House of Commons Hansard #151 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendment.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The recorded division stands deferred until the end of Government Orders today.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, there are some ongoing discussions among the parties as to the future business the House will take up for the remainder of the day. I would ask if we could suspend the House for five minutes.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.48 a.m.)

The House resumed at 10.58 a.m.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, I ask that the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, be permitted to propose two amendments to Bill C-17 at the commencement of report stage.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Is there unanimous consent?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Prince Albert—Churchill River Saskatchewan

Liberal

Gordon Kirkby LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved:

That Bill C-17 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 48 the following:

1995, c. 22, s.6

"107.1 Paragraph 742.1(b) of the act is replaced by the following:

(b) is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 to 718.2,"

That Bill C-17 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 66 the following:

1996, c.34

An act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another act

139.1 Section 8 of an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another act is replaced by the following:

  1. Paragraph 745.63(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 2 of this act, applies in respect of hearings held after the coming into force of this section with respect to applications for judicial review in respect of crimes committed before or after the coming into force of this section.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The two amendments moved by the hon. parliamentary secretary are deemed moved.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just wanted to be clear. Are we taking these two amendments separately? We will debate this one and then you will read the second one when we are finished this debate.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

That is right. We are debating the first amendment.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, we will be supporting this amendment as it appears to be an addition to Bill C-41 and could not be brought in at this time without the unanimous consent of members of this House.

This amendment goes back to the conditional sentencing contained within Bill C-41. The particulars of that bill encourage the courts to use conditional sentencing. Since this bill was proclaimed there have been at least two occasions where convicted rapists have been allowed to walk free while their female victims are cowering in their homes because they are afraid to walk on the streets alone. It is absolutely unacceptable that this danger was brought forward at the time this bill was being examined at committee stage.

The government insisted on ramming this thing through and allowing violent offenders access to conditional sentencing. The government would not limit the provisions or the application by the courts of conditional sentencing and it still is not narrowing it. It is still not reducing the application of this portion of Bill C-41, the conditional sentencing portion.

What this amendment does is it simply reiterates what the courts already do. Do any of the judges release anyone on conditional sentence if they feel that the public is in danger? Of course not. What does this amendment do? It does not alter the discretion of the court to use conditional sentencing. It simply states that it must be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent

with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 and 718.2.

What can the people of Canada, who are concerned about violent crime, draw from this? The justice minister has once again bungled in creating this bill which allows violent offenders and rapists to walk the street as they do today without seeing one day of a sentence in jail. This is wrong and it is the wrong signal for this government, which brags about its care and concern for the rights of the victims, to be sending.

We have at least two rape victims cowering in their homes while their assailants walk the streets free on conditional sentencing. This amendment will do nothing to support that. It suggests to the judges that they do what they already do. Is any judge going to release someone on conditional sentence if the circumstances indicate that the individual may be a danger?

What does this amendment say to the judges? It says "You must be satisfied. You have not been satisfied in the past so you now must be satisfied. We do not trust you so we are putting this in the code which states that you must be satisfied that serving a sentence in the community will not endanger anyone. However, if it is your opinion that a rapist should walk free you can certainly go ahead and do it because we are not going to restrict the application of this law. No, we are simply going to cover our rear end because we are facing an election". The government wants to say that it has done something through this amendment to create a safer society. This is nonsense.

We in the Reform Party asked the justice committee if it would not consider restricting the application not only of conditional sentencing but alternative measures.

Violent offenders also have access to the alternative measures portion of Bill C-41. We introduced an amendment that would exempt violent offenders from access to alternative measures and it was denied. It was turned down. It was killed by the Liberal members who hold a majority on the justice committee.

Now we see where cases are being appealed in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario over conditional sentencing. This is what has moved the justice minister to take unprecedented action to ask unanimous consent of this House to bring in an amendment to Bill C-17 which has nothing whatever to do with Bill C-17 but which has a lot to do with the bungling that occurred back in Bill C-41. Very clearly this amendment is not going to restrict the discretion of the courts to free violent offenders on conditional sentencing, and that is what this is all about.

The justice minister is placing at risk innocent people by not restricting the courts from the use of conditional sentencing because they can continue to allow violent offenders to walk free, as has been the case with the two rapists I referred to earlier, while their victims cower in fear in their homes.

This is a do nothing amendment. When the justice minister had the opportunity to correct the error in Bill C-41 in the area of conditional sentencing simply by restricting it to non-violent offences he failed to do that. He refuses to do that just like he refuses to do anything to deny first degree murder as a shot at early parole after serving just 15 years in spite of the fact that hundreds and thousands of Canadians have lobbied this government through petitions and letters to our members of Parliament to eliminate section 745.

When it came time for the justice minister to make a decision he decided in favour of the criminal and against the victims of crime and the safety of society. He wants the criminals, the first degree murderers and others, to have a shot early parole just like he wants the violent offenders, the rapists of this country, to have a shot at conditional sentencing.

