Bill C-587 (Historical)

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between twenty-five and forty years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to private member's Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to increasing parole ineligibility. The bill seeks to protect victims and reduce the possibility of re-victimization by limiting the number of parole applications victims are required to attend.

The underlying assumption of Bill C-266 is that its proposed reforms would spare families from the heartache of reliving the loss of a loved one who may have been murdered in unspeakable circumstances, as is often the case.

It should be noted that Bill C-266 is similar to previous private members' bills, specifically Bill C-478 and Bill C-587. Bill C-478 got through second reading stage and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but it did not go further than that. Unlike Bill C-266, former Bill C-478 did not require that the offences for which the offender was convicted be committed as part of the same criminal transaction.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the laudable objective of the bill. I think all hon. members of the House can agree that minimizing the trauma, psychological suffering and re-victimization of families whose loved ones have been murdered is a worthwhile cause that merits our full consideration.

Victims have rights at every stage of the criminal justice process, including the right to information, protection, restitution and participation. These rights, previously recognized by internal policies of the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada, are now enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and give clear rights to all victims of crime. For example, victims have the right to receive certain information about the offender in the charge of the Parole Board of Canada or the Correctional Service of Canada.

Victims' participation rights include the following: attending the offender's parole hearing or listening to an audio recording of a parole hearing if the victim is unable to attend in person; presenting a written statement that outlines the continuing impact the offence has had on them and any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose and requesting that the Parole Board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release; and obtaining a copy of the Parole Board's decision, including information on whether the offender has appealed the decision and the outcome of the appeal.

I would like to provide some examples in English.

I would note that currently victims who do not attend a parole hearing are entitled to listen to an audio recording of the hearing, but if victims do attend, they lose their right to listen to the recording. Simply stated, parole hearings can be quite difficult for family members, as I said in French. Despite attending the hearing, they may not always remember everything that was said. They may, for a variety of reasons, wish to listen to an audio recording at a later date. I am pleased to know that changes proposed in Bill C-83 would give all victims the right to listen to an audio recording, regardless of whether they attend the parole hearing.

These legislative provisions and policies were designed to be respectful of the privacy rights of victims who do not wish to be contacted or receive information about the offender who has harmed them.

This recognizes the fact that victims are not a homogenous group and that while some victims may choose not to attend or receive information about parole hearings to avoid emotional trauma, others will attend parole hearings as a means of furthering their healing and feel empowered by having their voices heard.

Anything we can do to better support victims of crime merits serious consideration, and I support sending the bill to committee for further study. I am also mindful that changes to the laws governing our criminal justice system can sometimes have unintended consequences, so I hope that committee study of this legislation, either in this Parliament or in the future, will include a range of witnesses and perspectives.

Clearly, there are various ways of providing support to victims. The proposed changes in Bill C-266 could be one way to improve the experience of victims during the post-sentencing stages of the criminal justice process.

As parliamentarians, we should strive to have a fair, just, and compassionate criminal justice system for all those involved.

For all these reasons, I will be monitoring closely the debate on Bill C-266 and look forward to hearing the views of other hon. members on its potential impacts.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility.

The objective of the bill is to protect victims and alleviate their re-victimization by limiting the number of parole applications in which they may need to participate. The underlying assumption of Bill C-266 is that its proposed reforms would spare families from the heartache of reliving the loss of their loved one who may have been murdered in unspeakable circumstances.

As currently drafted, Bill C-266 proposes to modify section 745 of the Criminal Code in order to effect two changes. First, it would make it mandatory for a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period of not less than 25 years for all offenders convicted of the following offences committed as part of the same event or series of events and in respect of the same victim: kidnapping and abduction-related offences; sexual offences; and murder, irrespective of whether it is in the first or second degree.

Second, the bill would provide judicial discretion to set the period of parole ineligibility between 25 and 40 years for the same small subset of offenders who, given the severity of their crimes committed, are truly unlikely to obtain parole in any event.

It should be noted that Bill C-266 is similar to previous private members' bills, including Bills C-478 and C-587. Bill C-478 got through second reading stage and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but it did not get any further than that.

Unlike Bill C-266, former Bill C-478 did not require that the offences for which the offender was found guilty to be committed as part of the same criminal transaction.

Former Bill C-478 was later reintroduced as Bill C-587 by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and essentially proposed the same legislative amendments as Bill C-266, except for slight wording differences.

Ultimately, former Bill C-587 was adopted by the justice committee, without amendment, and had commenced third reading debate in the House, but did not proceed further because of the dissolution of Parliament for the 2015 federal election.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the laudable objective of the bill. I think all of hon. members of the House can agree that alleviating the trauma, emotional suffering and re-victimization of families whose loved ones have been murdered is a worthwhile cause that merits our full consideration.

Victims have rights at every stage of the criminal justice process, including the right to information, protection, restitution, and participation. These rights, previously recognized by internal polices of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada, are now enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and give clear rights to all victims of crime.

Once victims are registered with the Parole Board of Canada or the Correctional Service Canada, they can choose to receive information on the offender, including but not limited to: the sentence start date and length; and the offender's eligibility and review dates for unescorted temporary absences, parole or statutory release.

Upon further request, additional information could be provided to a victim, including: the date of any Parole Board of Canada hearing and the reason why an offender waived a hearing, if one was given; and whether the offender has appealed the decision of the Parole Board not to grant a release and the outcome of that appeal.

Victims' participation rights include the following: attending the offender's parole hearing or listening to an audio recording of a parole hearing if the victim is unable to attend in person; presenting a written statement that outlines the continuing impact the offence has had on them and any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose and requesting that the Parole Board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release; and obtaining a copy of the Parole Board's decision, including information on whether the offender has appealed the decision and the outcome of the appeal.

I would like to pause here to highlight Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, which is proposing other legislative changes to better support victims of crime.

Currently, victims who do not attend a parole hearing are entitled to listen to an audio recording of the hearing. However, if victims do attend, they lose their right to listen to a recording. Simply stated, parole hearings can be quite difficult for family members. Despite attending the hearing, they may not always remember everything that was said and may, for a variety of reasons, wish to listen to an audio recording at a later date. I am pleased to know that changes proposed in Bill C-83 would give all victims the right to listen to an audio recording, regardless of whether they attend the parole hearing.

The laws and policies that have been put forward were designed to be respectful of the privacy rights of victims who do not wish to be contacted or receive information about the offender who has harmed them. This recognizes the fact that victims are not a homogenous group; while some victims may choose not to attend or receive information about parole hearings in order to avoid emotional trauma, others will attend parole hearings as a means of furthering their healing and to feel empowered by having their voice heard.

In fact, on March 9, 2015, officials testifying on behalf of the Parole Board of Canada indicated during their testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on former Bill C-587 that every victim is different and that the Parole Board of Canada also has victims who are interested in attending parole hearings.

Therefore, we need to ask ourselves if the proposed amendments in Bill C-266 are the most effective way of supporting the needs of victims affected by these brutal crimes.

I also wonder, despite the bill's laudable intentions, whether some victims might feel negatively impacted by legislative changes designed to reduce the number of parole hearings they may choose to attend.

I am certain all hon. members would agree that a thorough debate on the impacts of Bill C-266's proposed changes requires consideration of these questions. Also, I would be interested to hear the views of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on these points.

