Bill C-48 (Historical)

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code with respect to the parole inadmissibility period for offenders convicted of multiple murders. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a good point. I do not by any means oppose a bill that attacks the most serious of crimes—murder—and that opposes parole for repeat offenders.

As for the rest, although the Conservatives talk a great deal about minimum sentences, the Bloc Québécois has always opposed them. The Conservatives believe that, by making statements after a crime becomes high profile, they will make political or electoral gains. However, in Quebec, the solution is rehabilitation, and we have provided evidence of this in the House on a number of occasions.

When you create minimum sentences of eight months, nine months, one year, or two years less a day, the offenders upon whom these sentences are imposed end up in Quebec's or other provinces' prisons. It is not the federal government that pays the bill. It is the provinces that have to deal with it. Because of legislative changes, Quebec is in the process of considering the possibility of doubling the number of prisoners per cell.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-48, one of the many crime bills the government has introduced over the last five years. The government has introduced these bills on several occasions, only to prorogue Parliament or to call an election earlier than necessary. This brings into question the Conservatives' lack of sincerity about the bills, whether they seriously believe in passing and implementing the bills or whether it is all about planks in their election platform.

For example, when the government prorogued Parliament a year ago, the bill had a different number. One would have thought the government would come back into the House last March and reintroduce this bill along with all of the other ones it had killed when it prorogued Parliament, yet it took the government 216 days to get around to reintroducing this bill. That should be an indicator to people watching today that the government's commitment is a bit lacking in this area.

In the last few days there has been a shifting of political ground in the United States. On January 7 Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives and a great power in the Republican Party in the United States for a number of years, teamed up with other top-level Republicans from even the Reagan days, such as Ed Meese and other people like him. They essentially came around to 100% of the NDP position and in many cases the Bloc position, and sometimes the Liberal position, on crime.

If Conservative members of Parliament actually read what Newt Gingrich had to say, they would be quite impressed because when Newt Gingrich talks about crime now, he talks about getting it right on crime, doing what works. That is what we as parliamentarians should be looking at. If members of the Conservative Party were to take a time-out to study what Newt Gingrich had to say on January 7, to look at the situation in North Carolina and in Texas over the last five years, they would recognize there is a brand of conservatism in the United States which is saying, “What we are doing here is not working. We are wasting a lot of tax dollars. There is a way to be smart on crime. Let us do that”.

These are the issues the NDP, the Bloc, and the Liberals have been addressing in this House consistently over the last few years.

If I have some time at the end of my speech, I will deal with more of the issues of what Newt Gingrich had to say. If anybody would like a copy of this article, I would be very pleased to provide it. I am particularly interested in members from the Conservative Party who might be interested in reading this article because they are obviously going to hear more about this in the future. It is dated January 7. It is a very recent publication by Newt Gingrich.

This bill is one that is getting pretty much unanimous support in the House. All of the parties will be supporting it, even though we all have observations, reservations and suspicions about why the government wants to push it through at this time.

Bill C-48, as I indicated, has had previous incarnations and numbers. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act. The short title, which has been a subject of debate here and at committee, is “Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act”. The debate rages in the House about the appropriateness of that title and having that type of short title for these bills. I believe that over time the government will see the folly of this strategy and will come back to the old way of doing things, which is to simply call it what it is.

I note that it is not just the Conservative government here that is doing things like that. The NDP government in Manitoba has resorted to putting short titles on specific bills, I guess to make them more palatable for the press to report on.

Nevertheless, this bill was given first reading in the House on October 5, 2010. As I indicated, clearly 216 days went by before this tough on crime government actually started to get tough on crime. It let that time go by. The Conservatives could have called an election last September and this bill would not have been reintroduced. That shows their commitment.

The bill amends the Criminal Code with respect to the parole admissibility period for offenders convicted of multiple murders. This is done by affording judges the opportunity to make the parole ineligibility periods for multiple murders consecutive rather than concurrent. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

One of the reasons this bill is getting support from the Bloc and other sources in the House is that it does leave the judge with discretion. That is reasonably important. However, it was mentioned by speakers earlier today that an amendment was introduced but it was defeated. Now a judge will have a choice between 25 years or 50 years, where in fact, the judge's discretion perhaps should be somewhere in between. If the judge is only given an option of 25 years or 50 years, that may not be workable in the long run. As I mentioned, there are very few cases to which this would apply. I have statistics, which I will get to later, that indicate the actual number of cases that would be involved.

Consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers will not be mandatory under the provisions of Bill C-48. Judges will be left with the discretion to consider the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence and any jury recommendations before deciding on whether consecutive parole ineligibility periods are appropriate. The bill will also require that judges state orally or in writing the basis for any decision not to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on multiple murderers.

I want to get into some of the provisions of the current law, how it came about and demonstrate that this is not a simple process. We get a false impression, thanks to the simplicity of media reports and the concentration on only those exceptions, the few cases that are extreme rather than the norm. The public gets the impression it is a revolving-door system. I hear that when I go door to door. We had coffee parties in my riding in the last few weeks and people told me that was their impression from listening to the media. The reality in dealing with the system is that it is quite different. That is why I want to get into the mechanics and requirements for moving through the system.

In 1976 Parliament repealed the death penalty and imposed a mandatory life sentence for the offence of murder. Offenders who were convicted of first degree murder serve a minimum life sentence with no eligibility for parole before they have served 25 years.

I have indicated the average amount of time spent in prison by murderers in Canada is 28 years, which makes the average in Canada pretty much the highest in the world. There are statistics to show that in other countries that we are very familiar with and actually admire the average is much less, and they are not considered unsafe countries by any means.

For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed, with the judge setting the parole eligibility to a point between 10 and 25 years. Those serving a life sentence can only be released from prison if granted parole by the National Parole Board.

Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of a fixed length, for example, 2, 10 or 20 years, lifers are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a Correctional Service Canada parole officer.

Once again, people like Clifford Olson will never get out of prison, nor will Robert Pickton or any other person in this situation. For us to pretend otherwise is doing a disservice to the public.

Parole may be revoked and offenders returned to prison any time they violate the conditions of parole or commit any new offence. Not all lifers will be granted parole. Some may never be released on parole because they continue to represent too great a risk to reoffend.

The one exception to the 25 year parole ineligibility period for first degree murder or to the 15 to 25 year parole ineligibility period for second degree murder is the so-called faint hope clause. We discussed that yesterday.

During the years following its initial introduction in 1976, the faint hope provision underwent a number of amendments. I will mention the criteria for the possible release on parole of someone serving a life sentence.

The inmate must have served at least 15 years of the sentence. The inmate who has been convicted of more than one murder, or at least one of the murders was committed after January 9, 1997 when certain amendments came into force, will not apply for a review of his or her parole ineligibility period. These were amendments brought in under the Chrétien government. They basically disallowed multiple murderers from involving themselves with the faint hope clause. That is not the impression the government likes to leave with the public, but multiple murderers cannot apply anyway.

To seek a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole, the offender must apply to the chief justice of the province or territory in which his or her conviction took place. The chief justice or a superior court judge designated by the chief justice must first determine whether the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect the application for review will succeed. The assessment is based on, once again, a number of criteria.

This is not a simple process. It is not a revolving door at all. It is very involved, which is why, at the end of the day, while there are 13,000 people in prison, we are looking at very small numbers of people to whom this act would apply.

The criteria that the assessment is based on are: the character of the applicant; the applicant's conduct while serving the sentence, for example, he or she is not involved in prison riots and other altercations within the system; the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted; any information provided by the victims; the victims' input is taken at the time of the imposition of the sentence or the time of the hearing under this section; and any other matters the judge considers relevant to the circumstances.

If the application is dismissed for lack of reasonable prospect of success, the chief justice may set a time for another application, and once again, not earlier than two years after the dismissal, or he or she may declare that the inmate will not be entitled to make another application at all, and that would be the end of it. If the chief justice or judge determines that the application has a reasonable prospect of success, a judge will be assigned to hear the matter with a jury. In determining whether the period of parole ineligibility should be reduced, the jury should consider the five criteria that I outlined above. The jury's determination to reduce the parole ineligibility period must be unanimous. It cannot be split. It has to be a unanimous decision .

The victims of the offender's crime may provide information, either orally or in writing or in any other manner the judge considers appropriate. If the application is dismissed, the jury may, by a two-thirds majority, either set a time not earlier than two years after the determination when the inmate may make another application, or it may decide that the inmate will not be entitled to make any further applications.

