House of Commons Hansard #97 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

It has been said by some that the Mi'kmaq should blend in with the rest of society and become a part of the rest of the Canadian society. I think interface was a word that was used.

History has recorded very well the results of the attempt to assimilate and have first nations people blend in through the residential school system which robbed them of their culture, history, dignity and heritage. It is time for a change, to face the reality of today's situation.

This bill will be the first of its kind in transferring jurisdiction for education to first nations communities. The royal commission on aboriginal peoples argues strongly that education in all its dimensions be placed under the control of aboriginal people.

On February 14, 1997 the chiefs of nine Nova Scotia bands signed an agreement concerning jurisdiction for education. I emphasize that the chiefs represent their communities. Bill C-30 would allow for the transfer to occur.

The chiefs of Eskasoni, Membertou, Chapel Island, Whycocomagh, Wagmatcook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Annapolis Valley and Acadia signed the agreement to transfer jurisdiction for education on reserve.

This development is not a new idea. Mi'kmaq have been struggling to preserve and develop their education for a very long time. Marie Battiste, a Mi'kmaq, stated as cultural curriculum co-ordinator for the Eskasoni school board in 1992:

In Eskasoni we do have language instruction going on in the school. We do provide cultural integration into the curriculum and we do a lot of things toward cultural enhancement, enrichment and appreciation. And those have many kinds of positive outcomes.

Throughout the royal commission hearings presenters told the commission and wrote in their reports that education must in part develop children and youth:

As aboriginal citizens, linguistically and culturally competent to assume the responsibilities of their nations. Youth that emerge from school must be grounded in a strong, positive aboriginal identity. Consistent with aboriginal traditions, education must develop the whole of the child, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically.

I extend my congratulations and those of my caucus colleagues to all those involved in the negotiations and discussions that have brought us to this point.

The final agreement, signed less than three months ago, sets out the powers, duties, functions and structures of the Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey, or the Mi'kmaq Education Corporation.

This agreement provides for the corporation to have the ability to pass laws for primary, elementary and secondary education on reserve for band members only. However, the Mi'kmaq under this agreement are obligated to provide equivalent education for primary, elementary and secondary education to non-members. This point will need to be discussed in committee because Mi'kmaq must provide education to non-band members on the reserve under this agreement but there is no capacity to cover Mi'kmaq not on reserve.

One of the highlights of the agreement is that an education standard is transferable between the Mi'kmaq nation and any other education system in the country. If we are concerned about addressing the interface and the reality of Canadian society, this is provided for in the bill.

Bill C-30 will give effect to that final agreement. It is about time. Since schools have been operated by religious missions for over 300 years much of the history of aboriginal formal education has been about so-called educating the spirit, culture and being out of aboriginal youth. One description given to the royal commission is that it has been tantamount to beating the Indian out of the child.

While there are some people who would still advocate that today by their policies and philosophies under the guise of mixing and interfacing, it is important that aboriginal people maintain their heritage, their identity and their culture.

Many schools were explicitly used to break down the transmission of culture, language, history and spirit from one generation to the next. Mi'kmaq educator Marie Battiste said:

Cognitive imperialism—is [the attempt to change] a whole way in which people see things. I think it is important at this point to tell you a bit about the Mi'kmaq language. It is a beautiful language. It has many, many ways of expressing things. There are more ways to express things in Mi'kmaq than there are in English and the language is built around relationships—

The language is the cement and the bonds. It provides the moral communion, if you will, of the community. And when we begin to take that language away from the people, when we tear the people away from the very rudiments of that language in terms of the relationships of people to each other, the relationship to their universe, their relationships to the animals and the plants, we take away their interconnectedness and we leave them empty, lost and alone. This is a tremendous loss the people feel—

This bill, thanks to the resolve and creativity of the Mi'kmaq leaders, sets to change the course of education in a significant way.

One of the recommendations of the royal commission report calls for:

—federal, provincial and territorial governments to collaborate with Aboriginal governments, organizations or educational authorities, as appropriate, to support the development of Aboriginally controlled education systems by introducing, adapting or ensuring the flexible application of legislation to facilitate self-starting initiatives by Aboriginal nations and their communities in the field of education.

