Bill S-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code with regard to the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole. It also amends the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I have to take this opportunity to remind the member for Toronto Centre that he has to address his comments to the Chair and not directly to other colleagues.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I have only been here for years and I cannot get used to not using the phrase “you guys“. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I can only say that the approach to criminal justice that is being taken by the government is an approach that is not going to reduce the level of crime one iota. Every jurisdiction in the United States which has attempted the approach that is now being taken on by the Government of Canada is saying to us, “Please do not do what we did”.

British politicians are telling us emphatically that their prisons are overflowing, that they did not realize what the impact of some of their legislation was going to be. They ask us how we have managed to keep things under control. I look at them and say that we did manage for a considerable period of time with a crime rate that has been going down and not up and with protection of the public that has been going up and not down.

The only message the government over there knows is fear, fear and fear again, which has nothing to do with the reality on the ground and with the need to prevent. Does it have a crime prevention strategy? No. Is it encouraging those communities that want to prevent crime? No. Is it working with the provinces to make sure that we deal with gangs in schools and with violence on our streets? No, it is not.

Its only answer is to lock people up, throw away the key, be done with it, minimum sentences, et cetera. That is the only approach the government knows. It is not an approach worthy of the name. It does not pass muster when it comes to dealing with the challenges and problems we have as a country and it does not deal effectively with the problem that we have.

Do we have a problem of crime? Every country has a problem of crime, a problem of crime that comes out of poverty, a problem of crime that comes out of insecurity, a problem of crime that comes out of addiction, a problem of crime that comes out of drug dependence, a problem of crime that comes out of alcohol dependence, a problem of crime that comes out of hopelessness and no opportunity. The government does not get that. The government's answer to those people is to say it is simply going to lock them up and throw away the key.

Yes, the Liberals are going to be moving amendments to this particular bill. We are going to be hoping that our colleagues in the opposition and whoever has the will to stand on the other side will stand and deal with it. If the government says it is very inconvenient because it got this crystal clear bill through the Senate with no amendments and no discussion and there was no problem, as we say in French, tant pis, too bad.

That is the government's problem, not ours. Our duty, as the opposition, is to ask questions, propose amendments and listen to the witnesses who testify before committees, as is the case here. We need to continue to have a positive and responsible approach to tackling crime, instead of all these things that the government is proposing in the House.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member ended this exactly where I wanted to go with his speech, which I consider to be most unfortunate. The message that the Liberal Party and the coalition members are sending to people in our communities and the message they are sending to victims, the message that they are sending to people who are advocating for justice measures that will protect society, is “too bad”. They are going to be irresponsible when it comes to justice. They would rather play politics with the issues than actually stand up for safe streets and communities.

The message from the member for Toronto Centre is quite simple to the people in my community and the people in communities right across this country who want real justice measures in place, his message is “too bad, we are irresponsible”.

How does the member respond to that?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respond to it by saying that the member is full of hot air. I respond to him very directly by saying that.

What we have said is very clear. If we believe for one second that the whole panoply of prime measures that are being brought forward by the government actually address the issue of crime, actually address the question of safety on our streets, actually looked at the problems that people are facing in our communities, we will respond. We will respond in an effective manner.

However, when we are told, as we were told by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert that we should not be bringing forward any amendments because it is very inconvenient for the government, and the bill might have to go back to the Senate again, we have to say that nothing is being delayed. Issues are being debated. Issues are being discussed. We have an issue in the House for the simple reason that the government will not accept amendments. There has not been an amendment proposed that it has ever accepted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether he thinks the government is guilty of a little bit of false advertising.

The provisions under the faint hope clause bill will not take effect for 15 years. The Conservatives will be coming into the election in a few months proclaiming that they have gotten tough on crime and they have eliminated the faint hope clause and people are going to be very disappointed when they find out it is going to be 15 years before any part of this act takes effect.

Meanwhile, month by month, every month Conservatives are putting pension cheques in envelopes, licking stamps and sending pension cheques to Clifford Olson, a process that started under the Conservative government of Joe Clark in 1979, and they have yet to explain why they are still doing it or in fact why they started mailing those cheques in the first place.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is right. When we look at this legislation, the particular bill that is being proposed by the government that they want us to deal with today, the government is saying to us that we have to get this through right away, that it is absolutely vital that we get the bill through because we are going to be making the streets safer.

This legislation will have no impact until 2025 or 2026. It is not urgent legislation. It is important to get it right. It is important to make sure that the people who are the victims of violent crime are given full information, which is what one of the amendments in this legislation is all about.

