Debates of June 8th, 1995

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-301, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have the full 20 minutes due to me.

The purpose of my bill is to protect innocent civilians. Too often in our justice system, as we have seen over the last few years, the rights of innocent civilians have often been subjugated to the rights of the criminal. The bill will give firmer sentencing guidelines to the courts because they are not being acted on as they should be.

The definitions of the crimes involved in the bill are such that rape, attempted murder, sexual assault, manslaughter are all to be considered as serious offences committed if they are committed on three separate occasions in order to get a conviction and to have the three strikes and your are out bill applied.

I will state a few facts from the United States and why I thought the bill should be votable and show how effective it has been down there.

According to the FBI index high rate offenders commit almost 18 times as many crimes per year, including two violent offences per year. The typical low rate offender commits one serious crime very two and a half years as compared to seven per year for high rate offenders. Thus, it is easy to see how an enhanced repeat offender law would actually work to the benefit of all citizens in our country. I hope this will be enacted in the future. I will give the House the opportunity to do that.

Again, the benefits are for the protection of society, to deter repeat offenders and yes, to save money. The argument can be put forward in Canada that this is going to cost us more. I will show the House the bill will save the Canadian public a lot of money.

In the United States this bill was passed in over 26 states in various forms. The people have overwhelmingly voted for it, as they requested in my riding. They have shown an extreme cost benefit ratio in the order of $5 to $1. In other words, the cost of the bill and the management of it, has a cost saving of $5 to every $1 of implementation.

The benefits come from decreasing repeat offences, the lack of victims, the decrease in costs of prosecutions, the decrease in costs of appeals, not to mention the overwhelming humanitarian aspects of saving innocent people from being subjected to violent offences.

To this effect the preliminary reports from California and other states show that there has been a dramatic decrease in violent cases so far. I will give some examples.

Governor Pete Wilson in California signed its bill in early 1994. California has roughly the same number of people as we do in Canada. In the first nine months of its bill, California has shown a dramatic decrease in the number of violent offences.

The argument that it will cost us a lot of money I do not think fares well. These statistics come from the states. It would be a benefit to the justice committee to actually look at this, do an analysis in Canada and determine once and for all whether we are going to derive a cost benefit from enacting this bill.

The three strikes and you are out bill is not the only thing we can do because crime prevent is a multi-factorial endeavour. I will put forward some hard points, one after another. I hope the justice committee and the minister at least take heed of them.

Integral to crime is crime prevention. In my experience working in jails both as a correctional officer and as a physician and those who have worked in jails and who have been in them say that crime prevention does not work.

We have poured a lot of money into crime prevention but it has been ineffective. We have had a few cases when we have been effective in doing this but by and large, we do not get the best bang for our buck through this.

In order for us to build a healthy society in wich individuals will not commit crime, our best prevention is building the pillars of a normal psyche to ensure people will not commit crimes in the future. It is not a guarantee, I admit, but it certainly is an insurance.

We have to go back to early childhood education to ensure that children are being informed of what we consider to be normal understanding, what is normal conflict resolution. These things are very important.

They must also learn what drug abuse, sexual abuse and all these things are. It is very important to train these children early because once they get into the teenage years, it is virtually impossible to teach them self-respect, respect for other people and appropriate conflict resolution techniques. These must occur early. We take this for granted but I would submit that many children are not learning this. They are not getting it in the home because many times the parents themselves do not know it.

I hark back to an earlier speech that I made on an experiment performed at Columbia University where the parents were brought in with the children to teach them the building blocks of a normal psyche.

Second, it is work for incarceration. There is no reason why individuals who are incarcerated cannot work for their upkeep. Use this in conjunction with skills training and it would also help decrease the recidivism rate, which is extremely high in our penal institutions.

Third, we have worked in our party for putting capital punishment to a binding national referendum. Give people the choice whether they want capital punishment as a part of our society.

Fourth, I ask every member in the House to support the private members' bill of the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. That bill would enable lawmakers to actually keep individuals incarcerated who are deemed a danger to society on release.

Right now I can tell the House from personal experience that there are individuals who are dangerous to society and they are let go because the current laws do not enable the jails to keep them incarcerated if they are mentally competent. They can be deemed a dangerous offender at the time of sentencing, but not subsequent to that. That is what the private member's bill of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley will correct. In the interest of public safety, every member of the House should vote for it.

