House of Commons Hansard #228 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was taxes.

Topics

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion the nays have it.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

On division.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I declare the motion lost on division.

(Motion No. 9 negatived.)

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

We are now moving to Group No. 5, which includes Motions Nos. 14 and 15.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-45, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 27, with the following:

"(iii) reliable information from recognized and dependable sources demonstrating".

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-45, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 28, with the following: b ) reliable information from recognized and dependable sources about the offend-''.

Before we start debating Motions Nos. 14 and 15 as part of Group No. 5, Madam Speaker, I think that you would find unanimous consent to debate Group No. 8 immediately after Group No. 5.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to go to group 8 after we debate group 5?

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

Motions Nos. 14 and 15 deal with a very important clause of Bill C-45. Clause 45(3) of the bill amends section 132 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by adding subsection (1.1) regarding the determining by the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board of the likelihood of the offender committing a sexual offence involving a child.

Under the current legislation, a dangerous sexual offender who is likely to commit, at the expiration of his sentence according to the law, an offence causing death or harm to another person, harm

being described as serious physical or emotional injury, can be maintained in detention.

With Bill C-45, clause 42, the National Parole Board would not be required to establish the existence or likelihood of injury, in the case of a sexual offence involving a child. It would need only be satisfied of the likelihood of the commission of a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the sentence according to the law.

In other words, where the board believes the risk is too high, the prisoner remains behind bars. The onus is substantially reduced.

The message is clear: when in doubt, do nothing.

In the case of sexual offenders in particular, it seems to me that the rule is sometimes applied in reverse. Release should not be statutory; it should always be based on the absence of any likelihood that a prisoner convicted of a sexual offence involving a child will commit a further offence.

There is no sexual crime more contemptible and loathsome than one involving a child. The very thought of it disgusts me.

Bear in mind that an individual who is eligible for parole or statutory release was properly tried and found guilty by a court of law and has exhausted all possible grounds of appeals.

This is an offender who has been jailed for the monstrous things he has done. We are not talking about a defendant at this stage. This is an individual serving time for the crimes he has committed. He is paying his debt to society and to his young victim. As far as I am concerned, this is not high enough a price to pay; he could rot in jail.

The role of the parole board was questioned on several occasions. I myself disputed in this House the validity of certain decisions made by commissioners.

Repeat offenses must be denounced as unacceptable. The board is duty-bound to make the right decision concerning those convicted of sexual offenses involving children who are likely to re-offend: keep them in jail. The safety of the public, and children in particular, prevails over any right a prisoner may have if he or she poses too great a threat.

However, and this is the reason I tabled Motions Nos. 14 and 15, it is necessary to specify the admissible sources of "reliable information" which can be taken into consideration by the Correctional Service and which are referred to in clause 45 of the bill.

Police forces, prosecutors and probation services are examples of "recognized and dependable sources", as suggested in Motions Nos. 14 and 15. If the bill is not specific in that regard, there is a risk that mere allegations could turn into conclusive evidence and create a despotic regime or, conversely, and this is what I fear most, encourage an interpretation which greatly favours the suspect and which could therefore result in a premature release. This is why I ask the House to support Motions Nos. 14 and 15.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General

Madam Speaker, before presenting our position on the motion as it was tabled, I want to stress the good work of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, and her colleague from Bellechasse. Indeed, the hon. member attaches a great deal of importance to details, and I often agree with her on those details.

However, as regards her motion, I maintain that the word "reliable" implies that the information comes from sources which are recognized and dependable. Moreover, the proposed wording is not in line with that used elsewhere in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Consequently, we feel that Motions Nos. 14 and 15 serve no useful purpose, and they will not be supported by the government.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is the House ready for the question?

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yes.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

On division.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I declare Motion No. 14 lost, on division. Therefore, I declare Motion No. 15 lost.

(Motions Nos. 14 and 15 negatived.)

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Since there is unanimous consent, we now move on to group 8, which includes Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 26.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-45, in Clause 72, be amended a ) by replacing line 16, on page 44, with the following:

"741.2 Notwithstanding subsection"; and b ) by deleting lines 7 to 12, on page 45.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-45, in Clause 83, be amended a ) by replacing line 14, on page 52, with the following:

"743.6 Notwithstanding subsection"; and b ) by deleting lines 34 to 39, on page 52.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-45, in Clause 83, be amended

(a) by replacing line 45, on page 52, with the following:

"743.6 Notwithstanding subsection"; and b ) by deleting lines 17 to 22, on page 53.

Madam Speaker, the motions I am submitting to this House for approval are simply aimed at repealing subsection 2 in section 741.2 of the Criminal Code as amended by Bill C-45.

It is surprising to say the least to see that incarceration is the preferred way to deal with delinquency. But it is ridiculous to suggest that society's denunciation and deterrence should be the only guiding principle for sentencing.