It is clear that there are various ways of supporting victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-266 present one avenue for bettering the experience of victims at the very end of the spectrum of the criminal justice process.

As parliamentarians, we should strive to achieve a fair, effective, just and compassionate criminal justice system for all involved. For these reasons, I will be closely monitoring the debate on Bill C-266 and look forward to hearing the views of other hon. members on its potential impacts.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

moved that Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-266, an act respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons. This bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code.

This bill has been before the House before. To quote one of my previous speeches in the House, from 2014, in this bill I want to empower our courts “with the ability to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing individuals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and killed our innocent and often most vulnerable Canadians from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years.”

The bill is not about creating stiffer penalties for sadistic murderers. These depraved convicts do not qualify for parole. My bill is about saving the families of the victims from having to go through the agony of attending unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings.

Let us be perfectly clear. Bill C-266 is not about mandatory minimum sentencing. The bill is in compliance with section 12 of the Charter of Rights. It is based on the discretion of the presiding judge through a recommendation to the jury. A judge could set parole ineligibility of between 25 and 40 years. It would not be prescribed where in there it would fall. The judge would have the discretionary power to make it anywhere from 25 years of parole ineligibility to 40 years.

This legislation is modelled after a bill brought forward in a previous Parliament, Bill C-48, the protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act, which we are seeing in use today at the McArthur trial as well as for the murderer who committed the mosque massacre in Quebec. That piece of legislation affords judges the opportunity to make the parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers consecutive rather than concurrent. Most of those convicted of these multiple murders or these heinous crimes of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering our loved ones never get parole. Therefore, why do we continue to put families through unnecessary Parole Board hearings? There is absolutely no need to re-victimize those families.

As I mentioned, I brought the bill forward in a previous Parliament. It was introduced on February 27, 2013, as Bill C-478. The bill made it as far as the committee stage, when I was appointed parliamentary secretary, so I had to withdraw the bill. Colin Mayes, our former colleague from B.C., then picked it up as Bill C-587. That bill made it through committee and came back to the House at report stage and third reading on June 2, 2015. Of course, it never made it to the final vote before the House recessed and the election took place.

This legislation would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code, as I have previously said. Increasing parole ineligibility from 25 years to 40 years would save families from having to go through the process of attending unnecessary Parole Board hearings and making victim impact statements, which are traumatic, to say the least, and heart-wrenching for those families. The bill would eliminate eight unnecessary Parole Board hearings families would have to attend.

Sadistic murderers often apply for parole every two years, starting at year 23, for the sole purpose of toying with the families, of revictimizing them and making them relive the gruesome killings that were committed.

The bill would change a number of subsections under section 745. It would be based upon the recommendation of a jury. The bill says that a judge would ask a jury at the time of sentencing if it wished “to make any recommendation with respect to the number of years that the accused must serve before the accused is eligible for release on parole”. When the jury was passing judgment, it could also recommend what the parole ineligibility could be. The judge would have discretion as to whether to accept that, and he or she could set it at a level he or she found appropriate. Judges on the board, when determining parole ineligibility, must have regard for “the character of the offender, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission”.

Over the years, I have had the pleasure of working with a number of people on the legislation, along with Colin Mayes, the former member of Parliament from B.C. In the other place, Senator Boisvenu was a big help on this over the years. He founded an organization called Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association. This is something that he is incredibly passionate about.

Sharon Rosenfeldt's son Daryn was murdered by the notorious Clifford Olson and her organization is Victims of Violence. Susan Ashley is the sister of Linda Bright, who was killed by Donald Armstrong. Terri Prioriello's sister Darlene, also called Dolly, was murdered by David James Dobson. The organization Canadian Parents of Murdered Children has provided input over the years. This goes back some time.

I was interested in doing something for families. At the end of 2009-10, members will remember the terrible abduction, rape and murder of Tori Stafford. Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and prosecuted in 2010 and Michael Rafferty in 2012. During that time, while my heart was breaking listening to the Tori Stafford story, Clifford Olson was dying from cancer in prison and Sharon Rosenfeldt talked on the radio about how this killer had impacted her family over the years. He sent letters describing how he murdered her son Daryn. Because of that type of sadistic behaviour, tormenting families and using Parole Board hearings to feed his own sick appetite, it became clear to me that we needed to do something for families.

I knew full well that both murderers of Tori Stafford, Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic, will be applying for parole in the year 2023 after the murder in 2009. I think all Canadians would consider it unacceptable that families have to go through this ongoing saga of Parole Board hearing after Parole Board hearing.

We need to make sure the legislation targets the most depraved of society, the sadistic murderers out there who often prey on children and the most vulnerable, those who abduct, sexually assault and murder, often in a very gruesome manner. We are talking about people like Robert Pickton, Russell Williams, Michael Rafferty, Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, David James Dobson, Donald Armstrong, Luka Magnotta and we are watching the McArthur case unfold now in Toronto. This would apply to those individuals, particularly those who do not get consecutive life sentences. They could be given a 40-year sentence before they could apply for parole.

It is important that we talk about some of these families, like the family of Linda Bright, who was just 16 when she was abducted by Donald Armstrong in Kingston back in 1978. He has applied for parole numerous times. I have been talking to Susan Ashley, Linda's sister, and she said about the Parole Board hearings in the past, “My heart breaks having to live through this again. My heart breaks having to watch my Mom and Dad drag up their thoughts and pain from that deep place inside them where they tuck their hurt away”.

Linda's mother, Margaret, said during her victim impact statement, “This is not fair. We should not have to relive our tragedy. When I remember my daughter, let me remember her as a little girl. Don't make me think about the other awful time in 1978.... Let me tell you this has been the most difficult thing I have had to do in the last twenty years.”

Gary Rosenfeldt, who was Johnsrude's stepfather, has now passed away. His wife is Sharon Rosenfeldt. He said publicly, after going through a number of Parole Board hearings in 2006 and 2010, and even back in 1997, when there was still the faint hope clause, “What's really horrendous about this is this is only the beginning. We're going to have to do this every two years as long as Olson lives, and this is a very painful experience for myself, my family.”

It should be noted that Clifford Olson died in prison. He was never paroled. These individuals do not get parole.

Darlene Prioriello was abducted, raped, mutilated and murdered by David James Dobson in 1982. He is at the Bath Institution. Darlene's sister Terri has said this about having to go through these painful, repetitive and unnecessary Parole Board hearings: “Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice.” Unfortunately, that goes on.

We have had the Library of Parliament research how these murderers have been treated in prison and whether or not they have ever received parole. The best we can find is that some of them have been given day parole or temporary leave. They have never, ever been released back into the public on full parole. They are serving life sentences, and they will continue to do that.

A lot of people wonder how I came up with the 15 extra years in the 25 plus 15. Murder is 25 years without parole, abduction is a maximum of 10 years without parole, and sexual assault is a maximum of 4.6 years without parole. Added together, we get 40 years.

Let us be clear that I am not saying we are setting mandatory minimums, taking it up to 40 years. It is anywhere in between. The judge and the jury decide where the parole and eligibility should be set. It could be 25 years, 30 years, 35 years or 40 years. It is up to the judge and the jury to make those decisions. By respecting the independence of the court we are in compliance with chapter 12 of the charter.

We have seen this type of approach being taken with previous legislation. This judicial discretion is incredibly important, because the judge will take that recommendation, along with the regard he has to have for the character of the offender, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission. If the jury chooses, it can provide input as well.