If a jury determines that the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, a two-thirds majority of the jury may substitute a lesser number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole than the number then applicable. The number of years without eligibility for parole that it may assign could range from 15 to 24 years.

Once permission to apply for early parole has been granted, the inmate must apply to the National Parole Board to obtain parole. Whether the inmate is released and when is the sole decision of the National Parole Board. It is based on a risk assessment, with the protection of the public as its foremost consideration. Board members must also be satisfied that the offender would follow specific conditions, which may include a restriction of movement, participation in treatment programs, which, once again, even Newt Gingrich is now sold on as a way to deal with issues like this in the United States, and prohibitions on associating with certain people such as victims, children, convicted criminals, whatever the particulars are of that case.

The faint hope clause review is not a forum for a retrial of the original offence, nor is it a parole hearing. A favourable decision by the judge and the jury simply advances the date at which the offender may apply for parole.

The Criminal Code implicitly provides that all sentences should be served concurrently unless the sentencing judge directs that a sentence is to be served consecutively or legislation requires that it is to be served consecutively. For example, section 85(4) of the Criminal Code requires that a sentence for using a firearm in the commission of an offence 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.

Section 83.26 mandates, once again, consecutive sentences, exactly what the government is talking about. We have consecutive sentences for the sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, plus consecutive sentences for terrorist activity. It is not as if we do not have those applications elsewhere other than the case of a life sentence. Section 467.1(4) requires consecutive sentences for organized crime. Those are the three exceptions.

One example of when a consecutive sentence may be imposed by a sentencing judge is when the offender is already under sentence of imprisonment. In cases where more than one murder has been committed, and I had indicated the numbers are rather small, the offender serves his or her sentences concurrently. A sentence of a term of years imposed consecutive to a sentence of life imprisonment is not valid in law. Life imprisonment means imprisonment for life, notwithstanding any release on parole.

We get into this whole issue that if someone is already sentenced for life, how many lives can that person serve? If a person is in prison for life and lives to be 100 years old, what is the point of having two or three life sentences, because that person is not going to have more than one life at the end of the day. That is the point.

The consequence of this is that a consecutive life sentence could not take effect until the offender has actually died. The courts have held that Parliament cannot have contemplated this physical impossibility, which would tend to bring the law into disrepute, nor is the faint hope clause available so long as at least one of the murders was committed after January 9, 1997.

I want to deal with an issue that has been mentioned by a number of other people, which is that in 1999 an international comparison of the average time served in custody by an offender with a life sentence for first degree murder showed Canada exceeds the average time served in all countries surveyed, including the United States, with the exception of U.S. offenders serving life sentences without parole. The estimated average time that a Canadian convicted for first degree murder spent in prison was 28.4 years.

I just wanted to advise as to what some of the other countries do, countries that we look up to, that we--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things on which I will agree with the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is that the Conservative government is always playing politics when it comes to crime bills because it wants to play with victims' lives. It drags the bills even when there is unanimous support from the opposition parties.

I am concerned with respect to this bill because of a particular case in Surrey where there were multiple murders. Innocent victims, Ed Schellenberg and Chris Mohan, were killed. The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville brought in a private member's bill, and I was proud to second it. The reason being is when I was visiting the people in Newton—North Delta they made it quite clear that they wanted to abolish concurrent sentencing and replace it with consecutive sentencing so that the families of people like Ed Schellenberg and Chris Mohan would feel that justice had been served.

Does the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona agree that in cases such as this the bill is justified?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course that is one of the arguments for supporting the bill.

As I have indicated, when a person receives a life sentence that is in fact what a life sentence is. There is satisfaction on the part of the victims knowing that the criminal receives multiple sentences and serves them concurrently. However, there is a conflict in how the law currently operates because, in fact, criminals will not be released any sooner and there are some contradictions regarding how the law is presently structured.

I do want to point out the time offenders spend in custody in other countries. For example, in New Zealand it is roughly 11 years, in Scotland 11.2 years, in Sweden 12 years, in Belgium 12.7 years, in England 14.4 years, in Australia 14.8 years, and in the United States, life with parole, 18.5 years. Presently in Canada we have people serving 28.4 years on average. Therefore, we are doing the job.