This bill is a significant first step in that direction. I know my colleague, the hon. member for Bras d'Or, recently spoke with Chief Lindsay Marshall from Chapel Island about these issues, as did I. I am sure the member for Bras d'Or is proud that this history is being made in her riding.

Just before I conclude my remarks I would like to add a personal note with respect to the value of education for all peoples.

My father had probably less than grade six formal education and my mother had about grade nine formal education, but those two people were very well educated, much more educated perhaps than people who had gone through university. They were very wise in their years. They were self-educated and self-taught.

It was due to circumstances beyond their control that they were unable to complete their education in a formal sense. My father's father died when he was quite young and he had to take charge of trying to help support his family. My mother came from a larger family and had to, because of economic circumstances, take part in trying to help support her family.

The one thing that was of great significance to me as a young person growing up in that family setting was the importance that my mother and father stressed upon education. I can remember my father saying to me “Son, never let any man or any person put you down because of the colour of your skin. Get your education. Pursue education, be proud of who you are and what you are, and work hard to become educated so you can compete in this world”. It is because of those words of encouragement and support that I am here today and I am the person I am.

This was not an attempt to mix or interface with the rest of society. This was being proud of who you are based upon your own personal being, your own values and the mores and the values that came as a part of the family in which I grew up.

Many aboriginal people did not have that opportunity. They were torn away from their families, from their homes and from that kind of support. They did not have that advice because they were taken away from their mothers and fathers who cared for them in the same way as my mother and father cared for me.

I can recall my mother and father going to school meetings, discussing our progress with the teachers of the day and taking great pride in our report cards. Many aboriginal children did not have that opportunity because they were torn away from their culture. They did not have the opportunity to discuss their progress with their elders and the people within their community who meant so much to them and who could have provided the kind of support which I received.

When we talk about moving in the direction of giving aboriginal people control over their own affairs, I feel it is time this was done. We know the message that history has given us of non-aboriginal people trying to take control of aboriginal people's lives. So many people are afraid to move to something different and allow people to change.

I would urge very strongly that every member of this House give serious thought to the principle that is involved in this bill and not the technicalities about how much money is going to be involved and how the taxpayer is going to be involved. Those are incidentals that can be worked out in a different forum. It is the principle and the heart of the bill which are important. The bill will enable people to take charge of their own lives. They will be able to do the kinds of things they should be able to do. They will once again have pride in their heritage. They will have control over their own destiny and their own affairs. There is nothing for people to fear about that concept.

I say to all members that we should think seriously about this bill and lend it the support it has been given by the aboriginal communities and by the province of Nova Scotia, which have signed this agreement with the federal government. We should move forward so that every aboriginal person may take their rightful place in Canadian society.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for St. John's East on his presentation. To me the member is representative of the very philosophy which I was trying to espouse in my speech. In other words, here is a man who has succeeded. He was encouraged and helped by his family, but he went out and did what had to be done within general society and has finally arrived here as a member of the Parliament of Canada.

I would ask the hon. member if he attended a segregated school when he was on his way up. If he did attend such an institution, did he think that was a good idea?

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would applaud you for referring to my riding correctly as Halifax West. It is not St. John's East, as my hon. colleague has indicated. One of the problems in our society is that quite often we do not get things straight.

In response to the question, I would like to comment first upon my hon. colleague's remarks about the general society. Part of the problem is that many times we do not recognize that aboriginal people are a part of the general society.

By that very terminology we are excluding aboriginal people. We are isolating and doing the very thing that he is trying to purport he is not doing, which is segregating and separating.

Aboriginal people are a part of the general society. It is just that they have not been afforded within that context the opportunities that have been afforded to other people. One of those opportunities should be to allow people to have their own culture, heritage and form of education. There is nothing wrong with that.

There are many systems of education today which are quite different. There is no one common system for Canadian society. There are public schools and private schools. There distance education via computers. There is home schooling. Are people who teach their children at home less a part of the general Canadian society than someone who sends their children to the public system?

Why would someone who is pursuing education within the confines of the Mi'kmaq community be any different from someone who is pursuing a home education course?

We must be careful not to apply our standards to other people and feel that because their standards do not apply or conform with our standards that they are not a part of the general society.