To understand Motions Nos. 24 through 26, one must first understand the guidelines set out by legislators to help judges decide whether or not to suspend application of the usual parole regulations.

In 1992, legislators gave extraordinary powers to judges imposing prison sentences of two years or more. In fact, section 741.2 of the Criminal Code as it now stands makes it possible to disregard section 120(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act sets the usual period after which an individual becomes eligible for parole. This period usually amounts to a third of the sentence. Thus, if the judge is convinced by the circumstances of the offence, the character and specifics of the criminal and the degree of denunciation by society, he may order the criminal to serve half of the detention time imposed before being eligible for full parole.

It may seem normal for inmates to have to serve half of their sentence before being eligible for parole. It must be kept in mind, however, that the sentencing judge has already taken into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the offence and the criminal's individual and social characteristics, as well as a presentencing report with a victim impact statement.

Thus, if he sets a four year sentence for sexual assault for example, he has already weighed the aggravating and attenuating circumstances in imposing this four year rating. Judges know very well when they sentence an individual that he will become eligible for parole after a third of the sentence has been served.

This factor is therefore taken into consideration by the judge. He does a little mathematical calculation before sentencing, in order to know how much real penitentiary time the accused who has been found guilty will serve. If he considers that the real time might be ridiculous in light of the offence committed, he will increase the period of incarceration imposed and thus the length of time actually spent behind bars.

In giving greater powers to trial judges, the legislator has provided them with an important tool for setting a dissuasive example. That tool must, however, be used with discretion and on an exceptional basis. Section 741.2 should not be used as a matter of course, as a sop to the frustration felt by most people when they see individuals released on parole who are not ready for rehabilitation.

By expanding the role of the trial judge and letting him go beyond the procedure that is customary in dealing with the inmate, the legislator is trying, and I say trying, to strike a balance between the judicial power to judge and sentence and the powers of the Board in the parole process.

The exceptional character of section 741.2 has been pointed out a number of times by the Quebec Court of Appeal. In 1993, in the Dankyi judgment, the judges of the highest court of the province stated that the range of sentences for trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking was normally adequate to cover both minor and more serious cases. The trial judge did not have to resort to section 741.2 of the Criminal Code to hand down an exemplary sentence. Ordering the inmate to serve half of his sentence can only be justified in exceptional circumstances.

In the Leblanc judgment in 1995, the Appeal Court maintained its position and said this was an exceptional measure, to be used only in specific cases that warranted such measures.

Not long ago, in February 7, 1995, the Quebec Court of Appeal reiterated its position, stating that the trial judge should have formulated separate and distinct grounds for imposing a severe but fair sentence while ordering the inmate to serve at least half of the sentence before being eligible for full parole. The judges of the Appeal Court decided that the trial judge's reasons for imposing a sentence of 13 years in the penitentiary for robbery were based on the same grounds as his order that at least half the sentence was to be served. According to the judges, this was an error in law. Grounds and reasons should be distinct, which is what the legislator had in mind in section 741.2.

In Bill C-45, as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the present section 741.2 appears on page 44, where the committee added subsection (2) which reads as follows: "For greater certainty, the paramount principles which are to guide the court under this section are denunciation and

specific or general deterrence, with rehabilitation of the offender, in all cases, being subordinate to these paramount principles".

The Bloc Quebecois could never support such principles. The Bloc members on the committee did not support them, and today, I wish to reiterate our position on the use of these archaic principles to deal with crime.

On the whole, Bill C-45 formulates principles and objectives for sentencing that are supported by the Bloc. Nowhere in the bill does it say that society's denunciation and deterrents are the paramount principles which are to guide our courts. On the contrary, Bill C-45 tries to strike a balance between rehabilitation of the offender and protecting society.

If new section 741.2 remains in its present form, Bill C-45 will no longer be consistent. On the one hand, the legislator asks the judge to consider the rehabilitation of the offender, while on the other hand, he tells him to ignore it.

If this House sends ambiguous signals to the courts, we should not be surprised to see a number of absurd decisions that will become part of our jurisprudence. Therefore, subsection (2) of section 741.2 should be repealed, and I ask this House to support motions 24, 25 and 26.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Madam Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member would delete from the provision an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

The provision to the effect that deterrence and society's denunciation are principles, and in my opinion, fundamental principles, guiding the courts and that rehabilitation of the offender is subordinate to them was added to clarify Parliament's intent in the matter of the courts' application of section 741.2 of the Criminal Code.

As the hon. member for Saint-Hubert so rightly pointed out, the thrust of Bill C-45 is to ensure that these individuals' return to society is done in a balanced manner, and of course the aim of the bill is to ensure greater public safety. However, I must unfortunately advise you that the government cannot support Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 26 as presented by the hon. member.