Having said that, the member is absolutely right. Optics are everything. People want the satisfaction of knowing in their own minds that the second sentence the repeat offender receives will be served on top of whatever the offender received for the first murder. However, the member knows the reality is that an offender is not going to live 200 years or 300 years. So that issue has to be resolved in our own minds.

Having said that, we know that the bill is going to pass.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the comments that my colleague has put forth on this issue. He is absolutely right that the bill will do nothing to help law enforcement reduce crime. That is what we have seen the government continuously fail to put forward. I am going to ask him at some point, after I have given a little more information here, if he has ever seen a private member's bill or a government bill go forward from the government side with respect to crime prevention and rehabilitation.

I have a couple of comments with respect to the article by Newt Gingrich and Pat Nolan. It is quite clear that the United States has recognized that providing rehabilitative services is what lowers crime rates, not keeping criminals in jails. Let us look at Texas, for example, which is known to be tough on crime.

The article states:

Conservative Republicans joined with Democrats in adopting incentive-based funding to strengthen the state’s probation system in 2005.

I come from probation and parole services and we have been saying for a long time that we need to make more investments in probation and parole services.

The article continues:

Then in 2007, they decided against building more prisons and instead opted to enhance proven community corrections approaches such as drug courts. The reforms are forecast to save $2 billion in prison costs over five years.

The Lone Star State has already redirected much of the money saved into community treatment for the mentally ill--

In large part, that is what we must ensure the government thinks about when it is putting forward private member's bills or government bills with respect to crime prevention.

The article continues:

--and low-level drug addicts. Not only have these reforms reduced Texas’ prison population–-helping to close the budget gap-–but for the first time there is no waiting list for drug treatment in the state. And crime has dropped 10 percent from 2004, the year before the reforms, through 2009, according to the latest figures available, reaching its lowest annual rate since 1973.

Across Canada we hear over and over again how people are waiting for mental health and drug rehabilitation services. Perhaps my colleague could comment on that.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was taken aback and floored when I returned to Ottawa yesterday and I read Newt Gingrich's article of Friday, January 7. I would recommend it to anybody in the House or in the country to read. His article reflects what has actually been going on.

In Texas, Republican and Democrat politicians, both right wing and left wing, got together as far back as five years ago and decided to be smart on crime, to do what worked. They could not sustain the increasing costs to the system because the crime rates were not going in the right direction. There were two things that did not work right. In the case of, I believe, North Carolina the same issue has been going on, with the Republicans and Democrats getting together and saying that it is not working.

That is why we have called on the government to set up a multi-party committee of the House and do a complete revamp of our Criminal Code, which is 100 years old. It should not be reformed on a piecemeal basis. It should be done in a concerted way.

Maybe the government should proceed with an all party committee and have people go to North Carolina and Texas to see what works there, so we can try to avoid some of the problems the government wants to take us into. It is behind the times. It is still following Ronald Reagan. Americans gave up on the Ronald Reagan approach a long time ago.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is important to highlight the rehabilitative process in which we need to invest. I know the bill will pass, as long as the government decides that and does not call an election or prorogue Parliament again.

It is important to put the emphasis on treatment and probation, where those resources should actually be spent. For example, the Oaks Centre in Elliot Lake has indicated that it needs funding and support. It needs to make sure that those moneys get redirected to such programs. The Salvation Army has programs as well and it has indicated it needs some support with those. The mental health aspect is one of the most important.

Could my colleague once again talk about the article and how important it is to recognize the differences we can actually make within our communities?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The article written by Newt Gingrich deals with issues like that. It recognizes the importance of rehabilitation in prisons and getting people involved in drug programs. He talks about drug courts. We have had several drug courts in Canada. We have a history of doing that, although probably not to as great a degree as we should. He is recommending it in the United States and, in fact, I believe it has done that in a number of areas right now. It is a very cost-effective approach to crime.

The announcement of putting $9 billion into new prisons so we can dump people in there at a cost of $300,000 a year and simply warehouse them, as was the case under “three strikes” of Ronald Reagan, is all yesterday's story. I do not know where the government has been. Why does it not have its crime experts out talking to conservatives in the United States? I know it talks to Republicans every once in awhile. Why does the government not just phone Newt? I am sure he will tell it—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is yet another bill where the government is likely more concerned with how it will be perceived by the public for bringing this bill forward and trying to portray an image of getting tough on crime. If the government really wanted to get tough on crime, it would show it in the types of expenditures and programming that would ensure fewer crimes would be committed.