I do not know why we would not take that approach.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member's speech, particularly with respect to the approach of the government to lock them up, throw away the key and maybe some day or another they might get out. The problem with that approach is that it costs a fortune and it does not work.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments on the enormous amount of money that the truth in sentencing bill is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer. Does he think that locking people away for a longer and longer period of time at great expense to the taxpayer actually will do anything to reduce the crime rate?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives we are going to dramatically increase the rate of incarceration, the rate of incarceration among the aboriginal population, the rate of incarceration among many minorities across the country.

We are going to put a huge burden on the provinces because most of the minimum sentencing requirements are affecting the provinces. They are not going to be affecting the federal government at all.

They are going to have a dramatic impact on that and they are not going to deal with the root problem, which is what I am trying to say. Tough on crime, absolutely. Where is it tough on the causes of crime? I do not see national addiction programs. I do not see national mental health programs. I do not see national programs dealing with the need for us to work very closely with the provinces on breaking up gangs. I do not see any of this.

What we see is a simplistic ideological approach to this question that will not do what the government says it wants to do.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to put the debate on this issue back into context. We are not debating Bill S-6 itself. We are debating motions moved by the government to restore the text of the bill to what it was when it was referred to the committee. After studying the bill, the committee made two minor amendments to reflect concerns raised during the study. The government has rejected those amendments.

The minister attended our committee meeting again yesterday. He urged us to spend more time studying Bill C-4 and make suggestions for amendments, which he would take into consideration. Today, he is objecting to such minor things as the title and extending the deadline after obtaining permission from the provincial chief justice or delegate because circumstances beyond a person's control prevented that person from applying before the deadline. That is what we are debating now.

Let us begin with the easy part, the title. The title the government wants to use is not the same in English and French. The English title is Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act. The French title is Loi renforçant la sévérité des peines d’emprisonnement pour les crimes les plus graves. With all due respect, those are not bill titles. They are slogans.

In my opinion, when we are talking about crime and about putting people in jail, we have to take a calm approach. We have to leave the hustings mentality behind and behave like parliamentarians. One would expect a minister of justice to be conscious of the dignity required in exercising his functions and do so of his own accord.

As long as they keep giving us titles that are really slogans, we will vote against those slogans. The trend seems to be on the rise, with the government trying it with nearly all of its bills. If they give us objective titles like the ones the previous government provided, we will vote in favour. This has become absurd. Some of the titles are outright libel against Canada's judges.

In that regard, the most impressive title is that of Bill C-16, which would purports to end house arrest for violent and dangerous offenders. No violent or dangerous offenders ever receive such a sentence, because current legislation clearly indicates that judges cannot sentence dangerous offenders to house arrest. Furthermore, these sentences are for more than two years, and are not the kinds of sentences that violent and dangerous offenders receive. If any judge in Canada were to release a violent or dangerous offender to serve his sentence at home, it would be the duty of the crown prosecutor on the case to appeal the decision. In some cases, the sentence could be overturned.

The government needs to stop making up these slogans and start proposing objective titles. In this case, I see a specific problem. Indeed, this time there are two slogans and furthermore, the French and English are not the same. This is what happens when advertising executives are hired to give titles to bills.

The second amendment, which is more serious, would extend the time period. Lawyers who have experience with these kinds of cases gave evidence before the committee. They explained to us how complex the procedures are and how hard it is to build a case 15 years later. Indeed, these requests are made 15 years after the offences, and the offender may have been through many different prisons in many different cities. The lawyers have a very hard time finding the old files. This was acknowledged by correctional authorities, who told us how much effort they put into these requests. They also told us that in many cases, it would be impossible to fulfill all of the requirements as set out in the legislation within the prescribed 90-day period. I therefore believe that the amendment proposed by the Liberals was carefully designed and drafted to target a specific problem, unlike the bills presented by this government.

It is only in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the inmate, as the amendment says, that the chief justice of the province or a delegate could grant this additional 180-day deadline.

Victims have waited 15 years and we would be asking them to wait even longer. They will be told to wait 90 more days because for reasons beyond their control, the inmate the inmate's lawyer was unable to follow all the highly complex procedures within that timeframe. What is so unreasonable about that? Does the minister lack confidence? If anything comes from a committee, then it is no good. He asks us to make suggestions and we do. They are justified, but he does not accept them. I fully agree with the eloquent remarks made by the member who spoke before me.

