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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill S-6. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill S-6 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows:

“1. This Act may be cited as the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-6, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting the following after line 28 on page 3:

“(2.7) The 90-day time limits for the making of any application referred to in subsections (2.1) to (2.5) may be extended by the appropriate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, to a maximum of 180 days if the person, due to circumstances beyond their control, is unable to make an application within the 90-day time limit.

(2.7) If a person convicted of murder does not make an application under subsection (1) within the maximum time period allowed by this section, the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, or his or her designate, shall immediately notify in writing a parent, child, spouse or common-law partner of the victim that the convicted person did not make an application. If it is not possible to notify one of the aforementioned relatives, then the 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).”

Motion No. 3

That Bill S-6, in Clause 7, be amended

a) by replacing line 9 on page 6 with the following:

“3(1), within 90 days after the end of two years”

(b) by replacing line 19 on page 6 with the following:

“amended by subsection 3(1), within 90 days”

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak to Bill S-6, the most serious time for the most serious crime act, now that it has been reported back to the House by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member.

This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to repeal the so-called faint hope clause or the faint hope regime for all future murderers and to tighten up the application procedure for those who have committed their crimes prior to this bill becoming law. Bill S-6 would achieve these goals in a balanced way, something that was recognized in the other place, where this bill was thoroughly and strongly examined and sent to the House without any amendments. However, I regret to say that the amendments adopted in the justice committee threaten to undermine the most important elements of Bill S-6 by reintroducing the very uncertainty that the bill was designed to overcome.

Before going on, I note that the punishment for high treason and murder is life imprisonment without parole eligibility, set in accordance with section 745 of the Criminal Code. Thankfully, as there is no one serving time in Canada for treason, I will confine the remainder of my remarks to the offence of murder.

As we know, there is an automatic 25-year parole ineligibility for first degree murder and for two categories of second degree murder. The period of ineligibility for parole for other categories of second degree murder is between 10 and 25 years, as determined by a sentencing judge and in accordance with section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

Despite these clear provisions, the faint hope regime in section 745.6 and the related provisions permits convicted murderers to seek an earlier parole eligibility date than the one to which they were originally sentenced. Since its inception in 1976, the faint hope clause has been a continuing source of controversy and has certainly been the object of derision by many victim groups in this country.

The families and loved ones of murder victims are particularly affected as they often live in dread and uncertainty as to whether an offender will be bringing a faint hope application that will then force them to relive the tragic pain of their losses yet again. In recognition of such concerns, amendments were brought forward by a previous government in 1997 and 1999 to render post-1997 multiple murderers ineligible to apply for faint hope and to toughen the application procedures for all other murderers.

Bill S-6 would build on these earlier initiatives by effectively repealing the right of all future murderers to apply for faint hope and by further toughening the application procedure. This is important. Barring future murderers from applying for faint hope would not only benefit the families and loved ones of victims but also protect society by keeping offenders in prison for the full time to which they are sentenced. What could be more reasonable than that?

As all hon. members will recall from past debates, the current application process has three stages: first, judicial screening to determine if an applicant has a reasonable prospect of success; second, a unanimous decision by a jury to reduce the applicant's parole ineligibility period; and three, an application for parole to the Parole Board of Canada. Allow me to highlight the key changes proposed by Bill S-6.

First, applicants would have to meet a stricter test at stage one by showing a “substantial likelihood” of success. This would screen out all less-meritorious applications. There would also be a longer statutory waiting period for re-application after unsuccessful applications, five years instead of the two at present.

The House will undoubtedly know of the high profile case of Clifford Olson, who has been making repeated faint hope applications virtually every two years. In fact, one was just last week. All this has accomplished is to make the families of the victims of Mr. Olson relive the horror and terror every two years.

Most important, Bill S-6 would impose a new 90-day window for offenders to apply, or reapply, under the faint hope regime once they have served 15 years.

Failure to make an application within that application window would bar any further applications for five years, at which time another 90-day application window would open.

These time limits are explicitly designed to shelter victims' families and loved ones by requiring offenders to make their intentions clear at the earliest opportunity and by restricting the number of applications that can be made over the course of an offender's sentence.

The amendments made at the committee stage undermined virtually all of these worthwhile goals.

The government is committed to protecting the rights of victims of crime. We want to see an end to faint hope reviews so that victims' families would not need to suffer the anguish of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and relive their losses over and over again.

I think it is mindful that the House be advised of what one of the spokespersons for victims of crime said at committee regarding repeal of the faint hope close.