Bill C-48 has appeared before the House in the past, in a different form of course. That was prior to the time when the Prime Minister and government House leader saw fit to prorogue the session, ultimately killing everything on the order paper at that time.

Following caucus, cabinet or, more specifically, the Prime Minister's office discussions, the determination was made that the government could still get more points on this bill by reintroducing it in the form we see today, Bill C-48.

To make matters worse, the government often tries to give the impression that the Liberal Party is causing problems with the bill not passing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Liberal Party has gone out of its way to try to accommodate the government in regard to coming up with legislation and supporting legislation that would be of benefit.

The members for Newton—North Delta and Mississauga East—Cooksville had championed a private member's bill that dealt with concurrent versus consecutive sentencing. We only wish the Conservative government would give the same sort of attention to that bill such as it gives to its own bills. The private member's bill had a great deal of merit and ultimately could have been brought before a committee.

Instead of doing that, because it did not necessarily fit its agenda, the government felt it was in its best interest to reintroduce a bill that previously failed because the it decided to prorogue the session, killing a number of bills that were on the order paper.

Today we find ourselves, once again, at second reading, with the government asking members of the opposition to allow the bill to pass. The bill is pretty straightforward. I suspect there is a sense of co-operation in wanting this bill to go to the next stage to see if there is the possibility of the government being willing to accept friendly amendments that would give it that much more appeal and would ultimately allow it to receive passage in the House.

Opposition members look forward to the government having an open mind as this bill goes through the stages. We are a little bit skeptical in terms the government's willingness to acknowledge ideas that come from the opposition.

In terms of the actual need for the legislation, one of the things we need to take a look at is some statistical information in regard to homicide. In terms of public response to different types of homicide, there are very few that are viewed as horrific as those involving more than one victim. There are examples.

Canadian history shows we have had some fairly horrific cases involving a number of victims where one individual took a toll on social justice. These individuals did so much damage or caused so much concern when in fact something could have been done if more programming, services and supports were in place to prevent some of these horrific acts.

I understand we are at third reading stage of the bill. I recognize there is always the opportunity for changes. I look forward to the bill ultimately going through its final stage in the House of Commons.

I want to focus my attention on some of the statistics. The information the legislative library provides us with is great. In 1999 the number of cases involving 2 victims was 26, 3 victims were 2 and 4 and more victims was 1. The number of victims has been relatively consistent through the years. In 1999 there was one multiple homicide case involving four or more victims. In 2001 there were two. In 2002 there was one. There were no convictions in 2003-04. There was one case in 2005. In 2006 there were three. In 2007 there were three. In 2008 there was one. Fourteen cases involved four or more victims. This bill would apply to them.

If we canvass the different stakeholders, some would ultimately argue to what degree individuals have been convicted of four or more murders and have been released before serving 25 years. This question has been posed to me, but I did not know the answer. I am not sure if the government provided that information. However, it is relevant to know to what degree individuals within our system who have been convicted of four or more murders are provided with the opportunity to be released prior to serving 25 years. I suspect, and I could be wrong, that we would not find any at that level. I look to the government to please inform me if I am wrong.

In regard to three victims or less in that same period of time, we are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of 31 cases. Where the increases get significant is the multiple factor of 2 where the number jumps up to 210 cases between 1999 and 2008.

The issue of multiple murders is something that gets a great deal of attention from the media as the public responds hastily toward individuals who commit these types of crimes. The public wants to know that punishment is taken into consideration when someone commits a horrendous crime such as murder.

A number of different cases in the history of Canada clearly highlight the need for us to look at the difference in the wording of consecutive versus concurrent based on different reports, whether it is through the media, or stakeholders, or individuals or discussions with constituents over the years.

As a justice critic at the provincial level, I often have to meet and consult with a wide variety of individuals at that grassroots level. Over the years I have heard from literally hundreds of victims of crime; there is that sense of helplessness, a sense that the government is not listening to what is being done or what is happening in the communities, and they do have a high expectation that the justice system will in fact work for them.