In so far as my own schooling goes, I grew up in the north end of Halifax. The school I attended had people from various races and that in itself does not necessarily support the member's contention that I would have done any better or any worse.

What made me do well, and I emphasized this during my speech, was the support I received within the confines of my home environment, which can be accomplished by aboriginal people in the confines of their home environment within the context of self-education controlled by the Mi'kmaq community. The two do not conflict.

I fail to see the point the hon. member is getting at. I feel it is very important that this bill be supported and I stand on that.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

Bill C-30 is a historic piece of legislation that will provide the Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia with jurisdiction over education on reserve. This will be the first piece of legislation transferring jurisdiction over education to first nations and it will set a precedent across Canada.

Education is a provincial matter, but the federal government is responsible for programs and services for aboriginals living on reserve. As such, the federal government, the provincial government and the Mi'kmaq first nations worked together to bring about this legislation.

To give a little history and background to this legislation I would like to point out that the process which led to Bill C-30 began in 1991. At that time the Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia, namely a group of band chiefs and concerned citizens, approached the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requesting control over education.

This led to the signing of a framework agreement in 1992 between the federal government and the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia. These first nations are: Acadia, Annapolis Valley, Bear River, Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Horton, Membertou, Millbrook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Wagmatcook and Whycocomagh.

Following the signing of the framework agreement meetings were held between the federal government and the Nova Scotia chiefs and culminated with the signing of a political accord in November 1994. This accord began negotiations for the transfer of jurisdiction over education.

A process of consultation with band councils preceded this event and consultations were conducted with the Mi'kmaq people and the general public to apprise them of the current state of negotiations and the extent of jurisdictional control requested by the Mi'kmaq first nations.

My point here is that we have had seven years of negotiations and discussion on this bill already. It has been in the public eye for seven years. This is not the first time the public has heard of it. Parliamentarians should not think that all of a sudden there is some type of conspiracy going on which will threaten education on native reserves across Canada. This is a piece of legislation that has been discussed prior to today, which will hopefully be enacted after this discussion today.

The corporation, known as Mi'kmaq Education, was established to help with the anticipated transfer of jurisdiction to the Mi'kmaq communities. Mi'kmaq Education's purpose is to facilitate and support the Mi'kmaq communities in the setting of objectives to ensure a program and structure is in place to deal with the administrative requirements associated with such a transfer.

Mi'kmaq Education established by the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations hired three Mi'kmaq people to consult with the Mi'kmaq community members and the general public. These consultations were carried out in a number of ways, including newsletters and information booths, in an effort to reach as many people as possible.

As well, the team met with Nova Scotia first nations schools, Nova Scotia universities and the Nova Scotia School Board Association. The team visited each community twice, meeting with both the band council and community and business members. This led to the negotiation of an agreement in principle which was signed on May 3, 1996.

The final process at the community level was conducted through the signing of band council resolutions which demonstrated that each band council had the support of its community and there was support for the chief to sign the final agreement on their behalf.

However, no referendum was conducted to determine community support and the Millbrook first nation later raised this as a point of contention.

Nine of the Mi'kmaq first nations signed the final agreement on February 14, 1997. The four that did not sign, Afton, Bear River, Horton and Millbrook, did not feel they had informed consent from their respective communities. However, clause 12 of the legislation allows these bands to join the process at a later date if they have the support of the band council to sign the agreement. The governor in council may then add the name of any Mi'kmaq first nation in Nova Scotia, thus granting the band jurisdiction over education.

The reverse may also occur. If the band council authorizes the withdrawal of the first nation from the agreement, the governor in council may do so. Both these procedures would be effective as of April 1 the following year.

It is important to note that the act allows for bands that have not signed on to this agreement to come into it. It also allows for bands that have signed on to the agreement and that may later see it does not suit their purposes to leave the agreement. It encompasses all Mi'kmaq first nations.

Four of the thirteen first nations in Nova Scotia did not sign the final agreement for various reasons. Horton first nation consists of a small number of Mi'kmaq, most of whom live off reserve. The advantage of the legislation is therefore minimal for this group. Two of the others, Afton and Bear River, still have questions regarding the process and are content to wait and see how the legislation progresses and how successful the program is. It is expected that they will join at a later time which the process allows for.

