Debates of Sept. 21st, 1995

Corrections And Conditional Release Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion No. 18 agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The next vote is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion No. 20 agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The next vote is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion No. 21 agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The next vote is on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion No. 22 agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I therefore declare Motion No. 23 carried.

(Motion No. 23 agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We are now debating the motions in Group No. 3.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-45, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 6, on page 18, the following:

"(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to any offender who is serving a sentence for the commission of an offence involving violence.

(1.2) For the purposes of subsection (1.1), "offence involving violence" means any offence set out in Schedule I."

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-45, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 40, on page 18, with the following:

"(5) Notwithstanding any provision in this or any other Act of Parliament, no offender whose parole or statutory release has been suspended or revoked under section 135 is entitled to be released again on statutory release before the expiration of the offender's sentence according to law."

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-45, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16, on page 19, with the following:

"41. Subsections 128(2) and (3) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(2) Except to the extent required by the conditions of any day parole, an offender who is released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence is entitled, subject to this Part, to remain at large in accordance with the conditions of the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence and is not liable to be returned to custody by reason of the sentence unless the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence is suspended, cancelled, terminated or revoked."

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-45, in Clause 43, be amended in the English version a ) by replacing line 32, on page 24, with the following:

"(3.1) An order made under subsection (3)"; b ) by replacing line 36, on page 24, with the following:

"subsection (3) has been made, an offender"; c ) by replacing line 39, on page 25, with the following:

"to an order made under subsection (3) or"; and d ) by replacing line 2, on page 26, with the following:

"subsection (3) or paragraph (3.3)( b ) not to be released''.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-45, in Clause 43, be amended a ) by replacing lines 25 to 35, on page 25, with the following:

"(2) Subsection 130(4) of the Act is repealed"; and b ) by deleting lines 1 to 9, on page 26.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-45, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 44, on page 33, and lines 1 to 9, on page 34, with the following:

"139. Notwithstanding any provision in this or any other Act of Parliament, where an offender who is subject to a sentence that has not expired receives an additional sentence, the offender shall serve the total of the unexpired portion of the sentence the offender was serving at the time the offender received the additional sentence and then shall serve the full term of the additional sentence."

Madam Speaker, the majority of our amendments in this section will address violent offenders.

Once again we see in Bill C-45 that there has been an effort by the government to do something to address violent offenders, that those guilty of child abuse, child aggravated assault or child sexual assault should not be released. No one can disagree with that.

Once again here is an example of a government saying it will move in the direction Canadians want, but it does not go far enough.

Who is a child? If the child is 15 and is assaulted, does that count? Do they have to be under 14, according to the age of majority? What are the guidelines? Are we to say in the case of the Bernardo trial to the French and the Mahaffy families that their daughters were in their upper teens and therefore were not children, and that Mr. Bernardo could be released some time in the future? If that is what it is saying, it is totally wrong.

Aggravated assault on anyone, I do not care what their age, when violence is shown by these offenders in that fashion there is absolutely no reason in the world they should be released at any time until we are absolutely certain they will never do it again. If that means we have to wait until they are 90 years old, so be it.

What the Canadian people want more than anything else if they are to feel safe is to be assured by the government that dangerous violent offenders will not be on the streets because of the bleeding hearts of this country who say we cannot keep them behind bars forever.

Let us make a separation. A lot of people in penitentiaries are non-violent. Many of them should not even be in there. Let us start separating these two categories. Let us help those who genuinely made mistakes, who did no harm to individuals.

If they are non-violent let us treat them as such. Let us look at what we can do to rehabilitate them back into the community. Maybe we need to look at some alternative measures that would prevent them from going there in the first place and let communities deal with these problems, people who are closest to the scene.

When it comes to individuals who hunt down children or women or any kind of a victim with ball bats just to kill them, those are the kinds of people we do not need in this country, certainly not on our streets. If the best solution we have is to keep them behind bars, for heaven's sake let us do it.

I am not certain how accurate some reports are. Recently I read a report by Diane Francis who claimed she received her information from the solicitor general's office, that 78 individuals were released from penitentiaries and went on to murder. It did not say how many people they murdered but if 78 people committed murder, it was definitely no less than 78.