I will mention some of the frustrations the police forces in the country have. I was speaking to a police officer not long ago and he said they should be telling every police officer who enters the force they have handcuffs and those handcuffs are the charter of rights and freedoms. The charter of rights and freedoms handcuffs our police officers from doing their job. I would ask that the House look at revoking the charter of rights and freedoms. We have a code of human rights, which protects the human rights of every individual, and that is adequate. It worked before the charter, it works now, and it will work in the future.

The charter of rights and freedoms merely lets criminals and lawyers look for loopholes so that criminals can be released. Justice is somehow lost in the equation. Right and wrong are lost. They are lost and subjugated to legal points of order.

For example, let us look at the Paul Bernardo case, which is now being heard. It never ceases to amaze me that in this case, where we have an individual who on videotape has been shown committing the most heinous of acts, we have to go through a four-month to six-month court case. Why are we doing it? Because the defence is looking for procedural irregularities that will let this individual off. Is that right? If it happens in this case it will happen in other cases.

This murder case is very interesting, because it brings a number of other issues to the fore. I again ask the minister to look at the aspects of the videotapes that have been presented in this case. Was it fair to the families? Was it fair for them to have to fight with their own money to prevent those videotapes from being shown publicly? It is not a right of the public or of the media to have access to those videotapes. They can only be used to hurt and harm the families, who have already been victimized. There is no law to protect them right now.

I ask the minister to look at this case and to enact legislation that would protect the victimized families in the future. We do not want a repeat of the situation being faced by the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

I would look at revising procedures in the courtroom. Currently justice in our courtrooms grinds to a halt. Part of that has to do with adjournments. Defence and prosecution alike continually put forth adjournments that make court cases so long they are eventually dropped and the accused persons go free because too much time has passed. I ask the minister to look at this and determine how many adjournments are allowed for a person to have a fair case. We could look at limiting adjournments.

Another aspect is disclosure. We need fair and honest disclosure by both the defence and prosecution.

Another aspect is the use of preliminary hearings. They are much abused. Preliminary hearings in cases such as murder trials are not required. All that happens is that the same evidence is repeated. There would be a significant cost saving if preliminary hearings were eliminated in certain cases.

With respect to the Young Offenders Act, we should publish the names of young offenders. I know from working in a young offender penal institution that many of them think it is a joke. There is little or no deterrence to prevent young offenders from continuing to commit acts against innocent victims. There is very little punishment and there is very little deterrence. One simple thing that can be done is to publish the names of those young offenders who are committing these acts.

Another aspect I would like to bring out is that in my experience in working with young offenders the recidivism rate is extremely high. It costs us almost $100,000 per young offender per year to keep them incarcerated. Yet the recidivism rate is over one-third. That patently speaks for itself. It does not work. We need to look at a different model.

We need to pull young offenders out of these closed custody cases of putting them in for three months or six months. After that they go back to the same environment they were in before. We cannot undo 12, 14, 15 years of being in a situation that is patently self-destructive where they have witnessed sexual abuse or have been a victim of sexual abuse, violence, drugs, alcohol abuse, and expect them to be changed in three months or six months of closed custody. No matter how much counselling you put forth, it simply is not going to work.

Why do we not look at putting them in closed custody camps away from cities? There are some examples in northern British Columbia. We should put them away not for a few months but for a year or two years and focus on them working for their incarceration, focus on education, focus on skills, focus on discipline, focus on them learning the skills necessary for them to work as productive members of society. They are certainly not learning it now in the youth areas we have.

Legal aid is the fastest growing aspect of our justice system now. There are many abuses in it. I ask the justice committee to look at the legal aid situation we have now, look at the abuse that is taking place, and look of ways of changing that. If we are pouring money into this we are taking money away from the other functional aspects of justice.

Gun registration does not work. It has never worked anywhere. It is not going to work in the future. It will take money away from the functional aspects of justice and put it into an area that simply is proven not to work. This will be counter to what the minister intends; it will make our streets less safe than they are. That was not the intent. I plead with the hon. minister to not enact this legislation and please listen to what we have been saying in the Reform Party. Enact the good laws that are to be in that bill against those who are committing criminal acts with firearms, but please do not make our streets less safe by enacting gun registration. It will not work.