Millbrook was looking for legislation that would establish an inherent right process. While Bill C-30 is a step in that direction it does not go that far toward self-government since this remains a delegated jurisdiction. Chief Lawrence Paul of the Millbrook first nation expressed concerns over the funding arrangements supporting this legislation. Chief Paul felt the funding should be guaranteed for a period greater than five years agreed on by the federal government.

Twenty-seven Mi'kmaq first nations currently exist in Canada. They are located in four of the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec. Thirteen of these bands are in Nova Scotia. They are situated across the province. They have a long history and a strong culture. There are approximately 9,000 Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, with 6,200 living on reserve. There are 2,200 Mi'kmaq students in Nova Scotia with this number split evenly between those living on and off reserve. Half the on reserve students go to public schools off reserve. This legislation does not provide the Mi'kmaq with greater powers or control over schools that are not on reserve.

Mi'kmaq culture historically relied heavily on story telling as a means of entertainment and communication. It incorporated songs and dances into these stories which were a means of passing on Mi'kmaq history. It is a goal of Mi'kmaq education to preserve Mi'kmaq culture and traditions. Giving control of education to Mi'kmaq communities ensures this is possible. The goal of Mi'kmaq education is to incorporate traditional languages and cultures back into the school system. This was one of the reasons the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations requested the federal government to transfer jurisdiction to their Mi'kmaq communities in 1991.

This legislation covers elementary and secondary jurisdictions and the allocation of funding for post-secondary education. Thus first nations will have control over what is taught to their students but they will have to ensure the education is equal to that of other students in Nova Scotia and that it meets university entrance requirements.

Without this legislation, the Mi'kmaq have no opportunity to make laws for education on reserve. The Indian Act gives the federal government this authority. Bill C-30 repeals sections 114 to 140 of the act and delegates jurisdiction to the Mi'kmaq. This will force the Mi'kmaq to develop structures to properly manage education and to make laws in line with standards set out in a constitution. Each community will first have to develop a constitution before it makes up its laws.

This legislation should increase accountability for the Mi'kmaq with regard to their education system. Currently band councils are not accountable to members. Instead they report to the federal government. Bill C-30 will increase community involvement, and accountability will improve through the preparation of financial statements and the annual report.

There are some detractors to this important piece of legislation but if we read the legislation thoroughly and carefully, which I would encourage all hon. members to do, this is a very precedent setting piece of legislation and increases accountability. It does not diffuse accountability.

Mi'kmaq communities recognize there will be challenges ahead such as the construction of schools on reserves, in particular for those bands outside Cape Breton. Moreover, there are challenges of finding Mi'kmaq who can teach students their own language and there are challenges of maintaining standards as required to meet both school board and university requirements.

Most first nations in Nova Scotia seem to be happy with the proposed legislation and feel this is a step in the right direction not only toward self-government but to improving the education their students receive.

When I spoke with a number of bands affected they stated they were pleased to be getting control over education. While they expect some hurdles along the way ultimately this is seen as a positive move.

This legislation also has its critics within the Mi'kmaq community but the legislation is designed and written to encompass those critics and to give them the opportunity to have their say and also to perhaps make changes in the legislation.

Bill C-30 would be a stepping stone for other first nations across Canada to begin taking an active role in educating their own people. Taking an active role would mean that the 53% of natives living on reserve under age 25 would have some say in their education process. This is an area of great importance to the first nations and its students. First nations want to ensure their traditions and heritage continue while the young people want and need an education that will prepare them for the future.

First nations in Manitoba and Ontario are looking at the process but because of different treaties they will have to tailor it to meet their own needs and circumstances. Furthermore, this is a move toward self-government, something my party has and continues to support as a means of improving economic development for aboriginal peoples.

This is a historic piece of legislation. The Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia have requested and are prepared to administer it and I am pleased to support it at this stage.

I look forward to examining it in greater detail as the process continues in committee.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

May 1st, 1998 / 12:50 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among the parties and I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the necessary staff be authorized to travel to Toronto on May 7, 1998, in order to visit a Toronto refugee detention centre.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure to adopt the motion?

