Debates of May 1st, 1998

Criminal Code

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first or second degree murder is not eligible for parole until the person has served, in addition to the portion of the sentence that the person must serve for murder, one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the same events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before the person is eligible for parole.

There are two main parts to this private members' bill. The first section deals with consecutive sentencing for those who commit sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events, for example, sexual assault and a break and enter, or where the person is already serving time for another sentence at the time.

Sentencing in Canada is a relatively complex matter. Sentencing principles are set out in section 718.1 and section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Degrees of punishment are set out in section 718.3.

There are two types of sentencing in penitentiary: consecutive and concurrent. Concurrent is when the time runs together. For example, in a case of eight months for break and enter and four months for theft, the offender would serve eight months. Consecutive is when the sentences are cumulative. In this case the offender would have the two sentences added together for a total of 12 months.

Judges can currently impose consecutive sentences under section 718.03 of the Criminal Code, but not for life imprisonment. Sentencing is complicated by the principle of totality which says that the total sentence, that is combined sentences, is “just and appropriate” and will rarely exceed the harshest sentence for the most serious crime of all those being considered at the time of sentencing. This is a common law principle and is well entrenched in law. Consequently with regard to the first section of this bill, Bill C-251 provisions already exist which address consecutive sentencing.

The second aspect of the bill provides for a consecutive portion of another sentence to be served upon an offender who is serving time for murder. Thus someone who is serving 25 years for murder and who is also found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to nine years would have three years added to any parole eligibility requirements.

This section of the bill recognizes the nature and severity of certain crimes and imposes additional penalties to serious offenders and deals with public safety concerns. In that area I would support this part of the bill.

Having said that, while I could support the second part of the bill and appreciate the intent of the first part, the first section of the bill complicates existing law and is contrary to the principles in common law. Consequently we find we cannot support the bill in its present form.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to speak on Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I would suggest at the outset that this is a very timely and important bill.

Let me start my remarks with a quotation from the mover of this bill, the hon. member of Mississauga East, from a speech which she gave in the previous parliament. The bill was then labelled Bill C-321, the ancestor to the present bill:

Since I reintroduced this bill I have sadly been visited by too many victims of crime who have now come to realize that they are also victims of parliament. Some had lost children, some had lost parents, some had lost spouses, but all had lost faith in the courts, lost faith in parole boards and, most of all, lost faith in parliament.

Very sad words. I must say again at the outset that I commend the hon. member for Mississauga East for her dogged determination and pursuit of this very important principle and for bringing this bill forward again.

How true her statements ring when we look at what has happened this week in the House. We and the Canadian population have seen that the Government of Canada has displayed some callousness toward victims. Although I listened very carefully to her words, I must say that the quality of mercy is strained by what has happened to the victims of hepatitis C.

I do want to say with that on the record that I am glad to see there is at least one member who does care for victims. I know she has been working very hard over the past number of years to bring this matter forward in the form of a votable motion.

She stated in her remarks that there were three basic principles behind this bill: inhumanity and to avoid it, improving humanity toward victims, and certainly to protect us against those who offend. I congratulate her on her work. I am happy to see that members in this House and some members of her own government have decided to make this a votable item.

The member for Mississauga East has moved this important bill and has given a very eloquent speech before this House. This is the kind of intelligent, impartial and passionate speech we see far too seldom. Her speech clearly described how difficult it is for victims of crime in this country to face the justice system and how far too easily it is for them to lose faith.

Today parliamentarians have an opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation to help improve our justice system, to help bring to Canadians confidence in the system and more important to improve the protection of society from violent offenders. These are very collective and substantive suggestions the hon. member has made. Again I state on the record that I wholeheartedly and unequivocally support her motives.

Bill C-251 provides for truth in sentencing, something we must see. It is a very brief, straightforward and easy to understand amendment to the Criminal Code, something which we and all members of this House should encourage.

When it comes to the issue of sexual assault and section 271 of the Criminal Code there is a substantial need for this amendment. There is a need that sentences which are imposed by judges be served consecutively so that the punishment reflects the gravity of the offence.