Why does the justice minister not consider the safety of society and restrict the application of conditional sentencing to non-violent offences? He would have the support certainly of the members of the Reform Party caucus and all members of this House because that would be reasonable. It is not reasonable to allow a rapist out free on conditional sentencing. It is not fair and it is not reasonable.

The deficiency of judgment expressed by the justice minister over the last three and half years runs like a current throughout many of his decisions and initiatives since he has taken up the justice portfolio. This is only one more example of the deficiency of judgment of the justice minister. He is refusing to respond to the cries of people across this land and the common sense of the majority of Canadians. He is refusing to respond to that.

He is going to continue to allow the courts wide application of conditional sentencing that has led to his concern to bring this about in the first place. What does it do? He is going to simply be able to stand up and say "We have done our best. We have issued a caution in the Criminal Code through this amendment to the courts that you must not use conditional sentence if you fear that conditional sentence will create a danger to society". Of course every judge in the country makes those considerations at the time of sentencing.

Yes, Reform members will go along with this but it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever. The justice minister had a chance to reduce the application of this portion of Bill C-41 and failed to do it. He will answer on the hustings in the next election for this degree of incompetence.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this amendment to Bill C-17. I do not know what I can say that my hon. friend has not already said in a very forceful way. I would argue that if anyone speaks out for Canadians who are concerned about crime in this country it is the hon.

member for Crowfoot and his colleagues on the Reform Party's criminal justice team.

One concern I have when I look at how the justice system is administered is that the government seems to fail to learn from its mistakes. My friend has pointed out two instances that we know of where judges have decided that rapists should walk away from a conviction, spending no time in jail while their innocent victims sit in their homes fearful that this crime will be perpetrated again, that the offenders will rape again.

Who among us in this place has not at one time or another considered what it would be like to have that happen to someone in our families. People do think about it in horror. Thankfully, most of us come to our senses and realize that it did not happen to us. But for a second we understand what those people go through. In a very small way we come to understand.

That is why as legislators we should always be attentive to what these people go through and it should be the basis on which we make some of the laws that the justice minister is ultimately responsible for bringing about.

In this situation, has the justice minister really tried to put himself in the shoes of victims? I do not think so. Somehow he has decided against what he probably feels in his own stomach. Who for one second could side with the criminal in a situation where two men have raped women and walked away without even spending a day in jail?

I would suggest it is implied that when the justice minister brings forward legislation, the legislation is the most important piece of legislation to the minister. Considering all the things he could do, he has decided that this one piece of legislation is the most important to him based on whatever input he receives and what he considers to be important.

However, for some reason the minister has decided that the most important piece of legislation he can bring down right now is a caution to judges to consider all the various things they already do consider when they sentence violent criminals.

The answer is not to caution judges again to pay attention to the details. That already happens in Bill C-41. Rather obviously some judges cannot be trusted to use their God given common sense to not release violent criminals back into society without spending a single day in jail.

My hon. friends from Crowfoot, Wild Rose, Calgary Northeast and Fraser Valley West, members of the Reform Party criminal justice team, have suggested over and over again to the justice minister and to the people who are willing to listen that the answer is to not allow violent offenders to walk out. There should be no latitude for judges on issues such as this.

What is the government supposed to do? The first thing the federal government should do is uphold the law of the country. It should protect the public from violent criminals. The federal government with its budget of $120 billion odd, not including all the interest paid on the debt, does numerous things. Probably the first thing that a government should do is ensure there are proper laws and that the public is protected. That should be the greatest priority of a government.

I would argue that this government has failed. There are so many examples of how the government has absolutely ignored what is common sense that it is simply beyond belief that it can be allowed to enjoy any support from the public.

How is it that convicted mass murderers can come before the public again to torment the families of the victims, such as in the Clifford Olson case? How can they do that? The government can sit idly by doing virtually nothing except, as we get close to an election, respond in a kind of fearful way because it realizes that maybe the public is upset and it is going to pay a price at the polls.

That is not acting from conviction. That is opportunism. That is simply not a good enough motive. I just cannot say enough in opposition to what the government has done.

As my hon. friend pointed out, Reform members will support the government. We will do anything we think in some tiny way may send a message that we will not tolerate the ridiculous problem with crime. I say ridiculous because it is counter intuitive. It is contrary to common sense how we treat criminals considering especially how poorly so often we treat victims.

We will support the government amendment but we do it with the caveat that from here on in the government must pay attention to what is going on out there. It is simply not good enough at the last moment to try to come up with some window dressing to try to fool the public so that they will believe that the Liberal government is actually concerned about crime.

When we look at the role of the federal government with respect to these sorts of issues, one of the things that strikes me is that for the last 30 years there has not been a party that has been dedicated to the idea that criminal justice should be a key issue in an election campaign. Previous to that just about every government took a common sense approach to criminal justice. People understood intuitively, they had common sense, that criminals must be treated in a way they deserve to be treated. They should have consequences for their actions.