I am looking forward to hearing the position of the government on this, as well as that of the NDP, but I am appealing to all members of the House to support the bill.

It should be noted that in the previous Parliament, all Liberals voted yes at second reading for this legislation. Many of them sit on the benches today, and are still here.

I want to make sure people understand that these depraved murderers, these brutal and sadistic members of society, will never be released back into society. They are not going to be released. The Parole Board of Canada continues to hold them in institutions, knowing they are dangerous offenders who potentially could reoffend, because so often they are psychopaths. Therefore, let us ensure we are not revictimizing those families by having them go to all these unnecessary Parole Board hearings and relive the murder and brutal details of how their loved ones were killed, all to the gratification of those incarcerated psychopaths.

I ask that everyone support this legislation. Let us get it to committee and let us hear from the victims organizations, the families who have been impacted and the families who are calling for this. Let us give them some peace. Let us respect their wishes and their lives so they do not have to go on and on living this nightmare.

As Yvonne Harvey of the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children said, “Although I have not personally faced the ordeal of a parole hearing, I have spoken to many individuals who have. I am certain that the primary intent of this bill, to spare the families of victims from having to attend unnecessary parole hearings, would be most welcomed.”

Life Means Life Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-53, the lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key act. It is the life means life act. This bill would eliminate the possibility of parole for many of the most serious crimes, including many forms of first degree murder and high treason.

The stated purpose of the bill is to reduce trauma to victims' families by avoiding unnecessary and repeated parole hearings. That is a worthy objective, and the Liberals supported legislation to further that goal just a few weeks ago with Bill C-587, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act. As members will recall, that bill would extend parole ineligibility to 40 years from 25 years for a limited class of particularly brutal crimes.

However, while we agree with the objective of reducing trauma to victims and the approach taken by Bill C-587, we will not support the life means life act. Liberals are open to exploring additional ways of reducing trauma to victims. For example, we would consider extending parole ineligibility to longer than 25 years for some of the crimes covered by Bill C-53, just as we supported consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders. As members know, that change resulted in Travis Baumgartner receiving 40 years of parole ineligibility for murdering three of his coworkers at an armoured car company. It also resulted in Justin Bourque receiving 75 years of parole ineligibility for murdering three RCMP officers in Moncton.

The crimes covered by Bill C-53 are terrible. That is why they are punished harshly under Canadian law. However, the primary reason we will not support this bill is that it would replace the Parole Board with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Ministers are inherently concerned with making political decisions. That is a step backward and an affront to the rule of law. It is also probably unconstitutional. I will explain why that is the case later on.

First let us go over the contents of the life means life act.

Bill C-53 would amend the Criminal Code to require imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for specific types of murder convictions, as well for high treason, provided that the offender is 18 or older. The types of murder convictions that require such a sentence must be planned and deliberate murders in which the victim is a law enforcement officer, a member of correctional staff, or a person working in a prison; the accused caused the death while committing or attempting to commit aircraft hijacking, various types of sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, or hostage taking; the accused caused the death while committing or attempting to commit a terrorist act; or the accused's behaviour associated with the offence was of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the accused's behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural constraint.

Under Bill C-53, a conviction for high treason would also require the imposition of a life sentence without eligibility for parole. High treason comprises attacking the Queen, waging war against Canada, or assisting an enemy engaged in hostilities with the Canadian Forces.

Bill C-53 would also create a discretionary judicial power to order imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for three types of offenders.

First are persons convicted of second degree murder who have previously been convicted of murder. Second are persons convicted of second degree murder who have previously been convicted of genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime. Third are any persons convicted of first degree murder.

The use of this discretionary judicial power would require a prosecutorial application and consideration of the offender's age and character, the nature of the offence and its circumstances, and the jury's recommendation on parole eligibility.

In addition, Bill C-53 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to allow offenders serving life without eligibility for parole to apply to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for executive release by the Governor in Council after serving 35 years of their sentence. Offenders may reapply after five years if their application is unsuccessful. Offenders granted executive release would become subject to the Parole Board's authority, including termination or revocation of the release and the imposition of conditions.

As I said, Liberals are amenable to 35 or 40 years of ineligibility for the crimes covered in this bill, as we indicated in our support for Bill C-587. That increase could make a meaningful difference for victims' families. However, we take issue with who the government proposes should be making decisions after that time period.

In addition to the changes I have already noted, Bill C-53 would amend the National Defence Act to require imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for the following offences: traitorous misconduct by a commanding officer in the presence of an enemy; traitorous misconduct by any person in the presence of an enemy; traitorous compromise of security; high treason; and murder of the same types captured in the Criminal Code amendments.

This bill would also create military judicial discretion to impose imprisonment without eligibility for parole in the same circumstances as in the civilian domain. As well, Bill C-53 would amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act to allow imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole when, in the opinion of the Minister of Public Safety, documents supplied by a foreign entity show that the offender would have been convicted of a murder offence listed in the first paragraph, with the exception of the brutal nature provision.

I want to flag this last change as being particularly problematic, since it would allow the Minister of Public Safety to impose life sentences without parole eligibility based on evidence supplied by foreign entities. That would allow potentially tainted or fabricated evidence to produce life sentences without parole eligibility in Canada. States with some of the worst justice systems in the world could provide admissible evidence.

It is important to understand how all of the changes in Bill C-53 would alter the status quo. Currently all murder convictions carry mandatory life sentences in Canada. All of the specific types of murder that require parole ineligibility for life under Bill C-53 support convictions for first degree murder, which carry 25 years of parole ineligibility. A conviction for high treason would also carry a mandatory life sentence with 25 years of parole ineligibility.

For an offender serving a life sentence, day parole would become a possibility after 22 years and full parole would become possible after 25 years. On application, the Parole Board must review unsuccessful day parole applications every year and unsuccessful full parole applications every two years.

Of relevance, under a 2011 law that Liberals supported, offenders can now receive consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders. As I mentioned, two offenders have been sentenced under that law to 40 years and 75 years of parole ineligibility respectively.

Under the current law, offenders may also be designated as dangerous offenders, meaning they may receive indeterminate sentences, subject to periodic review.

I want to focus in on the fact that this bill would grant the Minister of Public Safety, an elected politician, the discretion to release prisoners, a function currently carried out by the Parole Board. Any minister of public safety would be subject to self-interest and political pressure from constituents, the party, and especially the Prime Minister. This conflict of interest could unduly affect decisions on prisoner release and act contrary to the interests of justice.

When Canadians reflect on the matter, I do not think they would support the idea of the Prime Minister personally deciding on which prisoners to release. That is rightly the job of the Parole Board. Political considerations should not enter into these sorts of decisions. That, of course, is the reason we do not elect judges in Canada.

I am not sure why the government views the Parole Board as not being up to doing its job. When evidence was given on Bill C-587, I had a chance to ask Ms. Suzanne Brisebois of the Parole Board about its functioning. I asked her, “To whom is the Parole Board of Canada accountable?” Her response was as follows:

Our board is an independent administrative tribunal. There's a very rigorous competitive process that prospective board members have to go through...

We're responsible to the Canadian public. Again, the protection of the public is our paramount consideration. It's part of our mandate.