At the present time there is the ability for these types of sentences to be served concurrently. That is, if there is more than one offence or the offence of a sexual assault occurs at the same time as other offences such as break and enter, theft or simple assault, the sentences are served at the same time. It is tantamount to having loans from three different institutions and only having to pay back one loan, to put it in simple terms.

The principles of sentencing are set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 718 of the code sets out what legislators in the past have tried to do and tried to reflect in the sentencing principles. Section 718.1 states: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. It goes further in setting out what these principles are and it speaks of the need for reformation and rehabilitation to be balanced against the more important, I would suggest, principle and that is the protection of society.

The Criminal Code states: “Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh”. Try to explain that to victims. Try to explain that to those who have lost their loved ones or had their loved ones attacked, beaten or killed. It is hard to impose this very strict and I would suggest heartless, callous principle and make them understand.

We have to revisit the principles of sentencing. The suggestion by the hon. member is a good one.

Bill C-251 would expand the ability of judges to impose a fair sentence. No one should be getting a free ride in our justice system. Sadly, that is precisely what happens on occasion. We permit sexual offenders and other offenders who commit two, three, four or more crimes to serve one sentence at one time. It is absolutely absurd.

The name Clifford Olson has been mentioned in this Chamber far too often. I shudder to even mention that man's name. This is an individual who killed 11 children and is serving one life sentence. He should be serving 11 life sentences. The manipulative and self-serving evidence that he gave at his section 745 hearing is an absolute disgrace. It is a black eye for the entire country and our justice system in particular. There is no meaningful sentence that would ever reflect the heinous nature of the crimes that waste product committed.

One cannot help but be alarmist and reactionary when one hears the individual circumstances that surround some of these crimes, but one has to be thoughtful and thorough when approaching the subject of sentencing. Common sense has to apply at some level. For people like Olson and Bernardo, to suggest that 15 years to life is an adequate response is absolutely ludicrous.

This is why I hope that the member for Mississauga East will also support members of parliament on the opposition side when we continue to call for the abolition of section 745 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint hope clause. I am sure that based on the time she spent watching this debacle in British Columbia she will be of a similar mind.

The principles of her bill are completely undermined and useless as long as we continue to have section 745 in the Criminal Code. It is my belief that each of the innocent lives that were taken deserve at least the validation of having a consecutive sentence to represent their lives.

Conditional sentences are another subject, but that is another matter that has to be revisited. I would suggest that serious sexual assaults and violence should never be considered by judges for the imposition of conditional sentences.

It is also my belief that a person who commits multiple crimes should be given an appropriate sentence to reflect each and every one of those offences if committed at a different time with different circumstances.

Bill C-251 addresses that. It does so in a substantial and common sense fashion. Therefore I support the member and I support her bill. I support truth in sentencing. I support a justice system that does not marginalize by bargaining away the ability of society to protect itself and reflect its revulsion of violent crimes.

The second clause of Bill C-251 also amends section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It requires offenders sentenced for first and second degree murders to serve their full parole ineligibility period on the sentence, plus one-third of a maximum of seven years, whichever is less. Again it is an innovative way to ensure that there is some truth in sentencing.

There are times and factual circumstances when the judge should impose a sentence that would really reflect what the crime represents. If a judge says 25 years, it should be 25 years and that should be the end of it. That would give the offender and society the belief in their justice system.

When a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life for first or second degree murder, and after being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life in respect of another crime, why should that sentence not be served consecutively? It is a very good motion on the part of the hon. member.

Simply put, cumulative sentences play a very important role when it comes to parole eligibility. With a double murderer, Bill C-251, would be the best way to address this. The victim's family of the second murder, are left with the fact that their victim is not being addressed by the justice system when the sentence has to be served concurrently.

A person capable of serious violence and sexual aggression is a risk. It has to be a priority. It has to be something that we are prepared to address. This bill is worthy of our support.

Bill C-251 is a step toward improving our justice system overall and our sentencing principles. We must do more. We must continue to work toward this important goal.

In conclusion, I and the Conservative Party support this bill wholeheartedly and congratulate the member for Mississauga East.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-251.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga East on her tenacity and dedication to an issue that concerns us all.