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 4, 1998 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we further defer the vote to Tuesday evening at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I also suggest that the House see the clock as 1.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members' Business.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East, ON

moved that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, volume discounts for rapists and murderers, that is the law in Canada today. It is called concurrent sentencing. It means that serial predators can serve penalties for multiple crimes at the same time and be out on the street in only a fraction of the total sentencing.

Concurrent sentencing cheapens life. The lives of individual victims are erased from the sentencing equation. The suffering, the pain and the death of the second, third or eleventh victim is of no consequence to the courts. The minimum penalty always applies for even the most prolific killers.

For the third time in two years I am presenting a bill which offers parliament the opportunity to correct one of the justice system's most jagged obscenities. My bill, now called Bill C-251, asks that Canada stop giving volume discounts to its rapists and murderers through concurrent sentencing.

On this third attempt my bill has finally been deemed votable and for that I extend my heartfelt thanks to the 166 members of the House from all parties who lent their names in that cause. Their support will give all members the opportunity to weigh the arguments and determine whether consecutive sentencing will bring our justice system a little closer to justice.

The current penalties for murder were imposed over 20 years ago. Yet I can find no record of any minister or member of Parliament for that matter who spoke in the House in favour of concurrent sentencing for Canada's most vicious criminals. As near as I can tell, it was never discussed and certainly never available for public debate.

I believe it is time for the people's representatives in parliament to determine whether serial killers and rapists deserve special leniency they are currently afforded under the law and by our courts.

Bill C-251 has as its purpose three simple objectives, to reduce our inhumanity to the families of victims, to restore some truth in sentencing and to stop gambling away lives on the chance that a multiple murderer or serial predator will not attack again. It seeks to achieve these ends not by increasing the penalty for any one crime but by ensuring that these penalties have meaning by being served consecutively.

We do not have concurrent sentencing for parking tickets. If one parks illegally 10 times, one pays 10 tickets. One does not get a volume discount.

My bill seeks the same proportionality for the most serious and vicious crimes committed against Canadians. I believe very simply that justice is about proportional penalties, about relief for victims and about protecting the safety of citizens. Clearly, concurrent sentencing runs counter to each of these principles.

In the five years that I have been working on this issue, I have seen the human consequences of the current legal framework which is indifferent to the crimes committed against the second, the third or the eleventh victim of a serial predator.

I have talked to the families of victims and to victims themselves, some of whom never had their case prosecuted because the crown determined that any additional sentence would only be washed away by concurrent sentencing. Many of these victims have mustered the courage and drawn purpose from their personal horror by trying to change the system which treated them with such callous indifference. They journey here to Ottawa thinking that MPs, that parliament, will listen and spare future victims.

In the summer of 1996, not just one but two multiple murderers were free on parole in Mississauga. Concurrent sentencing had given these repeat killers volume discounts for their crimes.

For John Lyman Kehoe, the second child he murdered did not affect his sentence so he was free to create yet a third victim. On July 2, 1996, Kehoe and another paroled multiple murderer ambushed a real estate agent by the name of Wendy Carroll, slashed her throat and left her for dead. She survived, but no thanks to the justice system or the parole board which opened the cages of her assailants.

Wendy Carroll's life was nearly erased because our sentencing system erases victims. Had John Kehoe served a second consecutive term of parole ineligibility for the second child he murdered, he would not have been free to prey on Wendy Carroll or anyone else. Wendy Carroll wrote to me, after narrowly surviving these predators. She wrote:

For some reason our politicians have decided to grant rights to violent criminals who have taken every right away from their victims. What are they thinking? How many people must endure the horrific and extremely painful experience I did in fighting criminals like these for my life? How many more innocent people must die before parliament decides to make some changes?

Wendy Carroll cannot understand how two predators who had been convicted of killing four people between them could have been set free to attack again.

Albert Einstein once noted that “the world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who let them do it”.

In this case, the cages were flung open by volume discounts applied to their sentences which disregarded all but the first victim and left two predators eligible for parole in half the time. Of course the National Parole Board proved to be no barrier between predator and prey.

Bill C-251 does not ask the parole board to be any less irresponsible. It does not increase the penalty for any crime. What it asks is that penalties that currently apply to each murder or rape conviction be served and not be written off as part of a bulk rate for carnage.

