of 14 years, including using a computer system; prohibit the defendant from attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 14 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or in day care centres, school grounds or playgrounds; require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device as long as the attorney general makes the request; require the defendant to remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the provincial court judge; and require the defendant to return to and remain at his or her place of residence at specified times.

When we couple all of those potential conditions that can be imposed, along with electronic monitoring, it certainly brings those who are serious offenders, that have been convicted on three separate occasions of serious offences and are sentenced to two years or more, to a place where they can be accounted for and where these kinds of things can be prevented.
There is an argument made that at times we have to balance the rights of the accused against the rights of others, but when we are talking about the children in our society, certainly that balance should favour them at some point in the system. People should be given an indeterminate sentence with no entitlement to statutory release unless they can prove that they should be.