House of Commons Hansard #233 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendments.

Topics

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act
Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act
Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act
Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act
Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act
Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act
Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 31, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

May 28th, 1999 / 1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

There are three motions in amendment on the notice paper for report stage of Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows. The vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Albina Guarnieri Mississauga East, ON

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-251, in the title, be amended by restoring the title thereof as follows:

“An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences)”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-251, in Clause 1, be amended by restoring Clause 1 thereof as follows:

“1. Section 271 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(2) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1).”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-251, in Clause 2, be amended by restoring Clause 2 thereof as follows:

“2. Section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) The portion of a sentence of imprisonment for life that a person who has been convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder must serve before the person may be released on full parole is, subject to subsection (2.2), that provided for in section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code and, in addition, where the person is under another sentence of imprisonment in respect of another offence arising out of the same event or series of events or under any other sentence at the time the sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on the person, the lesser of one third of any other sentence of imprisonment and seven years.

(2.2) Where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life for first degree murder or second degree murder after being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life in respect of another first degree murder or second degree murder not arising out of the same event or series of events, the portion of the sentence that the person must serve before the person may be released on full parole is that provided for in section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code and shall be added to the portion of the sentence that the person must serve under that section in respect of the other conviction for first degree murder or second degree murder.”

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to restore a private member's bill that seeks consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers and rapists.

For months and years I have been working with colleagues from all parties to demonstrate to parliament and to the public at large exactly how our rampant system of concurrent sentencing deprives Canadians of justice.

We know that 90% of Canadians polled by Pollara last year agreed that multiple murderers and multiple rapists should receive consecutive rather than concurrent sentencing. I believe that Canadians support consecutive sentencing because Canadians think that every victim should receive some measure of justice and that every victim should count in the sentencing equation where rape or murder is involved.

It is because of those victims and the many, many families of victims I have met over three years that I have chosen not to accept the dismissal of Bill C-251 by any committee or subcommittee without a final vote in the House of Commons.

I have also been encouraged by the continuous support of so many members who have shown that they care most about the impact of laws on victims and families. They have proven that it is possible for members from all sides of the House to put partisanship aside and work together to achieve a real improvement in our justice system.

I must also thank the many members of my own party who have gone to great lengths to support this initiative in the House and in caucus. Without their efforts this bill would have died long ago.

I have listened carefully to the advice of my colleagues who support the bill but I have also listened just as carefully to colleagues who do not support my bill. I have listened and I have learned that there is indeed a virtual consensus among MPs on one point, that being that the current system of automatic concurrent sentences for murder and virtually automatic concurrent sentencing for rape is wrong and must be changed.

What remains is a debate on the extent of judicial discretion. I have heard colleagues say that they are not against consecutive sentencing but they are against mandatory consecutive sentencing, that they want to let judges decide what sentence should be imposed.

As all members well know, judges have no discretion to impose consecutive sentencing for murder. A concurrent sentence must always apply no matter what the circumstance. So we have no judicial discretion in the courts today on this point. The law is that the second murder victim does not count regardless of what a judge may think.

I believe that the second murder or sexual assault victim should always count. We should not continue to send a message to multiple murderers and rapists that the number of victims does not matter. That is wrong and dangerous.

However, in my estimation, our priority must be to change the current system and its mandatory bulk rate for murder to provide at least for a judge to be able to impose consecutive sentencing for murder, something that they cannot do right now. I have agreed to support an amendment to my bill to provide the judicial discretion sought by my colleagues.

The amendment submitted by the member for Leeds—Grenville will provide full judicial discretion as to whether a concurrent or consecutive sentence should apply for murder. This will give a judge the latitude to give the next Paul Bernardo a sentence that denies him parole for 25 years for the first murder and up to 25 years for the second murder.

The alternative is to maintain the current system where multiple murderers face not even the possibility of an incremental sentence for additional murders. The status quo is not acceptable to the majority of Canadians

In terms of sexual assault, even the most prolific multiple rapist of the 1990s received concurrent sentences. These discounts were given because concurrent sentencing has become the norm from which judges are shy to deviate. A second amendment to my bill also submitted by the member for Leeds—Grenville proposes to maintain judicial discretion but present consecutive sentencing as the standard.