However, in the last 30 years that has been thrown out the window. For some reason people got it into their heads that the criminals were the victims. All of a sudden they started to get all of these rights. We saw perhaps the climax of that notion in the form of the government's approach to conditional sentencing where it allows judges the latitude to release people who are violent

offenders, people who have gone out and raped people. That happened under this government.

That speaks more eloquently to the government's priorities with respect to criminal justice than anything I can say in this place. I ask people to examine the record of the government, not just in the last couple of days when it is trying to jam things through, but on the issues that really count. When people needed it I can guarantee that the government did not stand up for them. It was deaf to the cries of the victims and the people who demanded that there be real justice in the justice system.

It is with some reluctance that we support anything that the government does with respect to criminal justice, knowing its sorry record with respect to hearing what victims have to say and with respect to respecting the wishes of the great majority of law-abiding citizens.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Madam Speaker, I too would like to make some comments about these last minute and hurried additions or so-called amendments to Bill C-17. These are really the justice minister's belated attempt to close some of the gaping holes left when he introduced Bill C-41.

Some very clear and strong objections and concerns were voiced by other members of the House, including those of my party, about the eventual effect of Bill C-41 on the area of conditional release and alternative sentencing.

The justice minister has finally figured out that he has not served the Canadian public well with some of the measures he has brought in. Now on the eve of an election, realizing that public concern is growing about these issues, he is trying to stop some of the problems with this legislation.

In this amendment the justice minister is directing judges to satisfy themselves that alternative sentencing and serving sentences in the community would "not endanger the safety of the community". I am sure many Canadians are asking themselves why on earth the justice minister would even have to tell judges this. Surely the whole point of having a justice system is to protect the safety of families and communities. If that is not the purpose, why on earth do we have a justice system?

The priorities and the direction of the justice system are so out of line, so out of tune with its fundamental purpose, that the justice minister has to introduce an amendment telling judges to consider whether sentences that are being imposed under discretion might be endangering the safety of the community. This was brought in against the better judgment of a lot of people by this justice minister. These are the new alternatives which the justice minister touted so loudly just a few months ago. My colleagues who spoke before pointed out very clearly and specifically where these measures have endangered the safety of the community.

More than that, in our society when people are wronged, when their rights are violated, when their safety is imperilled and they go to the authorities, to our justice system, to the defenders of public safety, they should expect that the problem will be looked after, at least to a reasonable degree.

But here we have violent criminals who not only have violated the safety of other people but are causing people to live in fear. People are living with a lack of a feeling of security, looking over their shoulders wondering if it is the guy who beat them up or if the person who violated their rights is on the street beside them because there have been no substantial consequences. Why? Because the justice minister has decided that even though people violate the rights of others, even though people have taken away the freedoms and liberties of ordinary, innocent law-abiding citizens, these criminals can still be put back out in the community to do good works, which is a bit of a stretch when we consider these people have shown themselves to be quite willing to break laws in the first place.

We are glad that to a small degree the gaping holes in the fundamental structure of our society which is supposed to protect us, supposed to give us a feeling of safety and security and ease in our daily lives has been recognized and some attempts have been made to address it. That is a better alternative to saying, "well judges, you should really look at whether the community safety is being protected by what you are doing". It would be better to say, as we have repeatedly urged the justice minister: "If you violently violate the rights of other people, if you are a violent criminal, if you have committed a violent act against another innocent law-abiding citizen, you will not be sent back out on to the the streets under alternative sentencing or community based sentencing. That is not appropriate for these violent offences".

I have no idea why the justice minister did not get it right for a change. Instead he is telling judges to look at this matter. When we continue to have violent criminals on the streets causing citizens to live in fear and imperilling their security and safety, the justice minister can say that he told the courts to think about public safety and they did not listen so it is their fault.

That is just not good enough for a minister who is supposed to be helping our citizens to feel safe and secure in their homes and communities. He is there to make sure that when there is a violent offence or assault against one of our citizens it is dealt with in a serious manner and with some serious consequences.

Although we are not in the mood to oppose even the faintest moves on the part of the justice minister to try to correct some of the soft spots in the legislation, I must say there are many better ways to do it. I urge the justice minister not to take baby steps but to take a serious look at our justice system and at the fact that we need safety and protection for our society. He should get it right and move in a substantive way on these measures instead of taking these timid steps.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the amendments being proposed to Bill C-17 this morning.

I was sitting in the justice committee when we dealt with Bill C-41 dealing with changes to the sentencing act. Not only Reform members of that committee but also some Liberal members pointed out that the changes to the sentencing act could cause problems. Some of the problems would be in the area of specific crimes or offences and alternative sentencing. Alternative sentences or the use of other means other than incarceration were not specifically for non-violent crimes. It was left open for the courts to consider its use for all crimes. Not only Reform members but also some Liberal members were very concerned about leaving this section wide open for the courts to use.