It would seem that, for the rest of this session, the criminal justice system will be a major focus in this House. The Minister of Justice is continuing consultations on the subject and proposing changes on various criminal justice issues, including legislation regarding young offenders, the difficult situation we are all aware of concerning victims and recommendations made as a result of recent investigations.

As for the solicitor general, he is presiding over the review of legislation including the Criminal Records Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act. He is also involved in reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This review is a major initiative of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Essentially, the government is open to suggestions to bring about positive change and is fulfilling its responsibility, which is to provide Canadians with a more efficient criminal justice system.

I would certainly not give the impression that our legislation, even the most comprehensive and recent, is perfect. Lawmakers have the duty to keep an eye out for changes that may require a reform of existing legislation and for legislative inconsistencies and anomalies that may create inequalities.

Private members' bills are a tool to put forward corrective measures, which are sometimes adopted. I firmly believe in the value of debating issues raised in private members' bills.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, may take away flexibility and discretionary power from our courts and add to the already heavy burden of correctional bodies, when it comes to administering sentences.

The proposed changes would introduce new elements to the legislation adopted by parliament not so long ago. They would amend existing legislation in ways not foreseen by those who drafted it, who took part in discussions, and who made the amendments that give them their present form. If adopted, these amendments could well lead to serious challenges under our charter of rights and freedoms.

The amendments proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga East seem to be the solution that has always been called for by any groups calling for heavier penalties for law-breakers.

As other hon. members have said, Bill C-251, in its present form, and the prior forms of these proposed amendments are aimed at responding to the demands of a group which is attempting to convince us that longer sentences and later releases will enhance public safety. This admirable group is made up of police officers and victims, that is well-intentioned people who deserve our respect.

I would, however, like to respectfully submit that law enforcement agencies are sworn to enforce the law, while lawmakers are the ones responsible for drafting it. Moreover, it is an underlying principle of our justice system that the state guarantees the objectivity of the criminal justice system by prescribing penalties, and thus eliminating any element of personal vengeance.

The impressive list of legislative measures drafted by previous hard-line governments, as well as the improvements introduced in recent years, have had an impact on a large number of criminal justice issues.

In some cases, the new legislative provisions were the direct consequence of suggestions from police and victim assistance organizations. They were consulted in all cases. Most of the time, the measures that were adopted lengthened sentences and made the system more stringent.

I know that sometimes unusual and tragic events put considerable pressure on hon. members in the House to find solutions to problems in the area of criminal justice. The public reaction to recent deplorable and senseless crimes is also quite understandable. The efforts of individual Canadians and groups to exert positive influence are for the most part very commendable.

The proposed amendments, however, invoke punitive measures that far exceed the restrictions now set out in the Criminal Code and Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as threaten freedoms defended by the charter, as I mentioned.

Nevertheless, Bill C-251 is before us today and as described by its subtitle proposes cumulative sentences that could in some cases double or triple current levels of sentences.

Although I do not doubt the motives or intentions of the hon. member for Mississauga East, I must point out that support for the bill will come from those who believe that life should mean life.

There is a certain element here that has been addressed in past sessions when similar attempts were made to achieve the same objectives. The thrust of these proposals applies to those who might otherwise anticipate earlier eligibility to be considered for conditional release under current rules of sentence calculation.

I will attempt therefore to provide some details of how the government has come to address corrections and conditional release issues. In so doing I submit that it will become clear to my hon. colleagues that the proposals now before us do not at this time reflect the best interests of the Canadian public.

We are living in times of tremendous change, as hon. colleagues are well aware. Change is experienced no less by the criminal justice system than by any other institution in our society.

For the criminal justice system the past decade has been a period of difficult and sometimes painful questioning. Is our justice system working? Is it protecting our most vulnerable citizens? Can we assure Canadians that their safety is of paramount concern to the Government of Canada? These are all valid questions.

The 1988 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General was entitled: “Taking Responsibility”. In that report, the committee recognized the need to make certain improvements to sentencing, conditional release and the correctional system, and included detailed recommendations to that effect.