In summary, the three strikes and you are out bill is but one arm of what we can do to make our streets safer. The purpose of the bill is to get violent offenders, those individuals who have proven to show a flagrant disregard for innocent civilians, off the streets and protect society.

We in Parliament have to stand up for the innocent civilians. We have to stand up for their rights. We have to ensure their rights will not be subjugated to the rights of the criminal. That has been going on for too long. It cannot continue to go on. We must ensure innocent people will be protected. That is the purpose of justice now. It is the purpose of justice in the future.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to make my bill, Bill C-301, votable.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to take up much of the House's time. Earlier I was named by the member for Madawaska-Victoria.

After the pension debate I did go over. I had challenged members to a debate, so I went over and we did have a rather heated discussion, I must confess to that. The member told me that I was not worth what I thought I was worth and that we could have a debate any time. That was fine. Then when we got rather heated she turned around to go back to her seat after she had called me a name and I just grabbed her and said "Come on, be real". I thought she was tripping off the step.

As I was named, I thought I should get up and say that this is ridiculous. Let us move on with the country's business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I say respectfully to both parties I ruled at the time and continue to rule it is not a point of order.

Let us go back to the matter of the private members' hour and the motion from the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, who at the end of his intervention was asking the House for unanimous consent to make his motion votable.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Halifax West.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some but certainly not all of the comments of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

We should look at what Bill C-301 does. First, it would apply when an accused has two previous convictions for any of the 15 offences listed in the bill. Bill C-301 eliminates discretion of the court in sentencing the offender for the commission of a serious indictable offence.

I understand that violence in our society is an important problem, and I do not disagree with the intent here, but let us look at this for a moment. This response has some attractiveness; it is certainly simple and seems to be a very clear response. Is it the right answer to this problem?

It is true that all human institutions have human failings, so our courts are not perfect. However, by and large, if I read through decisions and look into the depth of the cases, I and most people also would find the same things, that we agree with the sentences if we actually have all the facts before us. One problem is that very often we only have a few very simple and limited facts about the case and the decision. Sometimes it seems the simplest answer is sometimes also the wrong answer.

It is noteworthy that all the offences listed in this bill already carry the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In other words, the judge already has the power to impose life sentences for any one of these offences, let alone for three. Although he does not have to, he has the authority to do so, and to take into account various factors in deciding on the appropriate sentence. This reflects the basic principle of let the punishment fit the crime. And it should. It means the key decision maker in matching the penalty to the crime is the individual who was there to see the case and all the facts of the case, the judge.

I know we will hear the argument that a pattern of three serious offences is enough to prove that an automatic life sentence does fit the crime, or at least the pattern of crime. To make a life sentence mandatory for offences other than murder or treason is a significant and I think ill-advised departure from our criminal law.

The Criminal Code currently provides for a mandatory life sentence for first or second degree murder or for high treason. There are other mandatory minimum sentences, but they are the exception in our criminal law. Mandatory life sentences are extremely rare.

I refer my colleagues to the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, "Sentencing Reform in Canada: The Canadian Approach", chapter eight, in which the commission opposed mandatory minimum sentences on the grounds that they diminish the role of the judge and can therefore result in arbitrary punishment and other inequities.

As an alternative to mandatory minimum sentences, the commission set out a number of sentencing principles, including this statement at page 154 of its report:

The paramount principle governing the determination of a sentence is that the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender for the offence.

It seems to me that is as it should be. From Bill C-41, the sentencing bill now before the House, I refer to section 718(1): "A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender". The government is already adding that provision to the law with Bill C-41.

The reason for not removing the court's discretion to determine the sentence length is both sound and straightforward. The court should have the ability to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors that will help the criminal justice process impose the punishment that fits the crime.

The sentencing commission report sets out a long list of such aggravating factors at page 320, including the use of violence in the crime, existence of previous convictions, a manifestation of excessive cruelty toward the victim and other factors. Bill C-41 similarly acknowledges the importance of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing.

It is apparent with respect to the offences listed in the bill the court already has the authority to consider past offences as aggravating factors and to impose a life sentence for any of the offences listed in this bill.