Consider this: 84% of murder victims knew their murderer. Murder is often committed by a family member. In at least one case, that of young Mr. Kowbel, the father and sister testified to give him a chance even though he was the one who attacked them 15 years earlier, killing his mother and seriously injuring his father. Nevertheless, his relatives recognized his rehabilitation efforts.

This is essential legislation and we only use it when necessary. It is essential for setting the stage for someone facing a sentence of more than 10 and up to 25. He has to have some incentive for good behaviour and respect for the guards. This legislation is good for safety within the prisons and it has not been abused.

Statistics show that before 1995 only 63 applications were filed, 13 of which were denied. The fact that not many applications were denied makes sense because before an application is filed, prison officials have already reviewed the case. Of that number, 27 were approved, but with sentences up to 16 years and 20 years. Three were from 21 years to 23 years. Of the cases that were approved by the juries, 6 were denied by the National Parole Board. We can see from this that the safeguards are substantial.

Since that time, 921 people have been eligible but only 169 requested authorization. Of that number, 141 received authorization to apply and 125 were granted early parole. The result? No repeat murders. There was only one serious criminal offence, an armed robbery. Fifteen people were sent back to prison because they failed to meet some of the very strict conditions of parole imposed on offenders under the supervision of the National Parole Board. In addition, 11 people died.

This is not a law that is abused. We are keenly aware that it may require victims to testify and may cause them painful moments. The cases we are discussing, like the Olson case, will not be affected. Regardless, these offenders will have no chance of parole.

This is a useful law in terms of prison security. It is a good law that encourages some criminals who have committed serious crimes to be rehabilitated. It is a law that, in the end, has produced excellent results. What is worse is that we think that we are doing more in Canada but, in this case, it is quite the opposite.

In Canada, the time that murderers spend in prison is greater than in all other western countries, as well as in Australia and New Zealand.

Let us therefore respect the committees and vote the same way as those who have studied the issue carefully.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member used an objective statistical analysis to defend the faint hope clause. How does he defend this as being good legislation when he heard from victims of crime this week at committee, although it was on another bill? The committee heard from Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of one of the victims of Clifford Olson, who has to go through faint hope hearings every two years. Mr. Olson has said that he knows he will never get a parole but that he puts people through the parole process because “he has the right to”.

What does the member say to the victims of crime and why does he use statistics to defeat the advocacy of the victims of crime?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am simply going to say that this will not happen again. Olson has spent 25 years in prison. This law does not apply to people who have served 25 years in prison. It allows people who are sentenced to 25 years to apply for early parole. Olson does not fit into that category.

In any event, this will never happen under the legislation as it is going to be passed, although it may be amended. Under this legislation, people convicted of multiple murders cannot apply for early parole. I have a lot of sympathy for the victims, and I think that I reassure them much more than the government does when I say that they should not worry because this will not happen under the laws that we are going to pass.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my recollection, the last time we spoke on this bill the committee was still waiting for a report on the actual statistics associated with the faint hope clause. I understand there were a small number of cases of battered women, mothers, who, in reaction, killed their spouse. These were some of the cases that came up with regard to seeking faint hope clause relief.

I wonder if the member is now aware of some of the incidents with regard to the faint hope clause that would put in perspective the kinds of cases that may come about and the frequency with which the provisions under the faint hope clause would be made available.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who wants to know how the law works should not ask a Conservative.

First, the concept of applying every two years comes from another law that applies to those who have already served 25 years in jail. What we are talking about here is those who would like to reduce their jail time.

Second, the law applies in cases where the application is rejected. Before it is rejected, the offender has to go before a judge, who decides whether it is likely that the application will be approved. Then a jury has to be convened, and it makes the decision. It takes quite a while from the time the offender applies to the time the outcome is known. Furthermore, the jury may decide that the offender cannot submit another application before a minimum, not a maximum, of two years has passed. This would go further than that. It is clear that such repeated applications every two years would no longer be allowed under this law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-6 and the amendments that made their way through the committee in recent days. After reading the transcripts of the committee, I see that it was a fairly acrimonious environment for the members in that committee.

The government wants to make three amendments. the first one being to restore the title. Its slogan on this bill is “serious time for the most serious crime act”. I cannot say that is just peculiar to the Conservative government because I have seen that sort of sloganeering in my own province lately, in the Manitoba legislature. I guess the new trend is to somehow take a bill, attach a person's name to it and give it a good slogan that can be pushed to the public in an election campaign.