Over the last number of months we saw in a riding next to mine where a violent rapist was given an alternative sentence without any days of incarceration. He was let back into the community to carry out his sentence in his own home. If I remember the comment, it was that being confined to his own home was like being jailed. If that is the case, if there is no difference between being confined to home or locked away in a prison, there is something wrong with our prison system.

That problem was indicated at committee stage before the legislation returned to the House at report stage. Why did the government not consider those amendments at that time? Why was it that the justice minister and his department went ahead with the bill in its written form rather than seriously consider amendments proposed at the committee stage that would have dealt with the issue before the bill was read for a third time and passed?

The justice minister and his department were remiss. They were close minded in their consideration of committee recommendations that would have made it a better piece of legislation. The justice minister and his department were very set on seeing the bill go through as it was written.

I find it ironic that probably a year later the justice minister realizes he had made a mistake and should have listened to the committee input. Now he is rectifying that by amendment. As a matter of fact he is looking at it as an amendment to an omnibus bill that was written before. He did not even pick it up when the omnibus bill was written.

We are dealing with an amendment that is only been dealt with by unanimous consent of all parties in the House. We recognize the importance of the courts knowing that limitations should be set. I am very disappointed that limitations are not being set and that the justice minister is cautioning the courts. I cannot say how many times the House has had to deal with legislation because the instruction through our laws has not been clear enough for the Federal Court to make a clear and concise decision.

Once again an amendment to a bill is being proposed. We are supporting it, knowing that it is not the right way to deal with the issue. All we are doing is cautioning judges. We are not giving them specific and exact law under which they can make their decisions. We will still have problems with the alternative sentencing aspect of the criminal justice system. It frustrates me to no end when we have input from very capable members of the House of Commons who can foresee these types of instances coming up and make recommendations to solidify it or to tighten up the law so that it is very clear to all who deal with it. Yet that is disregarded.

I support the amendment but I caution the government and the Minister of Justice that it will not solve the problem. He has stopped short of identifying definite areas where alternative sentencing should be used. There is no way that Canadians will support the use of alternative sentencing for dangerous offenders. There is no way Canadians will support this kind of alternative sentencing for people who have caused physical harm to another human being such as the sexual assault offence in my neighbouring constituency. The people of Canada will just not accept the fact that a person can physically and viciously assault another individual and be confined to home. It makes a mockery of the justice system.

In my riding Clifford Olson is coming back this summer for his hearing. That was another issue the committee dealt with in Bill C-41 to prevent it from happening and to make sure there would not be an opportunity for such an individual to obtain a section 745 review. Did the minister listen at that time? Absolutely not. It was not just opposition members bringing in amendments. It was government members sitting on that committee who felt it needed to be dealt with.

Once again we have an issue before the people of Canada because of the inability of the justice minister to do what is right for the country. I look forward to the day when he wakes up one morning, realizes something more needs to be done on that issue and presents another amendment. Hopefully it can be in the omnibus bill before we adjourn the House.

We support the omnibus bill very reluctantly because it will not solve the problems. It just puts them off for another day. Rather than stand in the way of any movement in the right direction, we

find ourselves forced to support some very weak attempts at correcting some problems in the justice system.

I would like to feel that the justice minister is beginning to realize that Canadians across the country are looking to him and to the government to do something to protect them, to change the laws, and to put emphasis on penalizing the offenders and recognizing the rights of the victims.

Canadians would like to think the justice minister and the government are concerned about their safety and the safety of their children. We really do not get that feeling. We find a hesitation on the part of the justice minister to react. He reacts only under pressure instead of dealing with the issues when they first come to committee and are first drafted in legislation.

The justice minister should and could be doing something to ensure that Canadians are safe in their homes and on their streets. We in the Reform Party find he has fallen far short of ensuring Canadians of that protection. He has fallen short in giving specific guidelines to our courts in areas such as alternative measures and impact statements from victims.

Why is it after the fact that he realizes victims should be guaranteed the right to make an impact statement and to be heard so that courts and juries can understand the impact of the offence committed against them. Why is that kind of concern after the fact? Why does that kind of concern seem to be a second thought?

Canadians expect a lot more from the justice minister and from their government.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by saying that I am very happy to see the government bringing back Bill C-17 so that it can be duly passed, in light of all that is going on in Quebec with the biker war.

On a number of occasions now, the Minister of Justice has told us that with Bill C-17 a series of things would be changed, which is supposed to make the work of the police easier. However, Bill C-17 went to first reading on March 8, 1996. For a bill that is as good as this one, it took the government a little while to table it so that we could give our views on it.

I will be able to come back to this at third reading and go into further detail. Right now, I understand that the debate is on the amendment presented by the government. I must say from the outset that we are in favour of this amendment in principle. If you followed the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois in the House as well as in committee at all, you will know that we have always favoured rehabilitating people in conflict with the law and returning them to society. In my view, the government's amendment is along these lines. You will therefore understand that we support it in principle.