The hon. member has tried to confine his three strikes model to a limited number of indictable offences and thereby avoid some of the excesses of the American statutes. He has succeeded only in narrowing the focus of Criminal Code offences that already carry a maximum life sentence.

Supporters of the bill will argue it is the pattern of offending that makes the difference, that requires this drastic change in our approach to sentencing. Let us examine the objectives of sentencing. One of the purposes of criminal law is denunciation through punishment. Nothing is achieved from the point of view of punishment by making a life sentence mandatory for three offences as opposed to allowing the court to consider all relevant factors in imposing sentence which can be life for any of the 15 listed offences. It seems likely such a pattern of repeat offending would lead the court to consider a very long sentence for any of these serious crimes.

The other purposes of sentencing include deterrence and the long term protection of society against criminals likely to reoffend. From this perspective, Bill C-301 casts too wide a net in its indiscriminate approach to patterns of offending. Would it not be better to tailor a law to the actual conduct that shows a likelihood of reoffending violently? Can we not focus on the circumstances of the offence, on the offender's mental state, on the brutality of his actions, all factors that evidence a continuing threat to the community?

We have such a law found in part 24 of the Criminal Code, dangers offender sections. This part specifically allows the court to impose an indeterminate sentence for a pattern of serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 as follows:

An indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder, involving, (i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or

(ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict psychological damage upon another person, and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more.

A number of particular sexual offences are also included in the definition. This approach to patterns of offending allows the court to link past offences and violent conduct to a prediction that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons.

The court is also required to hear psychiatric evidence and dangerous offender hearings allow both the prosecution and the defence to introduce evidence about the potential threat posed by the offender to the community. Those are good opportunities to hear what threat there is and the reasons for a long sentence. This structured approach contrasts with the automatic life sentence this bill would impose.

I recommend we let the courts do their job. The Criminal Code already provides for life sentences for these 15 crimes and additionally sets out a dangerous offender procedure which targets patterns of violence and links such patterns to predictions of violent reoffending.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are back in the jurassic era. The Reform Party, particularly the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, has outdone itself. Did his riding's proximity to California have such a major impact on the hon. member? Bill C-301 is nothing but a substitute for California's "three strikes and you are out" law.

I understand that the professional baseball strike lasted a long time and that fans missed the action. But to introduce professional sports rules into criminal law is something else. This is the figment of a wild, even dangerous imagination.

I asked myself what could possibly have inspired the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Certainly not inmate rehabilitation, crime prevention or community integration programs. What then? The answer is simple. There was no need for me to rack my brains. It is repression. One of the inquisition party's favourite phrases is, "Let us lock up criminals and throw away the key".

If they are to be believed, we have been in a full-blown crisis for a long time. The true crisis is the disinformation crisis which has been in effect since the Reform Party was elected. Its members make questionable comments on crime in this country, manipulate statistics, and engage in scaremongering. Their

anecdotes are isolated cases that do not reflect the reality around us. They try to make cheap political capital out of tragic situations.

I remember that, just recently, the hon. member for Crowfoot exploited the tragedy that took place here in Ottawa, in which two young children were shot and killed by their father, who used a hunting rifle, as their seven-year old brother looked on helplessly. Imagine that, while talking about gun control, the hon. member from the Reform Party had the gall to say that gun registration could not have prevented that tragedy.

It could certainly be said that the Reform member is a whiz at recycling news, but has no regard for the pain and suffering of survivors. This is how the Reform Party deals with the events affecting us.

The same analogy can be applied to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca's explanations regarding Bill C-301. The recipe is simple. Take some nice fat jailbirds. Add some spicy tabloid news and a few drops of exaggeration. Brush with empty rhetoric, taking care of never letting any rehabilitation into the mixture. Mix all ingredients together, hoping that your audience is so confused that it might agree with you.

If I am being cynical on such a serious subject, it is because I want to show how distorted the examples used by Reform members are. According to the inquisition member, parole standards should be abolished, and we should treat offenders like cattle by cramming them into correctional institutions that are already overcrowded.

Let us now look at the Reform member's source of inspiration. California's "three strikes" law went into effect last year. This law provides for very harsh sentences against any repeat offender already convicted twice of relatively serious offences.