The Conservatives seem to think that dealing with crime is all about electoral success and image. However, they raise a lot of expectations when they take on challenges like this. I believe that if we were to do a poll of the public after this bill passes, the majority of the public will believe that somehow the faint hope clause has disappeared, thanks to the government. However, that is not the case at all. It will take 15 years because the law will not be retroactive. It will not apply to anybody who is convicted of murder today. It will only apply in the future. And, because it will only take effect 15 years into the sentence, a lot of us members of this House will be long gone when this legislation sees the light of day.

In committee, I sensed that the Liberals thought they could manoeuvre their way through this process by sitting out the vote and allowing the bill to pass and that, by doing that, they would not get hurt in the election as a result of what they had done, and then, in the future, if they were to form the government, they would simply revisit the whole issue and bring back the faint hope clause. That is the brain trust over there in the Liberal leadership in figuring out how to deal with this. I have seen a lot of manoeuvring before but this one has certainly used a lot of imagination to sort out.

Nevertheless, the expectations that the government has brought upon itself for this legislation and other legislation will fall short at the end of the day when the public realizes that there will be more and more stories over the years about faint hope clause applications. People are going to say, “We thought they eliminated that”. The government will then need to explain that somehow it is 15 years.

It is not only this bill that causes a lot of confusion on the part of the public. Just recently, as a result of information that Clifford Olson was collecting pension cheques in jail, the government got excited and produced a bill, obviously not checking things out too closely, to eliminate pension cheques for prisoners convicted of murder. The government did this without doing any research, obviously, because if it had researched it, it would have found that it was the Joe Clark Conservative government in 1976 that started mailing pension cheques to Clifford Olson every month.

The government needs to reflect on the confusion that will be out there in the public. The public has this image of a minister stuffing Clifford Olson's pension cheque into an envelope, licking it shut, licking the stamp and mailing it every month. While the public is having difficulties making ends meet, the government is sending these pension cheques. It was a Conservative government that brought it in. It was the Conservatives' idea in the first place.

I have asked the government many times to explain what went into the decision-making. What sort of studies did it have? What was it thinking, as the member for Winnipeg Centre asked? What could the Conservatives have possibly been thinking when, in 1976, it decided to send pension cheques to prisoners in jail? We ask the question but we get no response. Nobody over there can explain or wants to try to explain why this happened.

I want to get further into the legislation that is being dealt with here and talk about another one of the three amendments the government is attempting to deal with here.

Part of the second amendment deals with the issue that if a person convicted of murder does not make an application within the maximum time period allowed by this section, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada or his designate shall immediately notify in writing a parent, child, spouse or common-law partner of the victim that is a convicted person and did not make an application.

If it is not possible to notify one of the aforementioned relatives, then a notification shall be given to another relative of the victim. The notification shall specify the next date on which the convicted person will be eligible to make an application under subsection (1).

That was there to be helpful to victims. The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has explained many times and has given the statistics of the number of people who are eligible. I believe he indicated it was around 900 people who are eligible under the faint hope clause, and maybe only 100 or so apply and then fewer than that actually make their way through the process.He points out, and truthfully so, that there are no re-offenders out of the process.

What we are trying to do is make things as easy as possible for the victims of crime but the government is trying to eliminate that. A government that pretends to support victims' rights is acting against something here that would be seen as supportive of victims' rights.

There was a victims' rights advocate, who the government got rid of because he did not agree with the government. He did not think it was moving far enough and fast enough on victims' rights. We have a criminal injuries compensation fund, which was brought in by the first NDP government in Canada under Ed Schreyer back in 1970-71, and it has been providing benefits to victims of crime for the last 40 years. Ontario also has such a fund but there is no fund at a federal level.

Where is the tough on crime government? Where are the Conservatives? They have been in power for five years.They say that they believe in services that help victims of crime but where is the criminal injuries compensation fund on a national basis that would be there to help victims of crime? That is the approach the government should be taking but that is not the approach it is taking. It is all about public relations.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the title of the bill has been mentioned a couple of times by members of the opposition. I was actually encouraged to hear that the provincial Government in Manitoba is taking a similar position to this government.

We actually think that titling bills, consequential amendments to the Criminal Code, does not actually help Canadians understand what Parliament is actually doing on their behalf. When a bill is titled subject to the intent of the bill, it works to ensure Canadians understand what we do here each and every day. We want this place to be relevant. We want people to know that Parliament is working on their behalf and that the government is working on their behalf.

I am encouraged to hear that Manitoba is taking a similar track. I would encourage the Manitoba member to support us in reinserting the title of this bill so that Canadians know what we are doing.