I remember a year or two ago when we first came to the House I asked the solicitor general about a list we had compiled. Our little research group had managed to find 46 individuals who had been released who were violent and killed again.

In one of those instances I remember a quote in the newspaper from the convict, and it was the first time I have been able to agree fully with a convict: "The only thing crazier than me is a system that would let me out to do what I did". Finally the whole truth is spoken. It is plum crazy.

Special interest groups are running around all over the country. They have the ear of the solicitor general and the ear of the justice department. They simply will not accept that locking them up and throwing away the key is the answer.

Probably 90 per cent of Canadians would agree with me when I say for some individuals that is the only answer. There is a better answer for some of these individuals. It is called capital punishment. It is my opinion that should apply to some individuals.

Clifford Olson may be eligible. He will be heard in 1995, I believe. Under section 745 of the Criminal Code he could be considered for release, although I am quite certain he will not be. I have a little more faith in our justice system than that, that they would not let him out. Nevertheless, he can apply, and will because he has been complaining and moaning and groaning over the last few years.

It saddens me that we even have to consider such a thing, that we have to go to the trouble of having a trial and the expense of paying individuals to sit and listen to the likes of these individuals.

He killed once, then he killed twice, then there were three, four, five, six. As far as we know, he killed about a dozen times. This individual killed once and got life and 25 years. He killed 11 or 12 more times for free; it did not cost him anything.

Then he goes to our justice department and makes a bargain. Give me $10,000 for every body I lead you to, put it in a trust fund, and I will start telling you what I did with these children I killed. And we fell into this bargain. We bargained with an individual like that.

I dare anyone in the House to go to any community or any town in the country and stand on a street corner and ask any Canadian what he thinks of our justice system that made a bargain with Clifford Olson to the point where he now has $100,000 in a trust account for his family because he told us where to find the bodies of the people he murdered. That is an example of what people do not want.

The message should be loud and clear to individuals of that type, these highly dangerous, violent offenders: You are not a welcome segment to our society; we do not want you; we do not need you. For heaven's sake, let us make our communities really safe. Make the streets safe for our children who are walking home from school.

Why should we have to worry about the mother who has to work at 11 o'clock in the evening in a convenience store and who was kidnapped and murdered? We have to consider whether it was a planned murder. Maybe it was just second degree or maybe even manslaughter. It was a violent act, which is not acceptable in this society. But the government will not show through its legislation that it is not acceptable. It makes it look acceptable.

The motion is going to try to send a message to all Canadians that we parliamentarians in the 35th Parliament are a little more serious than they have been in the past about doing something with those who commit a crime. We will continue our prevention programs and do as much as we can. We will continue to try to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated. We will do all the right things. But when push comes to shove and there are individuals such as Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo, let us put an end to it. Never again should those kinds of things happen. Send the message and let us do it with these types of motions.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, this is a very delicate question. Obviously it will entail probably going into a very thorough debate. I think we have had the occasion to do so in committee.

I would like to remind the hon. member that all those witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in regard to Bill C-45 and Bill C-41 expressed the view that statutory release plays a fundamental role in the protection of society. This period of gradual and carefully planned and supervised release is essential for assisting an offender to reintegrate into the community and is preferred over an offender's abrupt release at warrant expiry.

I should also add that there is a process in place. It takes a required amount of time to serve. We should also keep in mind that we do not automatically release people as the opposition likes to contend.

The provisions in Bill C-45 and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act already provide a balanced response to the concerns posed by repeat offenders. The new sentence calculation model would ensure that an offender who receives a new custodial sentence for an offence committed while on conditional release would be automatically returned to custody. New consecutive sentences would always result in the offender serving a minimum of one-third of the new sentence in custody before parole eligibility.

I think we agree here in this House and I would imagine many members in the opposition benches would agree that we need to constantly seek ways of improving public protection. That is why the government continues to focus its efforts on more effective methods, which involve better identifying, assessing, and treating violent offenders on a case by case basis. However, a blanket abolition of statutory release for certain offenders would ultimately harm rather than improve public safety.

In conclusion, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs recognized the value of statutory release when it voted down a similar motion to abolish statutory release for all offenders.

I would also add that we will be opposing not only Motion No. 4 but also Motions Nos. 5, 11, and 17 as presented by the opposition.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just heard that the member of the Liberal Party opposite is opposing Motion No. 5 which deals with the revocation of parole.