Like Bill C-301, California law requires the judge who convicts a person for the third time to sentence this person to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. Think for a moment how outrageous such a legislation would be. The judges will no longer have any latitude, since the act is taking away any discretion they used to have. Sooner or later, this is bound to lead to absurd decisions.

Let me illustrate this with an example. In March, a 27-year old man was prosecuted for stealing a slice of pizza from a group of teenagers and sentenced to life imprisonment. The facts are quite simple: he stole a slice of pizza from a group of young people between the ages of 4 and 14 in a restaurant in Redondo Beach, California.

Because he had a record and was therefore a repeat offender, the offender came under the three strikes act and the judge had no other choice but to sentence him to life imprisonment without any chance of parole for 25 years.

That is the logic behind the proposal made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Repression and punishment are the only two ways the Reform Party has found to control crime. With legislation like the bill introduced by my Reform colleague, what happened at Redondo Beach could well happen here; the situation may not be as absurd, but it could be just as dangerous. It is more than likely that a 19-year old offender would be sentenced to life for robbing a convenience store. In fact, robbery is included in the list of offences mentioned in the schedule proposed in Bill C-301.

Let us look at the type of offences for which three convictions would buy a one-way ticket to the pen for a very long time. There is piracy, hijacking, endangering safety of aircraft in flight, using explosives. Whatever my hon. colleague's views on the matter, these offences are already liable to life imprisonment.

I find it hard to imagine that someone would be able to commit this type of offence three times in his or her miserable life, as he or she could have been sentenced to life twice already before committing a third offence.

I have nothing to say about the other offences listed, except maybe to mention that they are generally considered disgusting and reprehensible. I cannot overlook however the case of robbery. This offence is on the fateful schedule. Its inclusion will cause such prison overcrowding that it is hard to predict the implications. Again, this is an offence already liable to life imprisonment. But very few individuals serve full sentences because, objectively, the seriousness of such an offence does not justify life imprisonment.

If the circumstances surrounding the offence did warrant such severe punishment, Bill C-301 would indeed be superfluous, since the offender would already have been sentenced for life. How many life sentences can one serve consecutively? As far as I know, unlike cats, we only have one life.

The schedule of offences provided for under this bill lists 15 or so major offenses. Naturally, I would have no sympathy for any individual sentenced three times for any of them. Quite the contrary, I am of the opinion that repeat offenders do not deserve preferential treatment, but it is a different matter altogether to put them away in penitentiaries under the pretext that this makes our streets safer. Society will always be better served in the end through rehabilitation programs suited to the various offenses. Close supervision is the key.

Too many offenders were paroled before they were ready to reintegrate society and went on to commit a subsequent offence.

Increasing the prison population will necessarily increase the related costs. Will the hon. member have the honesty to tell taxpayers how much his bill will cost us? We know that the average cost of keeping an inmate in a maximum security institution in 1992-1993 was as much as $56,000.

It is my opinion that the three strikes, you are out rule should apply to hon. members in the House: after tabling three bills like the one before us today, an hon. member should automatically be sent home for life.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Dear colleagues, I would like to inform you that the Chair has received notice of a question of privilege. I give the floor to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.

Privilege

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I raise this question of privilege and would like to inform you that if the Chair determines that this is a bona fide question of privilege, I am prepared to table the usual motion to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would like to refer to Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament , 21st edition, p. 126: molestation, reflections and intimidation.

It is a contempt to molest a member of either House while attending the House, or coming to or going from it. The Commons on 12 April 1733 and the Lords on 17 May 1765, resolved That the assaulting, insulting or menacing any member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and a high crime and misdemeanour', and on 6 June 1780 the Commons resolvedThat it is a gross breach of the privilege of this House for any person to obstruct and insult the members of this House in the coming to, or the going from the House, and to endeavour to compel members by force to declare themselves in favour of, or against any proposition then depending or expected to be brought before the House'.

It goes on to say in the second paragraph:

To molest members on account of their conduct in Parliament is also a contempt. Correspondence with members of an insulting character in reference to their conduct in Parliament or reflecting on their conduct as members, threatening a member with the possibility of a trial-

Earlier this afternoon after the speech by the member for Beaver River, I went to talk with my colleague from Mississauga South. At that time the member for Beaver River came over and challenged me to a debate in my riding. She wanted to know when I was available. I said I was probably available all summer, that I would be in my riding. She said she would be contacting my office.