I also asked Ms. Brisebois:

Is the board less well-equipped to deal with the most serious cases than the rest? Could you comment on whether they're particularly poorly equipped for the most serious cases?

Her response was:

Our board members undergo rigorous training as part of their induction, both at national office and in the regions. They're trained on various aspects of the legislation, our policies, our procedures, risk assessment, and the various actuarial tools, so they undergo a very rigorous training period.

The Parole Board should be allowed to do its job. Replacing the Parole Board with political decisions from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is a step backwards.

Liberals supported Bill C-587's increase to 40 years of parole ineligibility as well as the 2011 change for allowing consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. Crucially, both of these changes preserved judicial discretion in criminal sentencing under the charter. While allowing for more severe penalties, they safeguarded a judge's ability to tailor specific sentences to be proportional to specific crimes.

In contrast with Bill C-587, this bill would fetter judicial discretion in a way that would invite charter scrutiny. As I said, we are open to increasing the period of ineligibility, provided that it is the Parole Board that takes any decision once the years have passed. That approach would preserve judicial discretion, allowing sentences to pass constitutional muster.

On that note, I want to say a few words about the current government's disrespect for the Constitution, especially the charter.

This week Amy Minsky of Global News reported that the Conservatives have wasted almost $7 million of taxpayers' money in unsuccessfully trying to defend legislation and executive actions that violate Canadians' rights. That included over $1 million spent in trying to take away health care from refugees, almost $350,000 in trying to put a federal judge on Quebec's Supreme Court seat, and over $425,000 in trying to shut down a safe injection site.

Last week I learned from an order paper question that the Conservative government has spent $257,825.17 and counting in the Ishaq case, trying to ensure a woman cannot take the citizenship oath while wearing a niqab. I say “and counting” because that appeal is ongoing—not because it has a reasonable prospect for success, but because the current government wants to fearmonger and divide Canadians for political reasons. I am going to repeat the number in the Ishaq case: it spent over $257,000 to make sure a woman cannot wear a niqab in a citizenship oath. That is a stunning misuse of taxpayer money.

As Canadians know, the current government is one that has little respect for the courts and less for the charter. We all recall the disgraceful defaming of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. As a lawyer, I was shocked. As a Canadian, I was deeply disappointed.

Members in this chamber will also recall the revelation that the current government disregards the constitutional advice of its own lawyers. As members are aware, Department of Justice lawyer Edgar Schmidt has revealed to Canadians that the current government proceeds with legislation even if it has a 5% or less chance of being charter-compliant.

As the Liberal justice critic, I have often criticized the current government for constantly amending the Criminal Code while failing to invest the necessary resources to prevent crimes from occurring. As a general rule, the government's approach is doomed to be ineffective because its policies are not responsive to evidence.

As I said when speaking to Bill C-587, I think in particular of the government's recent cuts to Circles of Support and Accountability, a community-based reintegration group that holds sex offenders accountable for the harm they have caused while assisting with their re-entry into society at the end of their sentences. COSA has been proven to reduce recidivism among sex offenders by 70% to 83%. That is an astonishing number.

According to the government's own study, it has saved $4.60 for society for every dollar invested. Over five years it has prevented 240 sexual crimes, yet the government cut that program, which was incredibly irresponsible. That cut poses a real and ongoing threat to public safety.

Returning to Bill C-53, the life means life act, I want to reiterate that Liberals strongly support the objective of reducing repeated and unnecessary trauma to victims' families. I recall from the Bill C-587 hearings the moving testimony of two family members of victims. That testimony was the reason we supported Bill C-587. However, the goal of reducing trauma to victims can and should be achieved with changes other than those contained in Bill C-53.

The primary reason we will not support this bill is that it would replace the Parole Board with politically driven decisions from the Minister of Public Safety. That is a step backward and an affront to the rule of law. Also, it is probably unconstitutional.

I wonder if these considerations explain why the government has brought this legislation forward so late in the calendar when it has no chance of becoming law.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this will really be my last speech in the 41st Parliament. I thought my speech this morning would be the last one but, finally, this one will be.

Like everyone else, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the employees of the House. I am referring to the clerks, the pages, the security staff, the lobby service, the bus drivers, who enable us to be at the right place at the right time, and the cafeteria staff who allow us to eat so we do not wilt here in the House.

In my case, as I am starting to be known for what I call intelligent improvisation in my speeches, I have enormous respect for the interpreters, who have the thankless task of interpreting my words, even though they have absolutely no text in front of them. I congratulate them, because I also know that I am not someone who always speaks slowly. I have the greatest respect for them, and I thank them for what they do.

I would also like to thank the people at Hansard. Immediately after I have finished speaking, I receive the texts from them, and sometimes I find that they can convey my ideas even better than I express them myself. When I read over my speeches, I find that I have been really eloquent, but I know that I did not use those exact words. I thank them for improving the quality of my speeches. I appreciate it, and all the French speakers in Canada appreciate it, too.

I would like to thank my team, which does an extraordinary job: Roxane, Shirley, Aline, Alex, Yan and Elise. This year things have been really wild on the team for the member for Gatineau and official opposition justice critic, considering the number of bills we have had to handle and recommend, as the parliamentary secretary said. I received help from the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, whom I would also like to thank.

This brings me to thank my leader, the leader of the official opposition and member for Outremont, who gave me his confidence to do this job, which has not been an easy ride.

Most of all, I thank my constituents in Gatineau. In 2011, they elected me with a real, strong and stable majority, the largest in Quebec. I am pleased to say that, because people who know me know that I have been in other elections with much closer results. Thus, to finish first in Quebec with 63% of the votes is what I call a strong and stable majority. We will try to do the same in 2015, in the next phase. I thank the people of Gatineau from the bottom of my heart; they have stood beside me in all I have done for the past four years, being active and sharing their comments with me.

When I was voting and some people asked me what that meant, I told them I was voting with my heart. I have never voted except out of a sense of conviction, listening to my heart and thinking of the people of Gatineau. That is why I have watched them. They are the people I think about every time. I may have missed one vote on an evening when we voted all night, but 99% of the time, I voted, thinking only of the people of Gatineau.

Now let me turn to Bill C-53.

The Ottawa criminal lawyer, Leo Russomano, said:

Let’s just call it what it is, it’s just an election year bill that makes no effort whatsoever to actually respond to a problem. This is a solution in search of a problem...

The fact of the matter is they are life sentences. Whether a person is released on parole or not, they are under sentence for the rest of their lives. It’s sowing the seeds of mistrust with the administration of justice.

Other people told us that the parliamentary secretary also talked to them about Clifford Olson.

—the worst murderers--serial killers like Clifford Olsen--already die behind bars. She predicts others who face no chance to serve the rest of their “life sentence” under strict conditions with supervision in the community will become angry and desperate, a danger to themselves or others.

I will have more to say on that point.

Bill C-53 targets tougher sentences for those guilty of high treason.

The parliamentary secretary did say that.

The last offender convicted in Canada was Louis Riel.

Eventually, people have to stop laughing at other people. The offences listed in the bill are horrible crimes. No one in the House, wherever they sit, will applaud them or feel any compassion at all. Our sympathy is definitively with the victims.