I do not know if people realize it, but something rather extraordinary also took place this morning with respect to Bill C-17, in that the House gave unanimous consent to present amendments at this stage.

When we are dealing with an issue of importance to society, whether we are talking about Quebec or about Canada, all parties are able to set aside politics and move ahead with an extremely important bill; we did so this morning with two government amendments. We unanimously consented to the introduction of these amendments by the government.

My comment to the government across the way is that, if it had shown a little more political will, it could have tabled other amendments in line with what the Government of Quebec was asking for regarding an anti-biker gang bill. If the members opposite had had the political will to resolve what is a horrendous problem for Quebec, we could have proceeded in the same way, that is with amendments at this stage, and again we would all have given our unanimous consent, because this terrible problem must be resolved once and for all.

But instead the government again decided to turn a deaf ear, as it did with Bill C-17, since this bill was tabled on March 8, 1996 and it is now April 8, 1997. The government could have moved this bill along, since it tells us that police forces are depending on it to resolve certain problems.

On the substance, then, I have nothing to say. This is an amendment in keeping with the major orientations of the Bloc Quebecois, but I would like to send a message to the Minister of Justice and perhaps also the law clerks on the way these amendments are presented to us. We had a major job deciphering what was presented to us. We had amendments in English, and amendments in French that were not necessarily exact translations. The Criminal Code has to be consulted in order to see that, in fact, there are subparagraphs (a) and (b) in English, while in French there is a single paragraph.

I believe that the Minister of Justice and the hundred or so law clerks working with him ought to have thought of making changes at this stage so that a lawyer arguing a case in court could make himself understood, regardless of whether he is speaking in English or in French. I do not know whether subparagraphs, like those in the English version, make it easier to understand; if so, perhaps the French version should have the same structure.

I was just saying to the law clerks seated at the table-and this is not aimed at them, since I understand that this is a Department of Justice directive-that, if a lawyer is pleading a case in French

against an anglophone colleague who cites subparagraph 742.1(b) to the judge, he will think the French version is not up to date because there is no subparagraph to section 742.1. I think there is a problem here. Is it merely a language-related problem? Is it really just to respect the French and English ways of drafting texts? Perhaps, but still lawyers must not be prevented from understanding each other in a court of law.

I believe that the French and English texts ought to be designated and structured in the same way. If there are subparagraphs in one text, there must also be subparagraphs in the other, whether in English or in French. So the problem was at the translation level, since the section is a very technical one. I still feel it is important at some point to ensure that the texts match, so that there may be true understanding.

But, for the people of Quebec who are following the debates-when someone states that he is for, or against, a given clause, for example-I think that they should know why their Bloc Quebecois MPs are in favour of this amendment, and I shall finish on this point. This is an amendment to Bill C-17, which modifies a series of sections in the Criminal Code dealing with suspended sentencing, or more specifically the amendment which we are addressing.

As I have just pointed out, although there are subparagraphs to section 742.1 in the English version, there are none in French. Section 742.1 would read as follows:

742.1 If a person convicted of an offence, other than an offence for which a minimum prison term exists, is sentenced to less than two years' imprisonment, the court may, if it "is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2", order the offender to serve his sentence in the community so as to supervise the offender's behaviour, subject to the conditions imposed pursuant to section 742.3.

The Bloc Quebecois has no hesitation in supporting an amendment that stresses the reintegration and rehabilitation of a person who has been charged with an offence. This is about reintegrating someone as quickly as possible in the community so that he becomes a law abiding citizen. This may be someone who has been in trouble with the law and was subsequently given counselling and treated for certain problems or a person who has changed his ways and can be quickly reintegrated in the community if he does not endanger public safety.

I was listening to what reform members had to say this morning. It may be something they experience in Western Canada, and their speeches probably reflect the positions of their constituents, but I thing that in Quebec, we are not that pessimistic about reintegrating these people in the community.

There is a difference between what is reported by members from Western Canada and our experience in Quebec. I agree we have certain fundamental principles, we have laws that regulate parole and the whole system, but I think we should pay special attention to this whole area of reintegration, and above all, we should not prevent anyone from being reintegrated into society. As I see it, the positive aspect of this amendment is that it supports reintegration while including some very important safety measures.

That is why I am pleased to support this amendment to Bill C-17, an amendment the official opposition in the House of Commons has been waiting for for a long time, and this morning it is pleased to support this amendment, so that Bill C-17 can be passed as soon as possible.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, I feel pleased and I feel sad about feeling compelled to rise in the debate on this issue. The good part of it is that I think this is moving in the right direction. The sad part of it is that it puts absolutely no restrictions on the environment or on the conditions under which a person can be released into society.

I would like to focus this in terms of several questions. First, the amendment says that the judge be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. The first question very obviously is what would constitute evidence or support for a judge to suggest he is satisfied that releasing this particular offender into the community will not put into jeopardy or endanger the safety of that community? Could it be that we send the offender out for an experimental period and then if he is okay for five days, six days, seven days it is all right?