Afterward in the discussions, I reinforced what I had said earlier in my speech that as the federal representative for the population of Madawaska-Victoria in regard to the remuneration, the pension and whatever other compensation Parliament allocates to me, I truly believe that I am worth it. It is her problem if she does not believe that she is worth it. The discussion escalated to a point where, Mr. Speaker, I think you rose.

At the same time, the whip from the Reform Party came behind the curtains and told us to bring the level of discussion down. I told the whip to take the member for Beaver River away from where I was standing. I turned to go back to my seat. It was not a question of my falling; I was turning to go back to my seat in order to end that discussion. At that time the member grabbed me by the arm.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a parliamentarian since 1987. I have never, either in the House where I was sitting, outside the House or in my riding, ever received any such physical threat.

I do wish, Mr. Speaker, that you will be ruling on this as soon as possible because I find that absolutely no member in this House, whether a man or a woman, should be assaulted physically. I was sent here to speak my views and the views of my constituents. That is what Parliaments are all about, to speak and to discuss. This is not a boxing match. I do wish that you will rule very soon on this point of privilege.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do hope we can address this now and clear it up just as quickly as possible.

The member is right. I did go over and we did have a rather heated exchange about whether I would come to her riding. When she told me to get out of here and my whip said to call it off, she told me to get real and to get out of here. She said that she turned around to go back to her seat and she did. However, as it was a heated exchange, she did turn around. I was on one step higher than she was and she whirled around and I grabbed her elbow and said: "Come on, let's be reasonable here".

I do apologize for that. I certainly did not mean any harm or assault. I am twice her size. It is just foolishness to think that. I do apologize if she thought there was any intention of an assault. However, this is now on the floor of the House of Commons. I might just mention that in my short discussion of this afterward, and it seems unfortunate that we have to take up House time with this, the member for Huron-Bruce said: "I was here and this is

crazy. I cannot support her in this. This is hardly what we would call an assault".

Mr. Speaker, again I publicly say that is what happened. I absolutely meant no harm or any threat as the member has said. We need to get on with this. Again, I do accept the challenge she has issued to me. I certainly would be willing to go down to her riding and will be in contact with her staff to see if we can get a good political debate going. Or she is certainly welcome to come to Beaver River and we will talk about that.

The issue here is the fact that I did take her arm but it was certainly not a threat. It was something that just happened. When she whirled around in a great hurry I did grab her right elbow and I certainly acknowledge that. I appreciate the fact that we can move forward from this. Certainly when we get into the heat of political debate, it is unfortunate it is the MP pension plan which escalated to this height. However, I trust that we can certainly put this behind us now and move forward.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, I willl make some comments as I was a witness to what occurred in this incident.

I did go over and I noticed you were standing. I asked the two members to lower their voices because it was getting a little bit loud and it was hard for other members to listen to the debate that was going on.

The member for Madawaska-Victoria is going to great lengths to build a case. I believe with all due respect, and I do not want to any way diminish her concerns that she was not treated with respect, but the exchange I heard was on an equal basis. Whatever level it was at, it was on an equal basis.

There was no molestation with respect to her reference from 1780. Also there was no assault. There was no physical threat. The comment I did hear, and I saw what was happening, was to get her out of here and whatever. The member for Beaver River I thought just grabbed her arm and said: "Come on". Let us smarten up kind of thing is the impression I got from that comment.

The debate did heat up to a high exchange. I think both members have an extremely different point of view on the pension plan. I recommend both members recognize they have a severe difference of opinion and that with respect they basically agree to disagree.

For you, Mr. Speaker, to have to rule on this, I think you should hear from anyone else who wishes to contribute. I do know the member for Huron-Bruce was present as a witness. He can speak for himself as to what he saw.

In my humble opinion, with it being my responsibility to make sure that members do respect each other, I know they disagreed, but in my opinion there was no assault, no physical threat. There was no intent to injure. There was no intent for bodily harm. I really believe it was a war of words and that was it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of what was being debated. One hon. member as a result of the debate in the House was not satisfied. She had made her points wanted to carry on and did come to this spot. I was sitting here beside where the event took place between the two members.