The consecutive sentencing approach proposed by my bill is an uncomplicated attempt to restore a degree of truth in sentencing. It recognizes that each sentence applies to a specific crime, an individual victim, a personal horror. It insists that the price for murder must not be marked down.

Last summer I had occasion to witness the obscene spectacle of Clifford Olson's 745 hearing. His remarks reinforced my resolve to continue to resubmit this bill until the issue was dealt with by this parliament. Olson read out a letter from his lawyer advising him to admit to all his murders at once. This way, the lawyer indicated, Olson could take full advantage of concurrent sentencing. Olson mocked in the court “They can't do nothing. They can only give me a concurrent sentence”.

Today we have to answer why Olson and other predators should only be given a concurrent sentence, and why our justice system should continue to offer a bulk rate for brutality.

The only persons negatively affected by my bill are future serial killers and serial rapists. This is not a bill that affects shoplifters, tax evaders, drug dealers, vandals, or petty thieves. Concurrent sentencing will still be available to all but our most vicious criminals.

I ask members of this House to place their compassion where it is deserved. There is no compassion in inflicting a lifetime of parole hearings on a family already destroyed by a serial killer.

Just two weeks ago I was visited by a father in my own riding who begins each and every year by going to a parole hearing to prevent the murderer of his 11-year old daughter from getting back on the streets. He owes it to his daughter to keep going because he knows that without his intervention the parole board would release her killer on to other victims. This father suffers from legislation that is focused on the welfare of killers rather than compassion for victims.

In the debates over the past two years I have heard no compelling arguments being offered by those who support volume discounts for serial predators.

In Hansard members will find it argued that we have too many people in jail and that we have to double bunk a quarter of all the inmates. I am not kidding. This was raised in this place just last year as a reason to give serial killers early release. I would hate to tell Wendy Carroll that she was nearly killed by two paroled multiple murderers just to increase the percentage of single cells. That sadly is what has been argued in this House.

It was also argued that we cannot have consecutive life sentences. Canadians are gradually catching on to the deception of life imprisonment. Half of all those convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life are released after less than 12 years. Denis Lortie, who machine gunned three people to death, was released after serving only 11 years, about three and a half years of lost freedom for each person he murdered. That is the bargain basement price of life in our courts and under our parole system.

Sickeningly, Denis Lortie was not an exception. He was representative of the fact that the only meaningful part of his sentence is the period of parole ineligibility. The rest of the sentence is just an option, an option our system allows to revictimize the parents or the relatives of the victims. It potentially forces them to join countless other victims in having to dredge up gruesome memories just to provide impact statements and petitions to keep the cages closed. But the quality of mercy is not strained.

It has been argued in this House that concurrent sentences “counter any need to reduce sentencing dispositions for individual offences in order to achieve an overall just result”. It is never a just result to reduce a sentence for rape or murder just because the victim was not the only victim of the predator involved.

It is worse yet for the courts to mask the fact that they do discount sentences in precisely that way time and time again through concurrent sentencing. There is no more justification for disguising a volume discount than there is for giving one.

The courts should not be able to placate victims by hiding the ugly truth behind their decisions. They should have to impose consecutive sentences when the crimes are as devastating as murder and sexual assault.

The argument has also been made in this House to suggest that we give volume discounts for rapists and murderers so that we can be different from the United States. I quote “I question whether we want to follow the American example of building more prisons”. This is the kind of hyperbole and exaggeration that protects an utterly flawed system with respect to Canada's most dangerous offenders.

I think the most efficient use of our prisons is to keep those predators who have killed or have sexually assaulted multiple victims securely away from future victims. If space in prison needs to be found, more creative forms of punishment and rehabilitation should be found for non-violent offenders guilty of property or commercial offences.

When it comes to serial predators, public safety must be our first concern. We know that each convicted serial predator is capable of more horrific crimes. Their actions have identified them as a permanent threat to society. To ignore that threat is to negligently endanger innocent lives.

A corrections research and development study from the Department of the Solicitor General showed that released child molesters who targeted boys had a 77% recidivism rate. That means for every 100 of these child molesters released, at least 77 more children are victimized. If a children's toy had that record, it would be banned.