The previous speaker has indicated that we want to rehabilitate our criminals. Of course we want to do that. Of course we want people to obey the law. Of course we want them to behave in a reasonable way. But that is not what this is all about.

This suggests that the judge use some common sense. Has it really come to the point where our justice system, our legal system is in such a depraved condition that we have to legislate to use common sense? It should be obvious that we use our common sense.

That is essentially what this amendment does. I am not at all satisfied that this will deal with the problem of criminal offenders in our society.

There was an amendment that was proposed by members of the Reform Party. It had several Liberal backbenchers as well supporting it. It was that the use of alternate measures be limited to non-violent offenders.

This amendment does not do anything of that sort. It allows any person to be considered for alternate measures. To give an example of how these alternate measures have been used, let me quote from

a news article: "A Gatineau man was recently convicted for repeatedly forcing his young step sons to perform sexual acts on their hypnotized mother. The crimes ended by the early 1970s, and in the years that followed he was by all accounts a solid citizen. The judge let him go without serving a day in prison. Two decades of good behaviour obviously should count for something".

What does this tell people who offend the law? It means go ahead, commit the crime and behave yourself after that and there are no consequences. If we did that to the law of gravity and said that we did not think that the law of gravity operates and then walked along the top of a building, the consequence would not be delayed for 20 years, it would be immediate. That is exactly what should happen in our justice system.

Too many people are beginning to recognize that our legal system is nothing but a system of technicalities to get people away from the consequences that would normally be expected for breaking the law. That would be a common sense application of the law. Deal with the consequences and we must accept the consequences if we break the law.

Instead of that we have legal technicalities that allow people to avoid the consequences of breaking the law. What we need to do in this society is create a legal system that is a justice system.

Where is the intent of Parliament? Is it really true that all the members of this House want from the justice people in this country is to use their common sense? Is that all the judges need to do? Or are they to use their imagination by telling someone that for this crime there is this consequence but for that crime there is another consequence? The sentencing does not really matter because it is all up to the judge. It is a free for all depending on what the situation is.

That is what has brought disrespect for the justice system. That is what has brought disrespect for lawyers. It has allowed them to use technicalities when they know full well that somebody has broken the law and is guilty of a heinous crime but on a technicality walks away free. That is a miscarriage of justice and is not in the interest of society.

It goes on. Where is the confidence that needs to be generated in our justice system if there are no consequences of breaking the law? Our young people need to develop strong personalities and strong characters from good examples. They do not need a father who takes his step son and forces him to commit sexual acts on his hypnotized mother. That is the opposite of the kind of example we want.

What we need are strong families, families that have integrated into the lives of the children the values that clearly demonstrate what is right and what is wrong. It has come to the point where it is almost as if there is no difference between what is right and what is wrong. When will we be able to inculcate into the lives of our children, the thinking of our children and the consciences of our children that says this is right and this is wrong? We support that which is right and we have consequences for that which is wrong and they are not good.

I want to go one step further. It has to do with the victims who are involved here. We have had much said about the rights of victims. We have had much said about the rights of offenders. However, when the two rights come in conflict, the rights of the victim on the one hand and the rights of the offender on the other, the rights of the victim ought to take precedence over the rights of the offender.

Let us now put into perspective the situation of allowing into a community someone who has committed a violent offence. The consequence should be incarceration or some serious punishment for someone who has committed a violent crime. However, when someone is released into the community to serve the sentence what have we done to the victims? We have created an environment of fear for them. Instead of the offender being in prison, the victims find themselves in fear of going out on to the streets. They are afraid to leave their homes. Who is suffering the consequence of this crime? It is not the person who offended but the person who is the victim and continues to be victimized, not just the one against whom the crime was perpetrated but also all others in the neighbourhood who cower in fear and are afraid to go out on to the streets.

I asked a number of people at a recent meeting if they felt safer today than they did three and a half years ago. They answered no. I asked them why. They said it was because our legal system is not a justice system but a technical system. Parliament has not given clear direction to our judges as to how punishment should be administered. We do not like to hear stories like this where a father can do this kind of thing.

Let me give another example. In British Columbia a man was convicted for abducting and sodomizing a single mother. The actions were described to the court by a psychologist as aggressive, angry, controlling and sadistic. The judge, however, was impressed that the man's behaviour while on bail was exemplary and psychological assessments indicated that he was unlikely to reoffend. Although a convicted rapist he will never see the inside of a prison.

That is what our justice system has come to. What does this amendment do to solve that kind of situation? Nothing. It moves in the direction but it does not indicate to a judge that we want persons who commit heinous and violent crimes to be subjected to serious consequences somewhat equal to the crimes committed.

Our first and foremost consideration is to preserve the health, welfare, lives and property of law-abiding citizens and not to prefer the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim.