Having been in many parole hearings and listened to all the cases I have listened to, I wonder why this government would not be prepared to back this. Let us say a prisoner is in for a crime that was undertaken while on drugs or a crime related to drugs. This individual gets out of an institution today and is caught in another facility while on parole using drugs. His parole is revoked. He comes back in and they say he has to serve more time. Today that inmate is entitled to again go to a parole board and get out and do his thing in the community.

We are saying that if a person is incarcerated in this country for a crime and gets out and does something such that parole is revoked, the person should serve the full term. That to me makes obvious common sense. If we are letting somebody out of prison today and

he is going to go out and commit another crime, he obviously has not got the message.

As examples I will give a couple of instances where I have been in parole hearings. One individual in this country was incarcerated in excess of two years for very serious fraud crimes. This individual was allowed to go out under UTA, unescorted pass, and he was found to be in the middle of a fraudulent exercise, milking someone out there out of their money. What did the parole board do? They brought him in and told him: "That is not a good thing. You have taken anger management courses in here. You have taken courses and by now you should know that is not the right thing, so we will leave you locked up again".

What happens? He says "Well, I guess I have not learned the lesson, so I am going to stay in here, but I will be back here to apply to get out again". This is obviously a serious problem. The fact is the individual has not learned his lesson, and that individual should be reincarcerated for the full term of his sentence.

Now to some more serious problems. I have been involved with several cases. I am not a lawyer. I am an average guy who tries to help out a lot of victims in an area where I have seven federal institutions around my riding. I have seen people incarcerated for rape. I spoke about this last night. Wayne Perkin is an individual who got a young lady from Aldergrove, British Columbia, coerced her into her garden shed, beat her over the head with a hammer, taped her hands behind her back, injected her with cocaine and raped her. In this country he gets all of six years for this heinous crime. This young lady will never be the same again. He gets six years for that, and is eligible for parole after two years.

What do they do? They let him out at around three years. He goes right back at it again and gets another unsuspecting victim, injects her with cocaine, but this time he does not just beat her over the head with a hammer, he stabs her 20 times and kills her. The family and the family's friends will never again be the same.

The system in this country does not work. For a Liberal government that brought a lot of this mess upon us to stand here and oppose Motion No. 5 is despicable. There are too many victims out there. We do not have to talk about Clifford Olson or this Bernardo fellow. There are all kinds of them across this country, like those three guys who did their thing in McDonald's in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Those are the ones who get national attention, but there are all kinds of them.

I could talk about Jose Mendoza. I have talked about him more than enough in this place. That little creep had 12 criminal convictions in my community, including what they call sexual assault but I call rape. He is escorted out of the country back to El Salvador at our cost so we are rid of him, right? No. He says: "I like the Canadian penal system, the Canadian criminal justice system; it treats me pretty good". He got out early too, by the way, on parole.

He comes back in illegally, past Guatemala, Mexico, the United States, shows up at our door and says: "Now I am a refugee, I am not an immigrant, so take me back". Just before that happened he raped another woman, an 18-year old in my community.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Shame. Who is responsible?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

This government has to understand that this parole system works for some, but what we are trying to tell this government is if an individual is incarcerated and if they are allowed out under escort or unescorted and if they commit another crime while they are out, they are obviously not the best apple in the barrel. They should be brought in, their parole should be revoked, and they should be in to the end of their sentence, obviously.

There is good old Karel Kral, again in my community. Is this a case of "I have all these isolated incidents", or is this just common around the country? After speaking here last night I received calls, letters and faxes from Ontario people saying that the same thing was happening in their communities.

Let us talk about Karel Kral in my town. Good old Karel, up on cocaine, has been in and out of prison for about 14 years on different occasions. Karel was hyped up on cocaine one night not too long ago and attacked Joan in Langley, British Columbia. He was charged with sexual assault with a weapon and convicted. Joan is 65 years old. He used a needle with cocaine as the weapon. This is a common weapon to use now, because if the victim is injected with cocaine and the criminal is on cocaine it might be a good excuse for the damage being done.