Under this provision judges must provide oral and written reasons based on a set of criteria as to why they offered concurrent rather than consecutive sentences in a particular case. I believe this is a significant and positive change from the current law and one which will provide more justice for women and children who fall victim to sexual predators in this country.

With these amendments, Bill C-251 boils down to one single question. Do members of this House support the status quo of automatic concurrent sentences for all multiple murderers and virtually automatic concurrent sentences for all multiple sex offenders?

I ask members to end the hopelessness of that injustice and the anguish it causes to the victims and the families of victims. I ask members to look on the amended Bill C-251 as a measured advance toward fairness and proportionality in sentencing with all the safeguards that complete judicial discretion can offer.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Jordan Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the tremendous amount of work she has done on this bill. Although she spoke very eloquently on the emotional side of this issue, I am going to speak on the technical side and it will not be quite as interesting.

I want to move the following amendments. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough:

That Motion No. 2 be amended by replacing subsection (2) with the following:

Sentences to be served consecutively

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) shall be served consecutively to any other sentence for an offence under subsection (1) or section 272 or 273 to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1), unless the judge who sentences the person is satisfied that the serving of that sentence consecutively would be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing contained in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, in which case the judge may order that the sentence be served concurrently.

Factors to be considered

(3) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2) the court shall have regard to:

(a) the nature of the offence;

(b) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence;

(c) the degree of physical or emotional harm suffered by the victim arising from the commission of the offence;

(d) whether the offender abused a position of trust, power or authority in the commission of the offence;

(e) the criminal record of the offender; and

(f) the attitude of the offender respecting the offence committed by the offender.

Reasons

(4) Where the court makes an order under subsection (3), the court shall give both oral and written reasons for that order.

That Motion No. 3 be amended by replacing subsection (2.2) with the following:

Subsequent murder conviction

(2.2) Subject to subsections (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5), where a judge sentences a person to a term of imprisonment for life for first degree murder or second degree murder and the person is at the time the sentence is imposed, subject to a sentence of imprisonment for life for another first degree murder or second degree murder, the judge may order that the person shall, in addition to the parole ineligibility period referred to in section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code to which the person is subject in respect of the conviction for the other first degree murder or second degree murder or the remaining portion of that period, as the case may be, serve on the expiry of that period or remaining portion of that period, a further period not exceeding twenty-five years in respect of the first degree murder or second degree murder for which the judge is sentencing the person.

Further periods to be served consecutively

(2.3) Where a person is required to serve more than one further parole ineligibility period referred to in subsection (2.2), the periods shall be served consecutively, but in no case shall total period of parole ineligibility exceed 50 years.

Factors

(2.4) In deciding whether to order a further period of parole ineligibility under (2.2) and in deciding the length of that period, the sentencing judge shall have regard to whether the total period of parole ineligibility would adequately denounce the murder and whether it would adequately acknowledge the harm done to the victim.

Reasons

(2.5) Where the court does not make an order under subsection (2.3), the court shall, orally and in writing, explain why it did not make that order.

I think the amendments bring in the judicial discretion that was one of the hurdles to this bill. Hopefully members will find that they adequately bring balance to this bill and that they can support them.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Debate is on the amendment.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-251 calls for anyone convicted of sexual assault to serve that sentence consecutively to any other sentence. It also calls for consecutive parole ineligibility periods for those who commit multiple or serial murders.

The current discretion judges have to impose consecutive sentences for sex offenders is unacceptable. Consecutive sentences for these offences should be mandatory. One of my motions in the House as a new member of parliament was along the same lines as Bill C-251.

My motion M-23 calls for the House to provide that in cases where an accused person is convicted of multiple criminal offences, that person should receive consecutive sentences. My motion at that time was even broader and tougher than the scope of Bill C-251.

We on this side of the House have been calling for truth in sentencing for many years. Without truth in sentencing we lose confidence in our criminal justice system, and the justice minister admitted that in this House.

Bernardo brutally killed two people. Clifford Olson committed multiple murders. We feel that these individuals should serve multiple consecutive sentences. Justice must be done and seen to be done.

Today with the passage of this bill, criminals would know that when they commit crimes they will serve the time. We must hold criminals accountable and punish them for all the crimes they commit. We must make a difference in the punishment for one murder versus more than one murder.

We should all support the bill for at least it is a start. It is a long way from providing sufficient protection within our communities.