We will support the amendment. However, when will the minister and the justice system reach the point of recognizing the worth and freedom of individuals and rather than imprisoning the victims imprisoning the people who committed the offence in the first place.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to represent our constituents in the House of Commons, but it is a bit sad to have to talk on this issue.

If the government and the justice minister had listened to Reformers when Bill C-41 was before the justice committee and before the House, we would not be having this debate today and could move on to other legislation.

Certainly the rumours are rampant about an impending election. The government says that it is concerned about legislation. There is a lot on the legislative agenda it wants to see get through. Then why did the government not listen when we dealt with these bills in the 35th Parliament?

If this place operated the way it was intended to operate by the Fathers of Confederation we would not be having this debate today. The government would have listened to the opposition members and brought forward amendments at that time rather than wait until the 11th hour to do some last minute damage control. That is what this amendment is.

While my colleagues have indicated that Reform is prepared to support the amendments, it is sad we are discussing them today because they should have been done quite some time ago.

One amendment we are debating at the moment in part reads:

"107.1 Paragraph 742.1(b) of the act is replaced by the following:

(b) is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 to 718.2,"

We certainly support it but we do not believe that it goes nearly far enough. Our concern has been consistent since we started debate on Bill C-41. I am appalled that it is being brought forward at this time as an amendment to Bill C-17 when it is just to cover their backsides. That is all it is for the hon. justice minister.

My hon. colleagues have done an excellent job this morning of relaying the concerns they have heard expressed by their constituents. As I travel across the country and throughout my riding of Prince George-Peace River there is no single larger emotional issue for the people of Canada than the justice issue, or what I have taken to call the lack of justice in our legal system. There is no justice system. The people at the grassroots know and realize this. It is about time the Liberal government woke up to that fact.

As a Reform member of Parliament I am getting sick and tired of having to stand day after day, week after week, month after month, to try to make an impression. We have been beating our heads against the wall.

As I travel around my riding I hear frustrated citizens crying out for justice. I tell them that my colleagues and I are doing everything possible procedurally, everything possible we can to raise awareness of the issue with the government and it falls on deaf ears. Consistently for 3.5 years it has fallen on deaf ears.

I tell the people of my riding who are frustrated to take the time, if they have the inclination, to look at what is happening in Parliament. It is their Parliament. It belongs to the people of Canada despite what the Liberal government would have people believe.

Have we come a long way by allowing rapists, people who sexually violate the most defenceless members of our society, to go free? In 1867 when the country was founded the death penalty, capital punishment, applied to cases of murder, treason and rape. It was not until 1954 that the death penalty was abolished in cases of rape. Back in those days someone who brutally attacked a woman and raped her had to consciously consider that being caught meant being put to death, meant being hung.

What is the situation today? Thanks to this justice minister and the government rapists are now walking free.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC

They don't even go to jail.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Sadly that is the case.

Would people believe that Reform is suddenly jumping on this bandwagon? As I have indicated, we have been very consistent with our position on the issue. We fought it at committee. We fought it in the House of Commons. We used every procedure to bring the issue to light. We proposed an amendment to the government that would have ensured alternative measures and conditional sentencing were not used in case of violent offences. We were assured during debate that would not happen. However we were concerned about it and consistently raised the issue.

Bill C-41 which contains those clauses came into effect on September 3 of last year. On November 4, after learning of some very disturbing cases and rulings by judges which utilized conditional sentencing, I came to the House of Commons and asked a question of the justice minister. I read from Hansard or November 4, 1996:

A man in B.C. was just convicted of sexual assault. What was his punishment? He is on conditional release, scot free.

I had referred to a couple of other cases but I continued:

These lenient decisions in three different provinces have set dangerous precedents. Section 742 states that a conditional sentence is not an option when there is a danger to the community. Are women not a part of the community?

That is the question I posed. I continued:

Will the minister responsible for the legislation clarify this for women and, more important, for judges? He talks about a tool of the courts. He talks about appropriate cases. Will he clarify whether a conditional sentence is appropriate for rape?

In his response the hon. justice minister went on at some length about past studies having shown that once Canadians were apprised of all the circumstances involved in a case they believed that sentences by and large were too harsh. He ended his dissertation by saying:

The reality is that when the court looks at the offender and the offence and takes all the circumstances into account the court does a pretty fair job of determining appropriate punishment.

When referring to me he said:

Obviously the business of this member is not to worry about the facts or the reality but to use fearmongering to make his squalid point.

The parliamentary secretary heckles and says that is right. In other words we are just making a squalid point. The parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, has the audacity to sit over there and heckle. Will he stand and join in this debate? Will he defend this position to the women of Canada? Not a chance. He knows it is indefensible and that women are living in fear. Women are being raped and judges are letting the offenders off scot free.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Gordon Kirkby Liberal Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK

What about gun control?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will find out about gun control in his riding in the next election. He supported ludicrous gun control legislation that has done nothing and will do nothing to combat the criminal misuse of firearms. He will find out about that issue.