The things I have deplored about the Conservatives since they took office in 2006 are things I am passionate about. I have been a lawyer for a long time. Justice, particularly social justice, but really all justice with a capital J, is what stirs me and commands my interest. That is one reason I decided to get into politics. The Conservatives speak about the number of bills they have introduced, but quantity is never the same as quality. It is all very well to have 150 bills, but if those 150 bills—some of them now acts—are meaningless or will one day be tested in court and overthrown, there is a problem somewhere. That is not really the issue because sometimes we have differences of opinion. In those cases, I can respect the issue being debated.

Nevertheless, it is extremely arrogant, at the end of a mandate, to make surprise substitutions of bills, as the government did last night, in order to put this one on the order paper, to at least give the impression it is being discussed, even though the Conservatives have promised it and given press conferences about it for a long time. Not everyone may have seen it, but one national English-language media outlet said that, despite all the emphasis by the Conservatives on Bill C-53, there had not been even one hour of debate about it. What a surprise; after that article appeared, here is the hour of debate. I hope everyone who is watching knows, as you and I know Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing here and now is just saying some words. Those words signify absolutely nothing.

The parliamentary secretary talked about it; in committee we examined Bill C-587, which proposed possible parole, to be determined by the Parole Board of Canada, of up to 40 years for the same kind of crime as seen in Bill C-53. I asked questions during the committee's study of the bill. Even the Conservative member who introduced the bill asked to suspend our consideration for some time because there appeared to be a serious conflict with the more showy introduction of Bill C-53. I have often said one thing to the Conservatives and I am going to repeat it, although it is sad that these will be my last words in this Parliament: I think the Conservatives have unfortunately exploited victims to express outrageous principles, concepts or phrases at huge media events that really, in the end, are destined to disappoint. They will disappoint the victims because, as I said when we were debating the victims bill of rights, they are nothing but beautiful intentions and hollow promises. The official opposition, on the other hand, has suggested amendments to these rights and has insisted that the right to information is essential, but these amendments were defeated by the Conservatives.

I am not bitter, because I am a positive kind of girl. I fit right in to the NDP where we are optimistic and positive. Thus, I still have hope that this is not over and that one day we will be able to repair much of the damage that this government has done to the justice system.

That brings me to my main point about what I have lived through in the past two years, very personally, as the official opposition justice critic. That is the fact that, in all its bills, the government, with its outrageous short titles, is harming the concept of justice and giving the impression that the system acts poorly for most ordinary people in Canada, the ones who are watching us and who are interested in the issue. The government is giving people the impression that the system is broken because the Parole Board of Canada is not doing its job, because judges are too soft, because the opposition is pro-terrorist, and so on and so forth.

We are talking about justice, and we fundamentally believe in justice. We can mention the Olson case. He never got out of prison and he died there, or we can mention Bernardo, another case relevant to this discussion, someone who will never get out of prison. We can talk about the fact that families are forced to periodically go before the Parole Board of Canada. Bills have been introduced to ensure that hearings are not held before a certain period of time has passed so that families are not forced to attend them so often. There are even simpler solutions. When simple solutions are presented for an existing problem that everyone recognizes, it is not as exciting as holding a big press conference in front of a bunch of flags and saying shocking things that should never come out of the mouths of people who are supposed to be leaders in our society.

When we considered Bill C-587 introduced by the Conservative member, I said that the Parole Board of Canada was already using other approaches in a number of cases. It is not true that people are constantly being called to come before the board. Why? Because the authorities already tend not to let the individual out. People are not bothered, but rather informed. It probably makes some people relive certain things. As I said to one of the victims who appeared one time before the committee, even if someone is put away for 60 years, this is something that will never be erased from one’s heart.

My younger sister died during this Parliament. Does anyone think I will forget her in 5, 10 or 15 years? Her death was not even the result of a crime. These are things we never forget.

We could make it easier for families and tell them these people are dangerous criminals who will never get out of jail. There are all kinds of tools that exist. In introducing Bill C-53, the government is trying to make people believe that it is solving a huge problem. As I said earlier, we can forget about the crime of high treason. There are not many cases like that of Louis Riel in Canada. We can move on to something else. In terms of the other crimes mentioned, like those of Bernardo and Olson, the government is unable to give the names of people who might be wandering the streets and who have committed crimes like those mentioned in Bill C-53. It does not have any names, because this does not happen. However, if the government says it and repeats it often enough, it will make people believe that this happens. It is frightening people.

I remember an interview that I did with a wonderful Quebec City radio station, which could not wait for me to arrive, because the interview was about the dangerous sex offender registry. They were waiting for me, saying they were going to be interviewing some softies from the NDP. Before putting me on the air, they recounted the case of a guy who was walking around as free as a bird in Quebec City. They were anxious to have the registry set up. I stopped them after half a second, saying I was surprised that they were talking about a registry to solve the problem of the person who was in their city, when the real question was why he was out on the street.

We need to stop mixing everything up and creating situations that make people believe things that do not exist.

In this Parliament, in this democratic institution, it is the duty of everyone, both on the government side and on the opposition side, not to mislead the House, to work to support our pillars of democracy and not to impede the executive, legislative and judicial pillars.

Unfortunately, this government has done nothing but cast doubt on the quality and transparency of our Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice. When a decision is handed down, they say the court is like this and like that, and so on. If we do not say the same things the government representatives do, we are pro-criminals and pro-terrorists. It is very sad.

We may not have the same agendas, but I think that all the members of the House want as few crimes as possible to be committed, to protect the safety of our fellow Canadians. Let us do so properly.

The Conservatives have no statistics. They have never been able to present the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with any statistics of any kind in support of the bills they put forward.

The minister introduced his bill on sexual predators, and yet he boasted that there have never been as many laws as the Conservative government has passed to make sentences even tougher. He presented us with an admission of failure by showing us that these offences had risen in the last two years, in spite of the tougher laws. There is a problem somewhere.

The real bottom line when it comes to crime and the justice system is that the Conservatives’ statements are not borne out by the statistics. The statistics show us that the number of crimes committed is going down. It is very possible that the numbers of certain types of crimes have risen, but let us focus on those problems instead of playing petty politics just to make a show for the media by parading victims about for their own purposes.

However, in numerous conversations I had with victims at various times during this Parliament, I was pleased to find that their eyes were increasingly open and they were starting to realize that they were puppets being manipulated by the government, and that makes me extremely sad.

I would like to talk about the provision that allows the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to act. Because it will not be the current minister, I will not even talk about the kind of expertise he has. Even if the most qualified person held the position of Minister of Public Safety, it would still be indecent. It is indecent to politicize the issue in a free and democratic society that is subject to a constitution, laws and a charter of rights. This is not how we do things.

Once again, this is a negative statement about the Parole Board of Canada, whose members are appointed by the government. There is a problem somewhere. Either they are good enough to do their job or they are not, and if not, then let us change things without delay.

However, let us not start giving this kind of power to a person who holds high political office and is going to wait to see what the person on the street has to say first. We know that we are all the same when a terrible crime is committed: we all have a tendency to want to do the worst. That is why an independent body that is capable of analyzing and examining the case is necessary.

Let us stop mixing apples and oranges and stop doing damage to the justice system as a whole. Let us repair it and fix the problems, but let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater, as if it were any old system at all.

The legal system, overall, serves Canadians well. Crown counsel, defence counsel, judges and all the other participants in the system are people who do what they have to do in circumstances that are not always easy, given government cutbacks.