There is a very important point to clarify. I agree fully with the facts as laid out by the hon. member. Her comment was to the Reform Party whip, not to the member as the member said. The member is incorrect. The member for Madawaska-Victoria had indicated to the Reform Party whip to get her out of here because I had got your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rise because of the sound level of the conversation. The member was clearly aware that it was not going anywhere and tried to leave the conversation. She very calmly tried to leave the conversation, at which point the member for Beaver River in all fairness and with due respect for the member, was not going to allow the matter to finish and wanted to impose her position even further on the member.

I was quite disturbed with the whole incident. Although I am not a lawyer my impression of what went on here was that the member for Beaver River had come to harass and impose herself upon the member who has made this complaint and was not prepared to let it go until she had won and imposed her view. I think that is the issue before us. There was a physical contact. There was an attempt to carry on something the member clearly wanted to just get out of.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, hopefully in order to establish good harmony between members, I would ask if the House could not see the clock for ten minutes or so in order that we can end the conversation. I think it would be helpful for the House as a whole to sit an extra ten minutes to conclude the matter.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, given the seriousness of the matter it certainly would be my intention to hear whatever additional information might ultimately assist the Chair in this matter, and I will not see the clock.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a few points to the attention of the Chair.

First, I was in the House some years ago when an incident of molestation was raised. It was a dispute between the member of Parliament for York South-Weston and the then member of Parliament from Winnipeg, the late Mr. Dan McKenzie. The Speaker will perhaps recall that incident, or the records of the House will remind him of it. Essentially, it was a debate that eventually ended in one member physically attempting to do something to another member, which is certainly not in conformity with our usual practices in the House.

There are, not only in Beauchesne but as well in Erskine May, a number of cases of what are referred to as the molestation of members while in the execution of their duties. Not only is there the case of 1780, which has been mentioned, but perhaps more importantly for the Speaker is the following. There is reference in Erskine May's 19th edition at page 149 to cases of punishment of members and others for molestation of members. In other words, these are cases of members against members within the precincts of the House. I could name a series of these cases, but I will name the Franklyn case, the Mompesson case, Holt, Gourlay, and so on, which refer to disputes between hon. members inside the Chamber itself.

The point I am making, without judging this case, is that the Speaker has in the past determined that this kind of an incident, depending on the severity of it, was deemed to be punishable by an action of the House. Therefore, it is, at least prima facie, something for the Speaker to consider as being important, and it falls under the general rubric, in Erskine May's 19th edition, not only of breaches of privileges but also under the rubric of contempt of Parliament. I bring this to your attention because of these two important points.

Finally, there is the whole issue of privilege generally, which is what enables us to function, not only as parliamentarians individually, but collectively. This definition of privilege is found on page 67 of Erskine May's 19th edition. In other words, all of us as parliamentarians have a fundamental right and a fundamental expectation that we will all be able to stand in the House and say whatever we feel we must say on behalf of those who sent us here, without fear, worry or concern that anything will stop us, threaten us, or otherwise make it such that we would be hampered in that capacity. That is a fundamental principle, which is necessary for all of us to be able to represent our fellow constituents in this highest court in the land, the Parliament of our country.

So, if we are to all enjoy this privilege and represent not only properly but without fear of reprisal all that may be said in this House, it goes without saying that the threat cannot be tolerated.

The best case to be made for that is surely the fact that no member of Parliament could ever be brought before a court of law for saying anything in the House. The reason that is there is to ensure that there is no libel chill, to ensure that no one can threaten to sue an MP for something said in the House. The reason that is there is to give any member of Parliament the total freedom from fear of any kind in order to represent constituents.

For the same reason, it is important, and I would argue essential, that we be able to speak not only in the House in a way that does not have in it libel chill, but free of any kind of molestation or retribution on the part of anyone within Parliament as well as coming to and leaving the Parliament. That has been established, as I indicated previously, for centuries.

I do not want to belabour that point. I thought it was an important consideration for the Chair to take into account. I hope it will assist the Speaker in deliberating on this important issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, certainly the matter raised before the House is a serious matter.

I begin by acknowledging and thanking all those members who participated in the sharing of information and precedents. That will assist the Chair in arriving at a decision.