I will wrap up by reiterating what some of my hon. colleagues who preceded me have said. With reference to conditional sentencing, the Young Offenders Act and many other things that are wrong with the justice system, the people of Canada, particularly women and children, are crying out for change and for reform. They are crying out that offenders, criminals and degenerates should be held accountable and properly punished for their misdeeds and their crimes. That is not happening under this government and I fear it will never happen until we have a Reform government on that side of the House.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, the debate this morning is essentially about violent crime, rapes and sex crimes against children, and the government's inaction on these issues.

Our obligation is to put in place laws that protect society. Unfortunately the current justice minister is having difficulty doing it. The government has failed but now with an election in the air it is at least trying to right a couple of wrongs.

This morning the government proposed two amendments to Bill C-17. Essentially the amendments correct deficiencies in Bill C-41. The first amendment proposed concerns conditional sentencing. It cautions judges to use conditional sentences only if public safety is not threatened. As pointed out earlier it seems we are legislating common sense. It is remarkable that such a motion would be put forward yet that is the case.

The second amendment concerns the provision of automatic victim impact statements, something that was denied earlier by the government.

The difficulty is the justice system has been too lenient on people who perpetrate violent crimes. Bill C-41 sprang to life in September 1986. The courts were encouraged to be relatively lenient on first time offenders and to attempt to keep them out of jail. I find this particularly amusing and curious, given the pace with which the government has put people guilty of fisheries offences in jail. It has put farmers guilty of shipping some grain south of the border and attempting to fight for their rights in jail and has kept them there. The government has in place some legislation that is attempting to keep people out of jail because the facilities are too crowded.

Originality it was intended that an offence would carry a penalty of less than two years if the offender was not a danger to the community. We seem to have forgotten that in our sentencing policies the notion of a deterrence to repeat a crime or to commit crimes should be part of the notion of sentencing. In other words, we are not simply sentencing someone for the commission of the crime but what we are trying to do is deter others from engaging in these sorts of activities.

When Bill C-41 was brought before the House it introduced a scheme of alternate measures to deal with this issue. Some of the alternatives to incarceration which were put in place included such things as performing a number of hours of community service or even receiving counselling. Somehow that would be sufficient to encourage people not to commit the crime.

The issue which should be addressed this morning is where we ended up with Bill C-41. I would like to read into the record some instances in which Bill C-41 has been used to keep people out of jail.

The first instance I would like to refer to took place in British Columbia. My colleague from the Okanagan referred to it. In that instance a man was convicted for abducting and sodomizing a single mother. The judge, however, was impressed with the man's behaviour while on bail. He suggested that it was exemplary and that psychological assessments indicated that the man was unlikely to reoffend.

Psychological assessments are just that. The assessments are a good guess. The fact is that the crime was heinous and deserving of a prison term. With this sort of crime, consideration should not have been given to letting the man walk the streets freely without serving some time and receiving psychological training.

In another instance, two Ontario off-duty police officers were convicted of forcing their way into a woman's home, threatening her with death and robbing her of a small amount of cash. Why men convicted of a cruel and violent crime will never spend a day in jail is beyond me, but it is easy when the justice minister creates that possibility. These two supposed defenders of society walked away without spending a day in jail.

This instance was referred to earlier as well. A Gatineau man was recently convicted for repeatedly forcing his young step sons to perform sexual acts on their hypnotized mother. Along with that, this gentleman also forced the boys to masturbate one another while he watched, and to masturbate him and perform oral sex on him, and yet somehow the judge thought that the man should not spend any time in jail. One of the victim's, a step son, said this: "He just keeps on trucking. He walks away, goes home and enjoys Christmas. It is unreal. But that is the justice system. We have done a lot of crying, gone through a lot of agony, all for nothing". All for nothing because our justice minister saw fit to put the plight of the criminal ahead of the victims.

The justice minister was warned about this. The hon. member for Crowfoot warned the justice minister that violent criminals might avoid proper punishment if he proceeded with Bill C-41. He ignored my colleague.

Two members of the justice committee at that time also warned the justice minister that these sorts of things could happen, and yet again he ignored two members of his own party. In fact, one member was eventually shown the door for trying to hold the government accountable on another matter.

Justice requires that violent offenders be punished. It also demands that victims and their concerns be addressed. We are going through this business on section 745 of the Criminal Code where the beast of B.C., as Clifford Olson likes to call himself, is going to have his opportunity to grill the families of his victims again, 15 years after those crimes were committed.

It is time that we in this House and members opposite in particular and the justice minister take pains to recognize that some of these violent criminals will never be rehabilitated and that the best we can do is protect society from them. It has been proven time and time again that people who offend children cannot be rehabilitated. Yet we put these people into jail with short sentences. They come back out on probation and so on and reoffend.

Those people cannot be rehabilitated. Our duty is to ensure that society is protected and we should be taking immediate action to see that it happens.