This being the case, let us stop attacking the system from all sides and introducing bills that will not last beyond the end of the day or that may live to see another hour tomorrow.

It is absolutely insulting and indecent to introduce something that is as important as this, knowing full well that it will last no longer than the speeches that people are going to hear now.

Second reading

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to follow the act of the member for Yorkton—Melville is going to be quite the challenge for me, that is for sure.

Nonetheless, I will do my best.

Since arriving in the House during the current Parliament, I have been upset at how the issue of firearms has been handled, since this topic, which is very important to the members of all the parties in the House, often affects public safety and a part of the population that our friends across the way like to call the “law-abiding hunters of this world”, as though we would not call them that.

The Conservatives also like to claim that the members of the official opposition are against hunters and anything even remotely related to a weapon. As the official opposition justice critic, and like my colleague who talked about public safety and all my NDP colleagues, I think it is important to take this fiercely partisan attitude out of this debate. Often, the way the Conservatives behave is the reason why we cannot give them our support.

For years, they used the gun registry to try to divide Canadians, classifying them as either rural or urban and either hunters or criminals. That is a problem. Other Canadians are also very sensitive to what has happened to the people of Quebec. I was born in Quebec. The massacre at the École polytechnique is part of our daily lives and we are reminded of it every year, especially through stories from parents, victims, friends and everyone who suffered as a result of that terrible tragedy. We also went through the horrific ordeal at Dawson College. As for the events of October 22 that occurred right here, as awful as that experience was, we cannot forget the gunman who entered the National Assembly many years ago and just started shooting.

This is all part of a collective psyche that is very sensitive to the issue of weapons. When a government tries to use something as fundamentally personal for so many people every time it introduces a bill or does some fundraising, it can be hard to see those bills as having much merit. We know that they are under a lot of pressure, since they created it themselves. Let us not kid ourselves.

Not long ago, someone told me that, at the time, even the Prime Minister voted in favour of the firearms registry. There comes a time when people forget the past. That is unfortunate, because the government tends to have a way of ensuring that history repeats itself and of saying absolutely unbelievable things.

Let us remember the events that led to the creation of this registry. Some members will say that we are not here to talk about the registry, but I will explain the connection from start to finish.

The tragedy at École polytechnique occurred in the 1990s. I was not a member of the House at that time, but as a Quebecker and a Canadian who witnessed that terrible tragedy, I saw politicians clamouring to be the first to respond and put something in place.

Did this registry, which was created by the Liberals, make sense and was it well built? As the member for Yorkton—Melville said, that is certainly the impression people were given. That impression is certainly strengthened by some of the arguments of the members opposite, who have always been happy to say that those who established the registry wanted to criminalize hunters. I have always said that hunters were the innocent victims of the events of the 1990s.

When it comes to an issue such as this, which is so emotional for so many people and so personal for others who live in communities that may not be like the urban area of Gatineau, we need to take a deep breath and examine the situation.

With all due respect for the people and some of my colleagues who like to say that we are opposed to this or that, I really enjoy sitting down with the people of the Gatineau Fish and Game Club. As I already told someone, if you think I put on this weight eating tofu, there's a problem somewhere. I have nothing against meat or hunting.

However, I will always promote public safety. We owe it to Canadians. This government makes a point of boasting about public safety bills at every turn and says that, on this side, we are far too soft and that we do not want to adopt the tough measures that are needed. However, the government brings in all kinds of measures and tries, among other things—I am coming back to the registry—to destroy data that a government that is a partner in the federation had asked for.

The intended result was that the federal government would no longer need the data and that there would be no further criminalization under the Criminal Code. But it took some narrow-minded people and a certain meanness to say that if they were not going to take the data, then we could not have it. That is roughly what happened. The Supreme Court told the government that they had the legal right to do it. Great. However, the government made a political choice and will pay for it. The ruling clearly stated that the federal government made the decision only to harm the provinces. As I have often said, if we are proud to say in the House that the government made a decision that harms a partner of federation, there is a serious problem with Canadian federalism. That is unfortunate.

That said, with respect to Bill C-42, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, we always hear the same kinds of comments from this Conservative federal government and we see that they go through periods of requesting funding from their supporters and from interest groups. These are obviously valid groups. I have nothing against the gun lobby. That is their job. However, it is our job as parliamentarians to not allow ourselves to be pushed around simply because they enjoy it. I will sit down with any lobby, regardless of the side, including those who support not allowing anyone to own a gun under any circumstances. I will listen to what they have to say and I will try to make a decision that makes sense and that has the desired outcome.

We have problems at customs when people cross our borders. We have black markets for guns and all kinds of things. I am not talking about hunters. I am talking about organized crime groups that bring a huge number of weapons into the country. While we argue over the details, we miss doing the important things. Budgets for these crime-fighting measures are being cut.

The government needs to stop laying it on thick and claiming that all we want to do is to prevent hunters, sport shooters and collectors from owning guns and from being able to enjoy them. Similarly, the first nations have inherent rights with respect to hunting and fishing. No one can take those away from them, although some measures in Bill C-42 make me doubt that. This will create some serious problems for the first nations and could undermine some of their inherent rights.

We did not hear many on the Conservative side rise to object to these kinds of things and these kinds of situations. All they do is say that Bill C-42 must be wonderful because it is a government bill. Every time I speak to a bill I always find it amusing to look at the short title. The Conservative Party must pay someone to sit there and come up with bill titles. They have a lot of imagination, and often even more imagination in French than in English. It is rather enlightening when you look at Bill C-42. The English version of the bill states:

This Act may be cited as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act.

These words please the rest of Canada, in the ridings of my friends across the aisle, and those of many of my colleagues, too, outside of urban centres. The French title is more likely to please Quebeckers: Loi visant la délivrance simple et sécuritaire des permis d'armes à feu. The French does not use the expression “common sense” and instead refers to safety. This argument might be more successful in Quebec. Sometimes I think the problem with the Conservatives is that the devil is always in the details. As my parents always told me when I was a kid, when someone cries wolf too many times, eventually no one will believe them.

Unfortunately, that is more or less what is happening right now with the federal Conservative government's so-called law and order agenda, or with public safety, or with their haste to send our men and women into a war in Iraq and Syria. The Conservatives have contradicted themselves so many times now that no one is going to believe them anymore. When we do not believe them, we cannot stand here and agree with something that does not make any sense.

I have no problem with getting rid of unnecessary paperwork for someone who has a hunting rifle that is used only for hunting and is stored properly. However, other bills from the backbenches seek to change the storage rules. When we add all that up, in an effort to say things to try to please everybody, the Prime Minister seems to be saying that everyone within 100 or 60 kilometres of a major centre should have a gun. He might be on board with that, but I do not think that that is what Canadians want.

That being said, I do not want to stop people who want to lawfully use their rifle for hunting, sport or target practice from doing so. I attend cadet ceremonies and I am extremely proud of Gatineau's cadets when I see them win shooting competitions. I do not think that is due to Nintendo's Duck Hunt. The government has to stop making fun of people for wanting to be careful and make sure that the measures we are adopting do what they are supposed to do.