We should be looking through the lens of issues and not through the lens of political stripes. We should support any member of the House when he or she is doing the right thing. On this side of the House we are allowed to do that and we expect the same courtesy from the government side as well.

Today, I was pleased to swap my speaking spot with the hon. Liberal member so he could move the amendment on this important bill.

My will end my comments now because my constituents of Surrey Central do not want to hold this bill up for one more minute. The people who elected me to represent them in the House want me to do everything I can to get tough on crime. We believe that consecutive sentences for consecutive crimes is very fair. If they do the crime, they will do the time.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate. I am also very pleased to support the efforts of the hon. member who moved this particular motion and who has been so diligent in her pursuit of this particular issue. Her perseverance is certainly noted by Canadians, by victims and by those who work closely in the justice system.

There are a number of quick facts that I want to bring to the attention of members present and the Canadian public with respect to the effects of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing.

After being convicted of a savage and sadistic murder of three teenage girls in the 1990s, Mr. Bernardo was sentenced to receive three concurrent life sentences. This individual, although subject to dangerous offender provisions, under the old sections could apply for judicial review of his sentence in the year 2008. He would be eligible for day release in the year 2015, after taking three lives.

Clifford Olson is currently serving 11 concurrent life sentences. He will not spend one extra day in jail than if he had taken only one life.

Pedophile John Roby had been convicted of 35 counts of sexually abusing children. The victims' families were shocked to learn that, after being convicted to 27 counts of sexual assault on children, Mr. Roby was sentenced to a two year prison term. After several other victims came forward, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in its wisdom, did increase the sentence but only to five years.

In 1995 serial killer John Martin Crawford was charged with three counts of first degree murder and he will be eligible for parole after 15 years under the old faint hope clause, again, an abominable section of our Criminal Code.

In 1977 there were 296,737 violent crimes committed in Canada. Included in that number were 581 homicides. These are telling statistics. Just imagine if these murderers realized that they could continue to take lives of victims without any fear of a stronger punishment, which is the current situation. Parliament is ultimately encouraging, as the hon. member has repeated time and time again, volume discounts with respect to the most high end, most serious and heinous crimes in the country.

To that end, the perception is what is sometimes most important, the feeling among the criminal element that the justice system will not react in an appropriate and proportional way.

In 1994 a top Italian judge made this commentary on Canada's justice system. He stated that Canada is becoming a haven for organized crime due largely to Canada's lenient judicial system.

Bill C-251 passed second reading by a vote of 81 to 3 in the House. This is an overwhelming majority with respect to a piece of legislation such as this. This particular bill then proceeded on to the justice committee where it was gutted by the Liberal majority on that committee. I would suggest that this is an affront to parliament because certainly this shows a lack of respect for the original will that was passed in the House.

The Department of the Solicitor General has released statistics that show that a released child molester who targets male victims had a 77% recidivism rate. For 100 of those largely repeat offenders who are released that is 77 more young lives that could be shattered as a result of repeat offences.

This particular debate taking place today is the third incarnation of what have been many years of diligent effort and perseverance on the part of my hon. colleague from Mississauga East. The House has displayed in the past a lack of courage to approach this type of legislation. The House can be assured that it will be proposed again and again unless the House fulfils its responsibilities to the victims of repeat offenders.

Many critics of the bill will look south of the border, point to the United States and say that consecutive sentences do not reduce crime. However, many will also recognize, including the hon. member opposite, that crime rates will go down with respect to the perpetration of crime by those specific individuals who would be sentenced to longer periods of incarceration if the bill were to pass.

Canada's obligation is to ensure the protection of its citizens first and foremost. The rudimentary principles of justice dictate that a judge take into consideration issues such as general and specific deterrents. Reformation and rehabilitation, of course, always play a part of it. Deterrents and denunciation is often whispered in the halls of justice. It is not something that individuals seem quick to discuss. However, the protection of the public is the primary duty and obligation of those tasked with enforcement of law in the country.

The rate of violent crime has increased by an average of 4% every year from 1978 to 1993. It is now 400% higher in the country than it was in the 1960s. There has, however, been a slight decline of 3% between 1993 and 1994. According to victimization studies undertaken by Statistics Canada, in 1993 24% of all adult Canadians were victims of at least one criminal act within the preceding 12 months. Canadians are 50% more likely than Europeans and 500% more likely than Japanese to be victims of burglary, assault, sexual offences or robbery. This comes from Statistics Canada, 1993, CCJS, Juristat , Vol. 14, No. 17, 1994 edition.