Karel has been out on parole time and time again: out, back in, out, back in. Joan would not have been assaulted had somebody said: "Wait, there is a message here. This guy is a bad apple. His paroles are being revoked. He is in and out, in and out. Stop it. Put him in for a long term, give him a heavier term or call him a dangerous offender".

In the name of God, we have to listen to reason. The government is listening to the very few Liberals in cabinet who want to push a Liberal agenda. How much more can we say on behalf of victims?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will make a few preliminary remarks before I directly oppose the motions we are dealing with.

I am very concerned that as we sit in the House we do not feel for the victims, for the people who are suffering from the crimes being committed outside this place. We need to take more responsibility for the laws we pass. I realize a lot of people are possibly watching this debate on television, but we need to focus more on what we are

putting through the House. I am very concerned with what is happening here.

We are giving the impression to people out there that Bill C-45 will fix what is broken in the criminal justice system. It will not. It is one small step in the right direction. Why do we not have the courage to do it right, right now? That is the problem we have.

Let us look at the things we are doing here. I look at a motion we just put through. It was tinkering and playing with words. People may look at this and say that the words life sentence are being changed to imprisonment for life. It may seem innocuous at first; it may seem like no big deal. However there is a difference. Imprisonment for life is always 25 years and a life sentence can be as low as 10 years. The Liberals are going soft with the amendments they are making, which is not right. People ought to know it is not just playing with words. We are dealing with people's lives. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley West just pointed out, these criminals are being released when they should not be released.

I support Motion No. 4 which the hon. member for Wild Rose put forward because it will prevent an offender convicted of a violent offence from getting statutory release. We must enforce full term sentences for violent offenders. That has to be the bottom line. The message must go out that we will not tolerate this kind of thing.

The Liberals believe in harsher sentences. They gave that impression with Bill C-41 in which they made hate crimes more punishable than other crimes. They give the impression that they believe in harsher sentences and then they come up with this stuff. It is inconsistent. Why should violent criminals not get harsh, full term sentences?

What is the most basic function of government? What is the primary function government should be performing? It is to provide for the safety of its citizens. It is simply that. We are not here to create huge programs, tax people to death, and do all this wonderful stuff that gives the impression government is taking care of its people. The basic function of government is to provide for the safety of its citizens. That is why it is so important for us to debate the bill.

We were here yesterday for the entire afternoon and I only heard Reformers dealing with the substance of the bill. Are we the only ones who care about the safety of people? Surely to goodness there must be enough compassion in this place that we would begin to seriously debate what should be the direction of our criminal justice system.

Like I said before, it is not our job to create and run big social programs and all kinds of other wonderful things. That may be something people will ask us to do from time to time, but the big picture is that government should first and foremost provide for the safety of the citizens within its borders. We need to pay more attention to crime, not just big crime but all crime.

On Motion No. 5 which the hon. member for Wild Rose put forward, we do not support statutory release in general but some may consider it for non-violent offences to be all right. The amendment still allows some form of non-violent statutory release but forces the offender to serve the full sentence if the statutory release is revoked or suspended.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has made the point, and I will make again. If a person receives a sentence for a crime and then commits another crime when on parole, not only should that person complete the first sentence but the next sentence the person gets should be tacked on. It should be consecutive.

Too often our courts do not add two and two to make four. For them two and two equals two. What is that? Is it Liberal mathematics? I am not sure. In my books two and two should equal four and that is what such people should be serving. For every single crime they commit they should be punished. They should not be able to commit five crimes and be punished for only one.

I strongly oppose the motion previously put forth in which offenders serving time at a provincial institution are transferred to a federal institution and can be released from the federal institution on the day they would have been released from the provincial institution. Why should they get out early just because the federal government is now paying the bill? That should not happen. They should not be able to play within the system. It is not right.

We oppose Motion No. 10. The amendment will not allow full term sentences for sexual offences against an adult female. The point has been made previously that there should not be a great distinction about whom someone commits the crime against. A crime is a crime and it is serious no matter whom it is committed against. We do not want statutory release.

I have made the point already that sentences need to be consecutive. If criminals recommit crimes they should serve those sentences plus the full sentences for the crimes committed previously.

We are moving in the right direction but we need to take more seriously what is happening in the House. We need to deal with these things and make sure we get them right. We need to provide for the safety of our citizens so they can feel safer in this great country of ours.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We are voting on Motions Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 4?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.