Ms. Sharon Rosenfeldt, who is the mother of one of Clifford Olson's many victims, said:

We at Victims of Violence believe this process is heavily weighted in favour of the offender. The emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than on the crime itself, the victim, or the impact of the crime on the family and communities. We believe that when Mr. Warren Allmand, the member of Parliament responsible for this clause, talked about the waste of the life of the offender who is kept in prison for 25 years, he seemed not to take into consideration the innocent life the offender wasted when he or she made the decision to commit murder. There is no parole or judicial review for murder victims and their families. They have no faint hope clause or legal loophole to shorten their sentence. Victims of Violence also believes the offender is not sent to prison to be punished, but rather the sentence itself is the punishment, according to the Criminal Code of Canada. Thus we continue to ask a very simple question: Is the sentence 25 years, or is it 15 years? It cannot continue to be both.

That ends Ms. Rosenfeldt's testimony before the justice committee.

As was demonstrated at the committee, the Liberals, on the other hand, are more interested in playing politics instead of listening to the victims of crime.

As a result of the several unnecessary Liberal amendments to Bill S-6, such as removing the name of the bill, this important legislation will now have to return to the other place, unless of course this House decides to agree with the proposed amendments put forward today and reverse the amendments at committee.

The Liberal caucus claims to share Canadians' and victims' concerns about crime, but when the cameras are off, it uses every opportunity to gut, derail or delay our important government law and order, safe street and safe community bills.

These unnecessary amendments were clearly used as a political tactic to delay our justice legislation. It is inconceivable to me that such an important matter as the protection of the families and loved ones of murder victims be delayed by a dispute over semantics.

We are really getting to the bottom of the intellectual barrel when we start wasting time in committee debating the names of bills. That really, I think, brings a disservice to the intellectual debate that these bills require and that Canadians want and demand that we pass.

For all these reasons, I urge all hon. members to reflect on what I have just said today and to vote in favour of the government's report stage amendments that would reverse the unnecessary changes introduced by the Liberals at committee and allow this bill to quickly become law to the benefit of the victims of crime in this country.

Victims of crime have spoken loudly and unequivocally that they want this legislation passed and that they want it passed expeditiously. I urge all hon. members of the House to give deference to the victims of crime.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the amendments, it was interesting that the new Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was recently appointed this past summer, as the government did not like what the prior one was doing, because he was being too forceful especially around the gun registry. The Conservatives did not reappoint him. At that point he was in favour, as were a number of the victims activist groups, of keeping the gun registry and opposed to the government's position. Anyway he did not get renewed in his position, like so many other people who do not agree with the government's agenda even though they are doing the job they are supposed to be doing.

Specifically on one of the amendments being proposed in trying to delete one the amendments made at the justice committee, we heard very clearly from the ombudsman and other victims about their absolute need for information, to know what is going on, such as whether there is another proceeding coming. Are they going to be faced with a process that they want to be involved in out of respect for their family member or loved one who has been murdered?

One of the amendments put in that the opposition parties supported was to deal with the situation. We have a situation with the faint hope clause where, a year before individuals are eligible to apply, the corrections officers have discussions with them, and all of the evidence that came out in the course of analyzing the bill and the faint hope clause—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I will terminate the hon. member's remarks so that the member has an opportunity to reply, which will be after oral questions.

The House resumed consideration of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert had the floor. There are three minutes remaining in questions and comments.

There being no further questions, we will resume debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh was in the process of asking me a question. May I answer?

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Fair enough. I will let the member for Edmonton—St. Albert respond to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question had to do with victims and one of the proposed amendments by the Liberal-NDP coalition regarding the bill before the House. It had to do with the alleged request by victims groups to receive information.

The reason the government rejects the amendment that came out of the committee is that it is absolutely impractical for Corrections Canada to anticipate whether or not an offender is going to make use of the faint hope provisions. This is information that is specifically and particularly in the knowledge of the offender and perhaps his or her solicitor. It is absolutely impractical for Corrections Canada to notify victims' families when an offender has chosen not to make application for the faint hope provisions. They just do not know.

More to the point, victims want closure. Victims do not want to be notified by Corrections Canada of an impending faint hope application or that there is not going to be an imminent faint hope application. Victims have told us unequivocally and loudly that they want closure. If the opposition members are really interested in conforming to the wishes of victims, they will allow the bill to proceed as it came to the House from the Senate without any amendments and to abolish the faint hope clause for future murderers.

