This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2013.
David Wilks Conservative
Introduced as a private member’s bill.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to prescribe a minimum punishment of five years when a kidnap victim is under sixteen years of age, unless the person who commits the offence is a parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of the victim.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-299s:
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (kidnapping of young person), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The House resumed from September 24 consideration of Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (kidnapping of young person), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I provide some thoughts regarding the amendment that is being brought forward by my colleague from Mount Royal. He is an individual who has contributed immensely to the whole justice debate over the years, not only as a justice critic but also as a former justice minister. Not only members in this chamber but many people outside the House of Commons listen to what he provides, whether it is in the form of legislation, private members' business or amendments. I emphasize how important it is that the sponsor of this bill listen very closely to what the member for Mount Royal talks about regarding his amendment. I believe it would make a whole lot of sense for the government to accept the amendment.
We can recall other times when the member for Mount Royal, in dealing with justice, brought forward amendments to substantial government legislation at the committee stage, but the government voted all of them down. Neither we nor the government members were allowed to bring forward the amendments at third reading. The legislation had to go to the other house in order to introduce the amendments which the member for Mount Royal was unable to get passed in committee because the Conservatives voted them down. In the other place, the Conservative senators were able to introduce the amendments and send the amended legislation back to the House.
I raise that to highlight how important it is that the sponsor of the bill recognize that the amendments that are being brought forward by the member for Mount Royal on behalf of the Liberal caucus are of a very serious nature. If the member wants to improve the legislation, we highly recommend that he vote in favour of the amendments.
Having said that, I ask that the government not see our bringing forward these amendments as an endorsement of the bill itself. We are trying to improve the bill. The bill still has a fundamental flaw in it with regard to about minimum sentences. My Liberal colleagues and I, and I would like to think all members of the House of Commons are appalled when we see news stories about a missing child. We know the very profound impact that situation has on the community, and more specifically on the parents and family members of the child. We know that if a child is not located in a short period of time after being reported as missing, the chances of the child returning are not good. Far too often, unspeakable things are done to children who are abducted. Victims are created. I would like to think everyone believes, as I do, that the primary victims would be the parents.
My children are older now, 23 and 20, but I shudder to think of one of them going to school and never returning when they were growing up. We can sympathize with people who have to go through that trauma, but we can never genuinely empathize with them because it is such a shocking and horrible experience. Having said that, our hearts, thoughts and prayers go out to those victims.
As my constituents of Winnipeg North watch the news, they may want a kidnapped child to be brought back home but, sadly, it may not happen. Quite often, the remains of the child may be found or we may apprehend the person who perpetrated the crime. When that name is flashed on TV and people read about it in the newspaper, the gut feeling of the vast majority of Canadians is to put that person in jail and throw away the key.
I do not want to defend a pedophile or some of the twisted minds that might be out there, but I do want to defend our judicial system. I might not agree with it all the time but I will defend the decisions of the courts. Who we are as a nation includes having independence within our judicial system.
I choose to believe that our judges are in the best position to get an accurate assessment of what has taken place. Through the support of our judicial system and the different stakeholders, they are able to make an educated decision as to what the consequence should and could be in all situations, including one where a child is kidnapped.
After having had the opportunity to listen and talk to others regarding the legislation, I have not heard examples or specific cases of an offender being let out of jail within a year or so after kidnapping, murdering or raping a child. I do not hear members of the public saying that our judicial system is letting us down on that front.
Prior to this debate, we were debating a government bill that would take away the opportunity for judges to recognize, on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, when an offender may not be able to pay fines. I think we have to be very careful when we do that.
I will conclude with a study from the University of Ottawa and Carleton University entitled, “Mandatory Minimum Penalties: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures”. It observes that mandatory minimum sentences calling for lengthy prison terms can carry a massive financial cost and grossly disproportionate sentences.
It also notes that where prison overcrowding results from mandatory minimums, such increases in incarceration rates can lead to the early release of other offenders who were not the subjects of mandatory minimums, thereby weakening the justice system's response to other crimes.
We need to have the facts on the table. I do not believe the government has done the background work to provide the information necessary to justify this, but I hope it will recognize the value of passing the amendments brought forward by the member for Mount Royal.
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I stand before all members of Parliament today to speak to private member's bill C-299, an act to amend the Criminal Code to impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a stranger who is convicted of kidnapping a child under the age of 16.