This bill contains some measures that are cause for concern. Perhaps it was poorly thought out by the Conservatives. I am not certain that they will be able to fix it in committee. That does not seem to be one of the strengths of the Conservatives, or at least of the Conservative members who sit on the committee. With all due respect for the ministers, given the number of times that parliamentary secretaries have told me that they do what they are told, there is no longer any doubt in my mind. I know very well that they have been given their orders, and that they are doing what the powers above have asked them to do in committee. They even tell us, out in the hall, that they think that what we are saying makes sense but that, unfortunately, they cannot approve it. The ministers opposite should not come here and tell us to our faces that they let the committee members do their job. We are trying and we will continue to try to do our job until the end of this Parliament. We are the party of hope, optimism and love. I am still optimistic, but I have had to put hope on hold.

One problematic aspect of this bill is training, and the committee will have to take a close look at what that means for people who live in rural areas where there might not be any trainers. I also hope that some first nations witnesses will be able to share their opinions on Bill C-42 with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

To me, the most problematic part of the bill is the regulatory aspect. I do not claim to be an expert on firearms. Obviously, I do not want dangerous weapons to be available to criminals, but as I was saying earlier, I have no problem with hunters, sport shooters and collectors having guns, as long as they are using them properly. That being said, I think the regulatory aspect is quite problematic.

As we realized at the Standing Committee on Justice, bills are often passed hastily. I am not necessarily talking about the time we spend debating here. What I mean is that the Conservatives have come up with so many bills in some areas, such as justice and public safety, that people at the Department of Justice do not have time to analyze all of the details. I am not saying they are not doing a good job, but there is a limit. If I were a legal adviser and I had 52 files to work on in one week, no matter how good I was, I would have a hard time handling that workload. These people are on a mission.

This week, I asked them if there might be a contradiction between the “Life means life” bill, Bill C-587, and Bill C-53, which would eliminate parole before 40 years. They had to admit that could obviously cause some problems in court.

It is the same thing here. There are many bills that deal with firearms, but I encourage my colleagues in the House to focus on Bill S-2, because it will completely change the way that regulations are enacted. I call it the sleeper bill of this legislature. It seems harmless, but it has serious consequences. Without us even knowing, the government could change the regulations through a minister or delegated authority. I am not saying that that is what is going to happen, but it is a possibility. No one can answer me when I ask whether Bill S-2 might conflict with Bill C-42 with regard to the classification of firearms.

That is what concerns me the most. This would not be the case if we had a reasonable and sensible government that was acting in the interest of public safety. However, this government is easily swayed by lobbying efforts. Earlier, my colleague, the public safety critic, asked the Minister of Public Safety whether there was deal between the government and the firearms lobby that would explain why the firearms lobby did not attend the committee meetings on Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015.

The Conservative member who spoke before me said that this bill has been around a long time. That is strange because we were supposed to debate it on October 23. I was studying this bill when the events occurred on Parliament Hill. The Conservatives are claiming that this bill enhances public safety. The minister says that it is extraordinary. That is ironic because if Bill C-42 is so good for public safety, then it would have been extraordinary if the government had announced, the day after the shooting, that as a good and responsible government, it was letting us debate it and pass it right away.

However, the Conservatives knew very well that this bill had some serious flaws. They used these events to make it more accessible to Canadians, knowing that it could be worrisome for them. Furthermore, since the Conservatives only work based on polls, they withdrew the bill and then brought it back one month later, only to shut down debate after the minister, our critic and the critic from the third party had a chance to speak.

Today, on April 1—this is no April Fool's joke—the Conservatives have brought this bill back and they have the gall to tell us that it has been languishing for six months. That is not our fault. They are the ones who let it languish. There is no real urgency.

This bill has a number of worrisome elements. I know it works to their advantage so it is hard for them to let go of it. They must have been disappointed when the registry was abolished because it was no longer profitable. However, now they have this, so they can continue and say that the member for Gatineau is against hunters. That is not true. I am sick of hearing such nonsense.

Can we be adults here and simply ensure that the right guns are in the hands of the right people? As justice critic for the official opposition I never claimed that the firearms registry would have prevented the crime at the École Polytechnique.

That is not even what police forces came to tell us. All they said was that it helped them during investigations. It gave them a sense of security if they had information—if not some assurance—that firearms might be located somewhere. They acted differently as a result.

With all of that information, we should be able to implement measures that are good for public safety, not for Conservative party funding.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-587.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility). The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, request a 30-day extension to consider it.

In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation of Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content). The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, requests a 30-day extension to be considered.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-10. We supported it at second reading, but we had quite a number of concerns, particularly in terms of its compliance with the charter because it includes mandatory minimum penalties.

I am also concerned about the process that led to Bill C-10. The government did not consult the partners in the federation, namely the provinces, the territories and the first nations. We were therefore determined to carry out a thorough study in committee. That is what I hoped for.

The committee did a good job. It heard witnesses in various capacities talk about the scourge of contraband tobacco. I will have no trouble convincing everyone in the House that contraband tobacco is a scourge, period.

However, there might be a little hypocrisy around this issue in our society. Even as the government tries to control tobacco and fight contraband tobacco, it is raising taxes on tobacco and making a lot of money that way. That hypocrisy became entrenched over the years, and now it is complicating the issue. Add to that the ancestral rights of first nations peoples to manufacture tobacco, and the issue gets very murky.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had some good meetings. It heard from excellent witnesses, including chiefs of first nations. I did not hear a single first nations chief express support for contraband tobacco to the committee. Nevertheless, the chiefs were very realistic. They insisted on protecting their traditional rights to produce and grow tobacco as they have done historically within their territory.

That being said, they are also aware that contraband tobacco, which is often part of organized crime activity on their land, has the lure of easy money for their young people. It is a vicious circle because there is a great deal of poverty on first nations lands that tends to get ignored, and then we are surprised when the black market takes hold there. This does not help first nations chiefs to provide their people on their land with something worthwhile.

I have already done so in person, but since we have the time, I would like to publicly thank my NDP colleagues who served with me on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who may not get the chance to speak to the bill in the House. They did exceptional work. I particularly want to thank the NDP deputy justice critic, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi and the hon. member for Beaches—East York. They contributed a lot to this file through their personal experience in their own part of the country.

What is more, we proposed an amendment. I am still sad that the government did not see fit to approve the amendment that we proposed to respect R. v. Gladue. That decision calls on the courts, when sentencing, to consider the extenuating circumstances of the accused when the accused is from the first nations, especially considering that there are mandatory minimum sentences. That is the requirement that resulted from that decision, but according to lawyers at Justice Canada, Bill C-10 will take precedence over R. v. Gladue. We will see whether there are more appeals. I suspect there will be.

If one of the people arrested is a first nations member, it is very possible that the defence will make use of some of the arguments in the Gladue ruling. I think it would be wise to say that this did not trump the facts in the Gladue case.

True to form, the Conservatives are so terrified of adopting any amendment other than their own, and I find that very unfortunate. They may be rapped on the knuckles once again, as they have been in the last four or five major Supreme Court decisions. I feel like a mother who says “I told you so”, and I am a little tired of that. That is how I have felt for the past three years.

The opposition members are trying to do their job. I listened to the prayer recited by the Speaker at the beginning of the sitting. He asked Parliament to make good laws. I believe that is what we are trying to do both in the House and in committees.

Suffice it to say that the amendment was rejected. The mandatory minimum sentences will apply to repeat offenders, where a high volume of contraband tobacco is involved, and so my concerns about the sentences have been allayed. I still have no guarantee that the bill complies with our charters because the government does not see to be too worried about that. When we weigh out the two issues, public protection and contraband tobacco, which affects our children, we realize that this is extremely important.