When I look at the legislation as it is, in third reading and in these final stages, I am interested in seeing how it fits in with what the expectation of the public really is. What I find is that generally speaking, the public as a whole will support it. They support it, I believe, because they want to feel comfortable in knowing that there is a significant consequence to some of these horrific crimes that are being committed in our society.

I have looked at the government over the last couple of weeks in particular. I started off my comments by saying, “Here we go again”. What I was referring to is that the bill before us today would have very little, if any, impact in preventing crimes from occurring. Having this piece of legislation is not going to stop a multiple murder from occurring--at least, I do not believe that to be the case--yet the government seems to want to put its priorities in terms of bringing in legislation of this nature, while at the same time--and maybe I would not be as offended if it were not doing it at the same time--it is cutting back on what I believe are some programs that would go a long way in protecting society.

Ultimately I would make reference to the cutbacks happening in Winnipeg, in particular in the Winnipeg North-Winnipeg Centre area, which I believe is most affected. These cutbacks will ultimately prevent organizations from being able to keep kids out of gangs and gang activities. I say that because in reviewing some of those statistics that I referenced, we will find that a number of those individual cases are in fact gang-related. There are gangs that do commit multiple murders. That is nothing new to the House of Commons. I am sure that the House has heard that on numerous occasions. However, the point is that by cutting back funding or by not allowing the funding to continue for these anti-gang measures in Winnipeg, we are causing potential harm going forward.

We can look again at some of the statistics that have been provided. We will find that in most cases multiple murders are family-based or relation-based situations, but there are areas where on numerous occasions it has come from a stranger, and quite often strangers or unknowns involve, in essence, elements such as gang activities. In Manitoba we have had some gang incidents involving murder, and the government, I believe, could have played a role in being able to address those types of crimes going forward.

It is nice to see a government respond to the issue of multiple murders and consecutive versus concurrent sentencing. This is nothing new per se. It has been talked about for a while; I made reference that some of my Liberal colleagues have introduced a private member's bill dealing with that particular issue. It is nice to see some action being taken on it, but the real concern for me is that we take advantage of opportunities such as this to say to the government that there is so much more it could be doing that would make a difference.

I am very disappointed that the government has chosen not to make the commitment for the funds necessary to keep kids out of gangs. Some of the programs the government is effectively saying “no more” to include things such as O.A.S.I.S. in Manitoba, which has helped refugees to not slip into potential gang-type activities by ensuring that there are skill sets programs, English as a second language, and other similar programs. There are intense mentorship programs engaging high-risk youth. These programs will be disappearing unless alternative funding is found, because this government is pulling the money away from these groups. As a result, we are putting those kids at risk.

I believe it is dishonest to do that and think that the issue of crime is being dealt with. To deal with crime, we need to provide support. We have to start dealing with the issue of what is causing crime to take place. It is great that we are able to deal with legislation for crime after the fact, but at the end of the day I am just as interested in trying to prevent some of those crimes from happening in the future.

When we look at this bill and at some of the murders that take place, we may find that some could have been prevented if we had better programming at the other end. I suggest that it would be far more cost-efficient to invest at that end than to have to store individuals who have committed these types of crimes in jails for 25-30 years and beyond, especially when we get into the area of multiple murders.

At the end of the day, with the information provided to us, there is a strong argument that the bill will be passing in the House of Commons and ultimately become law if we believe, as we do, that at this point the government is prepared to see the bill carry its way through. We see that as a positive thing.

However, yesterday we talked about the faint hope clause. In dealing with issues such as this, involving concurrent versus consecutive sentences or the faint hope clause, what we are really talking about is longer periods of time of incarceration. Many would argue that having consecutive sentences or getting rid of the faint hope clause may cause other issues within the system that would need to be dealt with.

Those issues are related in good part to behaviour. Typically an inmate will review many different things in terms of how their behaviour might impact--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member has run out of time for his speech, but we have time for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

I see the member for Vancouver Kingsway may wish to speak to the bill. I will give the floor to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to this important bill, Bill C-48, which deals with the issue of the desirability or undesirability of concurrent or consecutive sentences when dealing with multiple murderers.

The bill, by way of background, would amend the Criminal Code and make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, and was given first reading in the House in October of last year.