The smile of a child is one of innocence, based on an understanding that those in authority will watch over him or her. When a child reaches his or her hand out, it is in trust. It is the human touch that provides children with the security in which they find comfort. Every parent, grandparent or person who has the opportunity to feel that innocence and trust of a child knows exactly what I mean.
However, there is a small segment of society who do not appreciate the innocence of a child. They, on the other hand, see the vulnerability of the child and the ability to manipulate them, with Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo being two of the most notorious.
More so, as a society, we soon forget that the families who are directly affected by these tragedies then live with the emotional scars for the remainder of their lives.
First, there is the struggle of wondering if the child is safe. Then there is the struggle of wondering if they will ever see their child again. Unfortunately, in most cases, reality strikes and hope turns to despair.
Someone asked me why I have such a deep desire to deal with kidnapping and, in particular, the kidnapping of young children. I have two reasons, one more close to home than the other.
The first involves Michael Dunahee, Mindy Tran and Kienan Hebert. I will speak to those three children in a few minutes.
As the House knows, I was a member of the RCMP for over 20 years. I have investigated everything from murder to domestic disputes to grow ops. I have dealt with death more times than I wish to remember and, to some degree, have become insensitive to it. However, the toughest thing I ever had to do as a police officer was to give a next-of-kin notification to a parent. On four occasions I have had to tell a parent that his or her child would not be coming home. It is not something that I would wish upon anyone inside or outside of this place. I have no words to describe the feeling of watching the heart and soul being ripped out of a mother and father. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue.
On Sunday, March 24, 1991, Michael Dunahee went missing from a playground in Victoria, B.C. He was four years old. Michael has never been found and the person who kidnapped him has never been captured.
During committee hearings, Crystal Dunahee gave testimony. It was heart-wrenching to watch her struggle after all those years without knowing where Michael was and hoping that he would still walk through the door of her Victoria home some day.
Mindy Tran was eight years old when she went missing while riding her bicycle on the street in Kelowna, British Columbia, in August of 1994.
Along with hundreds of other police officers, I was part of the ground search team desperately trying to find Mindy. Unfortunately, she was found dead six weeks later in a shallow grave not far from where she was taken. I cannot imagine what was going through that young girl's mind after being kidnapped, but I am certain it was not pleasant.
Kienan Hebert was three years old when he was kidnapped from his home in Sparwood, British Columbia, in September of 2011. A suspect was identified early in the investigation and Kienan was returned safely home to his parents.
We had three different outcomes, all started with a kidnapping by a stranger.
Whether it is the Clifford Olsons, the Paul Bernardos or others of the world, one thing is for sure: the acts they committed all started with a stranger kidnapping a child under the age of 16.
They have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the emotional toll they placed on families affected for the remainder of their lives. They have no concern for the child they kidnapped, for if they did, they would surely never commit the crime in the first place.
Society must be assured that the crime of stranger kidnapping of a child under the age of 16 is dealt with severely. This is why we must ensure that a mandatory minimum sentence be placed upon anyone convicted of this crime.
Do not forget that most people who commit this act have increased their propensity for violence, and their need for self-gratification becomes worse over time. Unlike some commentators I have heard, I do not believe that these people can receive any type of program available that would ensure they can safely integrate back into society.
I have listened to those who say that in some cases the perpetrator has mental issues and should be treated differently. I disagree. Most, if not all, individuals who kidnap children are cold and calculating and know exactly what they are doing.
I have listened to the opposition parties state that mandatory minimum sentences are an intrusion on the judges' powers. In my opinion, and for the children who are kidnapped by strangers every year, they are wrong.
This is not about judges' power. This is about children's rights and our obligation as a society to protect them from the evils of the world. In fact, most of the speakers from the other side who come from the legal profession know full well how the judicial system works, and in fact creating questionable language only opens up the opportunity for court and charter arguments, and does nothing for the victims of crime.
Canadians know what the word “stranger” means. In fact, at committee the amendment was made to define stranger as “not a parent, guardian or person having lawful care or charge of the child”. I believe that is fairly clear.
Let us get beyond the stick-handling of legal jargon and pass the bill. It is about our obligation as parliamentarians and law-makers that we do our utmost to ensure we give as much confidence to society in our criminal laws as is humanly possible.