The work of that committee is greatly appreciated, and its members know that their concerns were instrumental in the reforms proposed by our government. These reforms seek to improve public security and to restore public confidence in the system.

In the second half of the 1980s, the country had been shaken by a series of unusual and tragic events that made our criminal justice system look rather bad.

Moreover, because of an increase in the crime rate, the public was urging the government to change the system and to adopt harsher measures that would reflect the new limits of tolerance for certain types of crimes. The 1988 report, along with other basic reviews of the correctional system, led to the adoption, in 1992, of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

This radical reform of legislative measures pertaining to correctional matters and parole responded to public pressure by making the system more open, more just and more accessible and recognized the need for significant change to bring it into line with public opinion and values. The current government considered it appropriate on two occasions to change the law, after consulting with interested Canadians and with its criminal justice system partners.

Throughout the process, the first priority was to re-establish public confidence. We must continue to respond to public fears about crime and concerns about criminal justice.

We must, however, take account of the change in the landscape. The number of violent crimes has consistently and considerably dropped in recent years.

For us to properly respond to public concerns, we must work to improve understanding of the nature of crimes currently committed and of our criminal justice system, which has changed appreciably in recent times.

As I mentioned, the government now intends to keep the criminal justice flexible in part through a review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Solicitor General of Canada will be addressing the House justice committee on Monday in introducing its review of the CCRA. I encourage the hon. member to put forth her recommendations under that exhaustive review. I will work with her on that committee.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to add my congratulations and thanks to the hon. member for Mississauga East for her tenacity and courage in continuing this fight and bringing this important debate to the House.

I am also very pleased to see that after the third time this private member's bill has come this far and is going to be votable. We will find out when the vote is held who actually speaks for Canadians and who speaks for victims.

I am actually really restraining myself in my reaction to the speech we just heard. I cannot use the words because they are unparliamentary. It is really deplorable that the frontbench of this government has so little regard for victims in this country.

While I was sitting here listening I thought of the word empathy which means feeling with someone who is hurting. It is different from sympathy. Empathy is feeling with.

Recently I went to Saskatchewan to visit my parents. We drove down a road that we drive every time we come from our home in Alberta down into Swift Current, Saskatchewan where my parents live. When we make a certain corner I always think of a person who died at that corner. That person was Eugene Martens.

He was a rancher who gave part of his farmland in order to put up a camp for children and young people. I attended that camp as a youth and later on as a counsellor. It was one of those situations where a man had a significant influence in my life because of his generosity. He was killed on the corner of highway 4 north of Swift Current because, I believe, of icy roads. It was not because of drunken driving. It was an accident.

Even though this man was not a member of my family, every time I go by that place I think of that person and I say a little prayer of gratitude for his life and for what he did. That helps me to empathize with a person whose family member, a loved one, has had their life taken from them by someone else's negligence or by someone else's misguided and wilful act.

When I think of their pain and how they must hurt it absolutely drives me to distraction to think that there is a government in Ottawa that cannot empathize with those victims. I cannot understand how that can be. All one has to do is try to put oneself into the same situation.

We are dealing with the question of changing the rules for sentencing. How should a criminal who was charged and convicted of committing a serious crime be sentenced?

The present system is that individuals who are charged with more than one crime at a time often get concurrent sentences. That is incredible. One can take a life, or two, three, four or more and at a certain time their sentence starts and they are able to serve all sentences at the same time whether they have killed one person, two, three or eleven, a significant number in this country. It is unconscionable that we allow that to happen.

Our media paid quite a bit of attention to the application of Clifford Olson for eligibility for early parole last summer. I was interviewed by a local person and I said really he should have had 275 years. When we think of each of those victims, if life sentence means 25 years in prison, ll times 25 is 275. Then I said if he behaves, we will let him off after 250. That is not to make light of it in any way. Here are families of victims with an inescapable sense that some of the lives taken do not matter. There is no penalty for them at all.

I am indeed one of those who believe that a life sentence should mean life. It should at least mean 25 years.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The next time the matter is under consideration, the hon. member will have four minutes remaining in his time.

It being 1.56 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1.55 p.m.)