According to a 1996 Pollara survey which was conducted independently by the hon. member for Mississauga East, 90% of Canadians support this legislative initiative in some incarnation. That number also includes the support of the Canadian Police Association, the victims resource centre spokesman Steve Sullivan and other interested groups.

The entire issue of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing has received a great deal of debate in this place. The principle is quite simple. There are very strict guidelines that direct judges in the country currently with respect to the imposition of sentencing. Proportionality is something that must always be kept in mind. Judges do not have a cookie cutter approach when they are faced with the imposition of a sentence.

The hon. member in this legislation has increased discretion on the part of a judge. A judge is not mandated by this legislation to impose a consecutive sentence; a judge is however in extremely aggravated circumstances in a situation at the high end of violence with repeat connotations of sexual assault or violence. In those instances why would we hesitate to put into the hands of a judge the discretion to respond in a more appropriate and proportionate fashion? Why would we shirk that responsibility?

The hon. member has brought this matter forward. She has been extremely patient with her own government in putting water with the wine when it came to amendments to this bill. She does have the support of many on the opposition side and I suggest many on the government side. She has also expressed quite fairly and accurately in her statements here today that this is a matter that should be put to a vote.

The democratic will should be expressed on an issue of such great importance. A vote would be the expression of the democratic will of parliament. Without it, it will not reflect the democratic will of the people of Canada.

Concurrent sentences ignore the individuality and the pain and violation that is suffered by victims of crime. A specific recognition of each crime, of each victim is what this legislation seeks to achieve. Violence must be met by the state with strength. This bill allows the state to respond appropriately in very limited circumstances where high end violence is at the centre of the court proceedings.

That is what this bill seeks to do. It puts greater discretion forward. Why would we not want to put the trust in the hands of our judiciary to exercise that discretion appropriately? We are infinitely aware in this place of the checks and balances and the safeguards that do exist with respect to courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. Let us not miss this opportunity today to bring this legislation to a point where a vote will occur, where the expression of the people of Canada will be heard.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Brossard—La Prairie
Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, this bill has some extremely important human implications.

I would like to begin by reading a very short quote from a brief presented to the committee studying Bill C-251. It says, in substance:

“We cannot rely exclusively on the sentence in finding just the right number of years to satisfy what can never be satisfied fully and certainly not in a courtroom or a penitentiary. No number of years, be they 25, 50 or 150 or more can return a loved one nor restore innocence”.

This quote is from the Church Council on Justice and Corrections.

Having said that, the amendments we are discussing today came along very late, and we could have done with a little more time to examine them in depth in order to make informed decisions.

I would prefer to speak, if I may, of the underlying principles that guide me, as well as of certain myths that need to be done away with. Then at the end I shall indicate my support or non-support of this bill.

First of all, let us deal with the myths. We often hear it said that life sentences are not life sentences. This is false. A life sentence means that the inmate will never again be free in his entire lifetime.

There is much reference made to the Bernardo and Olson cases. People seem to forget that there have already been amendments made to the Criminal Code to deal with this type of problem. Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code does not authorize a judicial review for such cases.

Obviously, the present Criminal Code allows judges to impose consecutive sentences. They have that latitude. Judges already take recidivism into account. Do they take it sufficiently into account? Should they accord more importance to it? Are there messages that should be sent? All this is possible, but, technically, these tools are already in the hands of the judiciary.

Another popular myth is that the Canadian justice system is not very tough. Our justice system is the toughest, after the United States, of all comparable nations. I am thinking of France, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, and so on. We have the second toughest justice system of all these countries.

For example, the average time someone sentenced to life spends incarcerated—meaning behind bars—is over 28 years. This puts us second behind the United States.

I am not passing a value judgment. I am not saying that this is good or bad. I am merely pointing out the facts. This is how it is.

In the United States, mandatory consecutive sentencing is not working. Like me, members have probably read the article in Time magazine. This was not for sex-related crimes. It was for drugs in particular. The principle was the same.

The title in question is “A get tough policy that failed”. Mandatory sentencing was once America's law and order panacea. Here is why it is not working.

I am pleased to see that the amendments proposed today include a return to judicial discretion and a departure from this kind of automatism. I would like to explain why I think this is important.