The bill specifically amends the Criminal Code with respect to the parole inadmissibility period for offenders convicted of multiple murders. This is done by affording judges the opportunity to make the parole ineligibility period for multiple murderers consecutive rather than concurrent.

Consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers would not be mandatory under the bill. Instead, judges would be left with the discretion to consider the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence and any jury recommendations before deciding upon whether consecutive parole ineligibility periods were appropriate or not. The bill would require that judges state orally or in writing the basis for their decision not to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on multiple murderers.

The current law is this: in 1976, when Parliament repealed the death penalty, it imposed a mandatory life sentence for the offence of murder. Offenders convicted of first degree murder serve life as a minimum sentence, with no eligibility for parole for at least 25 years. For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed, with the judge setting the parole eligibility at some point between 10 and 25 years, depending on the circumstances.

Those serving a life sentence can only be released from prison if they are granted parole by the National Parole Board. Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of a fixed length--for instance, two, five or 10 years--people who have received a life sentence are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole, however, they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada and the parole officers who would be assigned to them.

It is important to understand that parole may be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time if they violate the conditions of parole or if they commit a new offence. Of course, it is important to understand that not all people who have life sentences will be granted parole. Some--in fact, many--may never be released on parole, because they continue to represent too great a risk to reoffend.

We talked yesterday about the faint hope clause, which gives people who have been given a life sentence and who have not committed more than one murder the opportunity to apply for parole earlier than 25 years. In the House yesterday we went over the many stringent conditions that would have to occur before that would be allowed to happen.

I think it is important to understand that what we are talking about here is something different, which is what the appropriate sentence would be for someone who has murdered two or more people. The Criminal Code typically provides that all sentences shall be served concurrently unless a sentencing judge directs sentences to be served consecutively or legislation requires that they be served consecutively. For example, subsection 85(4) of the Criminal Code requires that a sentence for using a firearm in the commission of an offence 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. Section 83.26, which mandates consecutive sentences for terrorist activities, is an example other than in the case of a life sentence, and section 467.14 requires consecutive sentences for organized crime offences. One example of when a consecutive sentence may be imposed by a sentencing judge occurs when the offender is already under a sentence of imprisonment.

We see that in our criminal law we have situations in which consecutive sentences are specifically provided for automatically, and in some cases we have situations in which a judge has the discretion to impose sentences to be served consecutively, as opposed to concurrently or at the same time.

In cases in which more than one murder has been committed, at present the offender serves his or her life sentences concurrently. A sentence of a term of years imposed consecutive to a sentence of life imprisonment is not, under the present law, valid.

Life imprisonment means imprisonment for life, notwithstanding any release on parole. The consequence of this is that a consecutive life sentence cannot take effect until the offender has died. The courts have held that Parliament cannot have contemplated this physical impossibility, which would tend to bring the law into disrepute. Nor is the faint hope clause available, so long as at least one of the murders was committed after January 9, 1997.

What we are dealing with today is a legislative proposal that would give judges in this country the discretion, in the case of a person convicted of multiple murders, two or more murders, to consider the advisability of levying consecutive life sentences, which would mean 25 years for one conviction and then a further 25 years for the second.

The New Democrats are supporting this bill at this stage and I want to go through some of the reasons we are supporting it.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

It's the best thing you have done so far this year.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I hear some welcome applause from members on the opposite side.

One of the major reasons we are supporting this bill is that it enshrines in law a concept that we New Democrats have been championing and pushing for consistently for decades, and that is the concept of judicial discretion.

One of the cornerstones of our justice system is the notion that we have an independent judiciary and that within that judiciary, judges have the ability to exercise their discretion to fashion the appropriate remedies in the appropriate cases. That is a hallmark of the western judicial system, and that is because no two cases are alike. It does not matter how many cases we read: each individual has some unique circumstance present in his or her case that requires the judge, or judgment, to reflect.

Our country is based very strongly on what, of course, are sometimes two competing values. One is the concept of collective rights and the other is the concept of individual rights. In a modern democratic society, respect for the rights of the individual is something that is very important as a bulwark against the excesses of the state.

We are seeing right now in Egypt a people rising up against an oppressive autocratic regime that has not respected the democratic rights of people. We see what happens when people join together and say that is enough. It is important to build into any respectful society strong respect for the rights of an individual.