The NDP has always taken the problem of contraband tobacco in Canada seriously, and Bill C-10 has not changed that.

I am going to digress for a moment regarding Bill C-10. When it was introduced in the House, we were told it was an absolute emergency, but it has been around for a long time now. If memory serves me correctly, the bill passed second reading in November. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we worked very diligently and quickly. Throughout the month of December, until the adjournment, we worked on this legislation. As soon as we came back after Christmas, in early February, we proceeded to clause by clause. What is intriguing is that the bill then fell into oblivion. We never heard about it again. Then, this week, I noticed we were going to debate Bill C-10. There are many numbers in my head, such as C-10, C-32 dealing with prostitution, C-587,C-590 and others. All these bills seem to deal with justice.

When I saw my name tied to Bill C-10, I wondered what the bill was about. It reminded me of the good old days when I was pleading before the court. We would prepare a case and arrive in court with witnesses. Unfortunately, for some very serious reason, the other side would ask for a postponement. We had prepared the case and met with witnesses and we were more than ready. We would return to our office, back at square one, and tell ourselves that we would wait for the next time. However, we sometimes had to wait a year or a year and a half and start all over again. Clients would sometime wonder why we were billing new hours. The answer was that we had to refresh our memory.

This is the impression I get with Bill C-10. I had to review the whole file because, in the meantime, we had debated several other justice bills and a number of issues that are now in the annals of the House. The government does not have to tell us this is urgent. The Conservatives seem to move into high gear at two very specific times: during the week preceding the holiday season and during the last two or three weeks before the summer recess. During these periods, we are incredibly productive.

I almost wish we could change the calendar so that it could be June all year long. Canadians across the country would be amazed at our productivity.

This week in the House, we debated Motion No. 10, which supposedly seeks to increase our work hours. It seems we are not working enough, but if that is the case, I am not sure why I am tired. In any event, I was listening to some of my colleagues, and their argument was that we had passed only nine bills.

What is fascinating is that about 15 bills will likely be passed in two weeks. One has to wonder if that means that we are being more productive or less democratic because we will have less time to speak to these bills and fewer people will have the opportunity to speak on each topic. I think the answer is obvious.

Bill C-10 is a good example. It has been sitting on someone's desk since February when it could have been passed quickly the week after it came back from committee. There were no formal or serious objections that would have prevented the bill from passing. This bill could have been passed by now.

These are important points to raise. I would never let anybody tell me that we are not working hard on these issues because we take them very seriously. Sometimes, we rise to speak to a bill at second reading to raise some of our concerns. There is no denying that we are concerned about this bill.

I know that the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco is made up of many people who benefit from tobacco sales. I was not born yesterday, and I see where their interests lie. In their testimony, some police forces also told us that they will need resources. This is an extremely important message that came out of the committee's examination of Bill C-10.

The first nations have their own to-do list for their territory. We need to stop making cuts to first nation police services. If Bill C-10 gives the police new tools by adding an offence to the Criminal Code that existed only under the Excise Tax Act, then from now on all police forces can begin dealing with contraband tobacco. However, we have to give them the resources they need. We need police officers on the front lines.

Some witnesses also told us that contraband was increasingly coming from countries other than Canada, for example, China. This is an issue for border services, and this agency will need resources. All we ever hear about on the news and here in the House is successive budget cuts being made to border services. How do we expect this agency to combat the large-scale smuggling that organized crime groups are conducting through well-organized networks?

This is not just about tobacco; it is also about arms and drug smuggling. It is all connected. The government is always a bit hypocritical, since it introduces bills and claims to want to fix everything, but it does not provide tools for the people on the ground so that they can do their jobs properly. I find that worrisome. Nevertheless, all of the witnesses we heard from in committee made the facts clear, regardless of their reasons.

For example, I know that the Canadian Convenience Stores Association wants us to put an end to contraband tobacco. When contraband cigarettes are available, no one buys cigarettes at the convenience store. The association does not want to put an end to tobacco use; it wants to put an end to illegal competition in its industry. The association is right. We must stop being hypocritical. If we decide that tobacco is a legal industry in Canada, even though we know that it kills, these stores should be able to happily sell it and make money legally.

That is why I really liked the question my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked the parliamentary secretary. She asked him if there were ways other than Bill C-10 to eliminate the scourge of tobacco. She and I both know that it is not easy to quit smoking. She can share her personal experience with that. In my case, I have been chewing Nicorette since 1999. People in the committee had quite a laugh when I told them that. In December, I was proud to tell them that I had quit Nicorette, but unfortunately I have to admit to everyone that I have started up again. It must be the Conservatives' fault I guess, because either I chew Nicorette or I get even more aggressive than usual. That is what I thought: everyone is eager to recommend that I chew Nicorette. That is what I do. Maybe I will stop one day. My point is that it is a constant battle.

We tell kids not to smoke, but tobacco companies attract them with all kinds of products. I know that is why I started smoking when I was young. It was cool. We thought we were so smart. Had I known how bloody hard it would be to quit 30 or 40 years later, maybe I would never have started. Young people know that now.

There are other ways, as my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said. There has to be a concerted public health effort, not just changes to the Criminal Code. There has to be a concerted effort to raise people's awareness that this product kills. That is what the warnings on cigarette packs say: this stuff kills, causes all sorts of problems and places a heavy burden on our health system. We have to do everything in our power to bring tobacco use rates down as quickly as possible.

We will tackle the issue of contraband tobacco immediately. I hope that it will help, but I am not convinced that it is the silver bullet or that it will solve every problem. I want to reiterate that for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. This bill will come into force on a date to be fixed by order in council. That is better than when we are sometimes told that the bill will come into force within 30 days of the bill being passed, which means that it applies immediately. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that the government use the time before the bill comes into force to sit down and talk with the first nations that have a considerable number of issues with and concerns about the bill. It is not that they support contraband tobacco. However, as Gina Deer, Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, said:

Bill C-10 proposes an infringement on our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights pertaining to the production, transportation, sale, and regulation of tobacco products.

If that is how Chief Deer perceives Bill C-10, a government representative needs to sit down with the chiefs to correct that perception. I think that the government's vision has to be explained, and first nations and the government need to discuss it as equals. The government did not have the decency to do that before it introduced the bill.

We are supporting this bill, even with its flaws. I am still waiting for the Conservatives to introduce a perfect bill. I do not think it is going to happen any time soon. That said, the committee did a fine job. I would like to thank my committee colleagues for their work, and I would also like to thank the witnesses who came to enlighten us on this subject, which is not always straightforward.

I appreciate the work being done by police, in particular. They do not have an easy job. As I said earlier, when we talk about contraband tobacco, the discussion often turns to other types of contraband or illegal activities such as organized crime and dangerous individuals. Police officers are putting their lives in danger every day. We must appreciate their work, but we also need to give them the tools and means to do their job. They have all been critical of that.

That also includes police forces in first nations territories, the aboriginal police who do this work and whose programs have been eliminated by the government. At some point you have to put your money where your mouth is. If the government wants to take action, it must provide the tools.

Bill C-10 is not very long and everyone should read it. For those who are worried about mandatory minimum sentences, they apply to repeat offenders and cases involving large quantities of contraband tobacco, as I was saying.