First, I will speak to judicial discretion. Canada's first Criminal Code, in 1892, already gave judges discretionary power. This power still exists today. I am referring to section 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code.

Judges must give reasons for their decisions. This means that the public has access to the reasons on which the judge based his or her decision whether or not to impose consecutive sentences. It is important to maintain judiciary discretion because, if judges do not want to do it, it will be done by the crown attorneys, who are not required to make their reasons public. Therefore, it is important that judiciary discretion be maintained.

Automatic sentences would be more or less like having the sentence determined by a computer. A person would feed all the data regarding the circumstances of a crime into the computer and it would indicate what sentence must be imposed. That is why I am against automatic sentences. I believe an amendment was put forward to change that. I am looking forward to reviewing it in detail.

Before deciding whether I will support this new version, I will need to make sure that nothing will get in the way of judiciary discretion.

I will need to make sure that nothing in this bill will perpetuate the myths I mentioned a few moments ago.

I will need to make sure that this bill is consistent with the charter as well as with the decisions already handed down by the supreme court with regard to offences to which this bill applies.

In short, I will need to make sure that this bill is consistent and that it is fair to victims while recognizing the fact that justice does not mean revenge, but correction and justice.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga East for bringing such an important question to the attention of parliament.

I believe that parliamentarians should thank her for the way she introduced the debate and presented things. I am extremely happy to say that our colleague did so very subtly and with all the delicacy such questions require.

There is one thing in my career as member of parliament that I will never forget. It was an event that occurred in 1995 in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, a few feet from my office, when a 13-year old child was killed as the result of an explosion in a car bombing.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary, who said the last thing we need as parliamentarians in considering these issues is to be revengeful or bitter. I do not think that was the case with our colleague when she introduced the bill before us.

She is right to remind us that there are provisions in the Criminal Code—and I am thinking specifically of section 718.3—containing guidelines for the imposition of cumulative sentences.

However, I would like those watching us today to understand we are discussing a private member's bill. It is the prerogative of all members of the House of Commons to initiate debates on issues of concern to their voters.

I hope we have this debate. I have not yet decided whether I will vote in favour or against the bill, but I can tell the member that I am very moved by her arguments. I have in fact asked for a meeting with her in her office next week so we may discuss matters further, and I do not exclude the possibility of supporting her initiative.

I belong to a political party that believes fundamentally in the value of rehabilitation. Clearly, the Bloc Quebecois, its justice critic, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, and all those in the Bloc caucus believe in rehabilitation.

There are times in life when inappropriate behaviour occurs and petty criminals commit offences that must be sanctioned, but at the same time we want the legislator to put resources at the disposal of people who, through a community involvement that begins with the assistance provided by health care professionals, will firmly embark on a rehabilitation process.

I also realize, as the hon. member for Mississauga East pointed out, that there are people for whom rehabilitation will not work. Rehabilitation is not an option in the case of serial killers or rapists.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Mississauga East for reminding us that her bill applies only to a very small percentage of criminals. I believe she said 1%.

Still, it is important to hold this debate, because when some individuals in a community destroy the lives of others through their actions we have a right to expect the judiciary, the various courts of law, including the supreme court, to make fair rulings.

My understanding is that, with her bill, the hon. member seeks to provide greater flexibility to the courts and the judges so that when they deem it appropriate they will have the power to issue a verdict commensurate with the offence that was committed.

I know that my party will discuss these issues. Again, I am grateful to the hon. member for assuming her role of parliamentarian and making us aware of these important issues. I can assure her that all Bloc Quebecois members will give very objective and serious consideration to her bill.

As for what happens later, I am certain that, as a parliamentary team, we will be the most respectful of her intentions and the most respectful of what we are as a party, which is to say a party that is well aware that there is an extremely small number of people for whom rehabilitation does not make any sense. They represent perhaps 1% of those who are criminalized. It is therefore important that judges be able to take this into account in their verdicts.

We will at all times remind others, as the member for Bertier—Montcalm has done, as all of my colleagues who are taking part in the proceedings of the standing committee on justice have done, that the great challenge we face is also to make ourselves available, to call on this parliament and on provincial legislatures to allocate resources for those who stand to benefit from rehabilitation.

In the second hour of debate we will again be able to take a look at this bill. Again, we are deeply indebted to the member for taking her parliamentary duties so seriously.