I will be cutting short my speech because I do believe I have made my point. All I would say to the members of this House is that I encourage every member of Parliament to vote in favour of Bill C-299.
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-299.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have worked on this bill with my 11 other colleagues to look at its strengths and weaknesses.
I must say that I understand where the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia is coming from. I am sensitive to that and I absolutely do not doubt his desire to improve things.
Unfortunately, the bill before us may not have the scope or produce the results that my colleague is looking for. I think that is a shame.
I will provide two sound reasons why we strongly oppose the passage of this bill.
When we look at case law and the sentences handed down in court, we see that the sentences far exceed the five-year minimum proposed in this bill. The minimum sentence of five years has no practical purpose. It is almost impossible to find a case where the sentence was less than five years.
When we go back a number of years, we can see that generally, sentences imposed in similar cases ranged between 12 years and 14 years. That is what one of our witnesses, retired Supreme Court Justice John C. Major, told us during the work of the committee. In addition to confirming that he did not find a sentence that was less than 10 years for this type of crime no matter how far back he looked, the honourable justice questioned the purpose of including a minimum sentence in the legislation.
I must say that this concept, this option, lends itself to discussion. I am perfectly open to that. It is not a problem at all to think it may be useful to contemplate mandatory minimum sentences for certain categories of crime. Unfortunately, hon. members opposite do so too systematically, without any basis. They do not rely on experience, or on research that support the fact that it is good to have mandatory minimum sentences for certain categories of crime.
I can even mention the R. v. Mills case, in 1998, in which a court of appeal judge decided, after reviewing the accused's conviction, to reduce from 13 years to 11 years the sentence that had been imposed and which was significantly longer than the five years proposed in Bill C-299.
Therefore, the concern raised by the member for Kootenay—Columbia is totally unjustified.
The second reason is the deterrent effect invoked in many bills amending—or dare I say “altering”—the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, this deterrent effect has never been clearly shown in our work.
Of course, I am not referring to belief, which is one thing. I must admit that some witnesses firmly believed in the deterrent value of a mandatory minimum sentence in the act. Our work in committee also clearly showed it, and this was even supported by Michel Surprenant, who was representing the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families Association.
Mr. Surprenant talked about the most despicable, the most shocking aspect of a child abduction, namely the sexual assault. He said that sexual predators ignored logic and were primarily, if not exclusively, guided by their instinct.
This raises a question. If we follow Mr. Surprenant's reasoning, no sexual predator will take into account this kind of clause, even if it is included in the Criminal Code, since he will never have it in mind. Rather, he will be guided by his instinct.
I think this is somewhat simplistic. During our work, we often received confirmation from experts that the typical criminal, regardless of the category of crime, does not act thinking he may get caught in the act. He always thinks he can commit a crime with impunity, without ever being caught. Therefore, since criminals believe they can get away it, why include this type of clause as a deterrent?
I would like to add to that the fact that in the course of our work, some of my colleagues unfortunately demonstrated a degree of confusion when they attempted to support arguments of this kind. For example, my colleague from Delta—Richmond-East cast doubt on the value of studies conducted in the United States on minimum sentences of up to 20 years. When she questioned our witness, Michael Spratt, he clearly stated that no studies in the United States had been able to demonstrate that a 20-year minimum sentence had a deterrent impact. How then could a five-year minimum sentence have such an impact? Unfortunately, this did not convince my colleague. I therefore leave her to her own reasoning, and to her conscience, because I do not want to give people a false sense of security.
Confusion reigned for my colleague from Brampton West as well, who in speaking of deterrence confused it with the restraint represented by incarceration. During the appearance of one of our witnesses, the member for Brampton West interrupted frequently to say that incarceration was deterrence when it is nothing of the kind. Those who are incarcerated cannot do harm, but prior to incarceration, the threat thereof is not a deterrent.
From my standpoint, it is rather unfortunate to see this bill go forward, when a rather serious study is known to have shown that it might give people a false sense of security.
I call upon my colleagues in this House to consider this unintended impact and the possibly very harmful effects it might have, and to reject Bill C-299. The problem is not the Criminal Code, but rather the mechanisms used to implement it within society.
Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 17 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:47 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 15 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:46 p.m.)
The House resumed from October 5 consideration of Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (kidnapping of young person), as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.