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

Mr. Speaker, is the member aware that the removal of the faint hope clause would not have any practical effect for 15 years? The Conservatives have led the public to believe that somehow they are going to be removing the faint hope clause, but the public does not understand that nothing will happen for 15 more years.

Would the member comment on whether he has discovered why the Conservative government of Joe Clark in 1979 started mailing pension cheques to murderers in prison? Has he been able to investigate that yet?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The provisions of this bill will not be retroactive, nor should they be.

There is a principle of criminal law, which has been reinforced by our charter, that these provisions cannot be implemented retroactively. This will only apply to individuals who are convicted of murder on a go-forward basis from the time this bill receives royal assent and is proclaimed into law. That is appropriate.

Although the situations with Mr. Olson have often been cited and family members of the victims of Mr. Olson appeared before the committee to support this bill, the member is quite correct in that this bill will have no effect on those victims.

Realistically, and sadly, we can anticipate that these types of situations will occur in the future. This is to protect future victims—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there as he has gone over his time.

We will move on with resuming debate. The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am participating in the debate today for two reasons. One reason is that I am concerned about the general approach the government is taking toward the House of Commons and toward the process of debate, discussion and amendment in a minority House. I will come back to that point in a minute. The other reason is our concern about the way in which the government is handling criminal justice legislation.

On the first point, my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert made much of the fact that this bill has gone through the Senate, which the government now effectively controls, and the House of Commons is now receiving the bill.

The government decided to put the bill in the Senate, not us. It decided to put the bill in the Senate and, miracle of miracles, because the government controls the makeup of the Senate, the bill managed to get through without any changes or amendments.

Then when the legislation comes to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons decides that it should be amended, if that is what the House of Commons decides, it is what the committee decided and we will see whether or not it is what the House of Commons decides, at that point the government takes great offence and says that if we amend this bill, that effectively means it has to go back to the Senate again. This is the government's most powerful reason for not providing any amendments.

To say that I am unimpressed with this approach is putting it mildly. The problem we have had with the government in both of its apparitions, the first apparition in 2006 and the second apparition in 2008, is that it has never understood what it means to govern in a minority Parliament.

It is clear that the government has never accepted the fact that it is a minority government. But it has no choice but to accept the possibility that amendments will be made to its legislation if it wants to create legislation on any given subject.

That is why I spoke today about the democracy deficit, which has been a problem with this government since it took power. The performance of the ministers answering questions in the House of Commons is deplorable. They never answer the questions, they just attack anyone who asks a question and there is never any substance to their answers. All they do is attack non-stop. This has nothing to do with democratic dialogue. I would know, because I have been in politics for over 30 years now. In my political life, I have never seen such a performance from a government that is supposed to support the notion of democracy.

I have never seen such a performance as I have seen by the government since my election to this place in 2008. The Conservatives never answer a question of substance. They never deal with an issue of substance. The only method they know to deal with any question is to attack. They attack the character, attack the personality, attack history, attack some other point.

Now the government turns around and says it is not prepared to deal with the amendments to this legislation. I have news for the government. There will be lots of amendments to legislation that it proposes. There will be lots of discussions and there may from time to time even be defeats if it persists in its approach of saying, “It is our way or the highway”.

It is not the way to conduct the public affairs of a country. It is the not the way to conduct the public affairs of a province. It is not the way to conduct the public business of Canada. We see day by day the corrosive effect of the attitude which the government continues to display. The way in which it continues to present itself to the House and the people of Canada increasingly attacks the very notion.

I find it so ironic that it was the Reform Party that came to the House with all of its ideas about how it was going to restore democracy. The government has shown a systematic contempt for parliamentary democracy. It knows nothing of respect for the parliamentary process. It complains about amendments being brought forward by the opposition. Of course there will be amendments. It is our right and our responsibility to bring forward amendments.

The government says it will not deal with them, it will never compromise, it will not negotiate, it will not make any arrangements to allow legislation to go through and that is the way it is going to govern. That is tough because if that is the way it is going to govern, then we have no option but to say we will stand in our places and fight and fight and fight again because this is an approach to democracy which simply cannot be allowed to stand.

The government claims that it is concerned about the economy. The member for Peterborough was up on his feet yesterday asking why we would bring up issues of the charter when we should be worrying about jobs. I would say to the member for Peterborough, show me the legislation you are bringing forward that deals with jobs, every single item. The Criminal Code is going to be bigger than the Encyclopedia Britannica if you guys are allowed to get away with this—