I will take this matter under advisement. Again, I thank the members for their information and their participation. We will deal with the matter in the most respectful and the most just fashion possible.

I would like now to return to the business of the House during private members' hour. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest was seeking the floor.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-301, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those viewers tuning in who thought they had somehow switched into the O.J. trial, we are talking about a private member's bill that would have the effect of saying that for serious violent crimes perpetrators would have three strikes and they are out.

Again for the benefit of those just viewing, it is interesting to see how confrontations brew and exist and happen in life. They can happen right here. They can happen everywhere in life, some more violent than others.

Here we have a situation of three strikes and you are out. In my view this started in California where people said one day: "We have to do something about this crime situation we have. Perpetrators do not seem to get punished for it. We have to somehow set the stage so that people know there is an ultimate sanction for doing wrong".

People who have spoken against the notion of three strikes say wait a minute, what is wrong with one strike and you are out? Why should we allow three strikes? Why should it not be one strike and you are out?

There is a good deal of validity to this because when I agreed to speak to this bill, I refreshed my memory on some of the articles I read about, three strikes and you are out.

One of the things I read was with the three strikes and you are out law in place, very often a perpetrator would have absolutely nothing to lose when making that third offence because the third strike was life.

While I am speaking in support of the bill and in support of my colleague, I do so in the full understanding there is a good deal of reservation among those who support the bill and who do not support the bill but for very different reasons.

The one thing people have in common when they are talking about this is the motivation to get us into a three strikes and you are out bill in the first place. There seems to be a sense of frustration with the criminal justice system in that there does not seem to be the kind of sanctions against wrongdoing which would prevent more wrongdoing.

It is almost as though society has become inured to the fact that there are people who are not good citizens, that we are prepared to accept antisocial behaviour and violent behaviour and say this is a fact of life and we have to accept it.

If we society take that view then the member is right, we will have to accept it because we will get a lot more of it. This bill speaks to that motivation in society at large saying do something about it.

An earlier speaker suggested perhaps incarceration was not the answer but then, what is? If incarceration does not make the perpetrator better, at least it protects citizens.

Our responsibility as legislators is to put the rights of the victims ahead of the rights of the criminals. The balance of doubt has to lie in favour of the innocent victim. The balance of doubt should no longer lie in favour of the perpetrator.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca can seek the floor again, recognizing he has already spoken to his motion, and before I can consider right of reply I must first seek if anyone else in the House wishes to participate.

Under right of reply the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca will be the last person to speak. No one else will be entitled to speak after his intervention. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank everybody who made an intervention on the bill, wittingly or unwittingly, particularly my friend from Edmonton Southwest who was kind enough to second the bill and speak eloquently on it.

I will address some of the concerns. We hate to admit it but there are people who have a total and utter disrespect for life and other people. They offend and reoffend again and again. The purpose of this three strikes and you are out bill, Bill C-301, was to protect innocent civilians from those individuals who by their actions have shown a complete disregard for society.

These individuals are not rehabilitatable because they have had their chance. The hon. member from the government made some very good points. He said we have in our courts right now sentences for offences in this bill. However, these sentences are not being applied by our courts. That is one of the primary purposes of the bill.

If the courts were enacting these sentences, if they were applying the available sentences to the individuals who were committing these violent acts against innocent civilians, we would not need this bill. We would not have needed in the United States and we would not need it here. The reality of life is we do need it because the courts are failing to enact those laws already there.

Whether we are speaking about these violent offences or the use of firearms in committing offences, they are not being applied. People commit firearms offences and they have those offences plea bargained away to get an expeditious conviction on another offence. That is not law, that is not justice, that is not protecting innocent civilians, which is why I proposed this.

I also put forth reasons the bill is good for Canada why it would be cost effective. I hope the justice minister, members on the committee and members of the House take it upon themselves to look at enacting a three strikes and you are out bill or a modification thereof for the safety of all Canadians.

The member from the Bloc Quebecois mentioned throwing the key away. I ask her and anybody else who disagrees with it to go into jails to speak with individuals who have committed many offences and to speak to the victims of violent offences. They will have a different opinion.

I move:

That this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that accordingly the bill be withdrawn.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 6.47 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)