The National Parole Board considers its record, its annual slaughter to be a success story. I have heard it argued that the National Parole Board is fit to decide what predators should be released, but the fact that the average murderer can get full parole within two years of eligibility illustrates that our parole system has lost its balance.

The Olson hearing proved to everyone who witnessed it that absolutely any predator can appear with a corrections worker who will attest to his good character and press the parole board for release. I was amazed when the corrections worker responsible for Clifford Olson testified in court as an Olson witness and talked of how he was more concerned with Olson's safety than he was his own, and how he relied on Olson to keep him informed on current events.

This Corrections Canada employee was even a member of the prison program planning board. He told the court that Olson was a diligent worker who did a good job. Addressing Olson directly, the same corrections worker said “Most of our interactions were done in an open room sitting side by side at a table. I never saw you as a threat to me. My main concern was more for your safety than for my own”. He went on “I am sure everyone is well aware that you are considered a jailhouse lawyer. They consulted you for advice. You gave them advice. You helped them prepare documents and by the peer group, you were well thought of”.

The corrections worker added later “I always found you very interesting to work with as a matter of fact, for several reasons. One is you are well read. Because I live in a rural part of Saskatchewan, I do not have television facilities and you had several channels on television. You kept me informed of what was going on”.

If Clifford Olson can get such an endorsement from Corrections Canada, every other murderer must deserve the Lady Byng trophy. That experience was a demonstration of the distorted picture parole boards must be given on a regular basis. If Clifford Olson can find champions among corrections personnel, so can any criminal.

Some time ago I watched a television debate where one of the commentators suggested that consecutive sentencing for Clifford Olson, which would amount to genuine life imprisonment, would amount to nothing more than revenge. This sort of hyperbole is common in the predator protection industry. Life imprisonment is not some form of revenge.

If the families of the Olson victims were to hack him to death with a rusty axe, that would be revenge. Sentencing Olson to life in prison where he can educate corrections workers on current events is not revenge but very civilized and measured justice in response to a series of vicious crimes.

It has always been the tactic of those who earn their living defending predators to accuse anyone who opposes the early release of serial predators of being emotional, vengeful and of giving in to their primitive instincts. They think instead it is somehow superior to test their pompous theories by releasing known serial predators on to an unsuspecting public.

By far, the most distasteful argument I have heard in the defence of the status quo also had the most impact. When I first brought this bill to the House, one of its chief opponents told me that he could not support my bill because he did not want to create a victims industry. That is right. He did not want public policy to result in a victim's industry that would continuously challenge established legal practices. In short, he wanted to preserve the silence of the lambs.

Instead it is the predator protection industry that is supported. It is that industry that thrives on the endless parole process that annually threatens to unleash the chained savagery of predators, consuming untold tax dollars while dismembering the future of victims.

Let me summarize the arguments to defend volume discounts for rapists and murderers. They say we need concurrent sentencing because we do not want to double bunk predators. We do not want to reveal the fact that the courts are discounting sentences for individual crimes. We want to be different from the United States. We do not want to be emotional. Most importantly, we do not want to create a victim's industry.

That is all I have heard in the past two years to defend a system that cheapens life, revictimizes the families of the dead and recklessly exposes every Canadian to unnecessary risk from released predators.

I am asking members of this House to reach beyond the grasp of a legal system that not only fails victims but fails us all. I ask them to smooth the barbed face of Canadian justice and allow victims to find justice in our laws. I ask them to defy the predator protection industry by ending volume discounts for rapists and murderers.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mississauga East who has just spoken, not only for bringing forward this bill for a second time, but for the words she has given this House to consider as well as all Canadians who are struggling to understand why we have a justice system that allows this kind of thing to go on and on.

Surely it is fair and just that we take a look at what our courts are doing in terms of sentencing individuals like the Clifford Olsons of this country to terms of imprisonment that are in fact a bargain price for criminality.

I rise in support of this private member's bill. This is a good bill. It was a good bill when it was introduced last parliament as private member's Bill C-321, a bill that may have been law today if our Liberal colleagues had deemed it votable.

In 1993 the Liberals campaigned on a promise to give backbenchers more weight in this government through added private members' bills. For those members new to this House, in the last parliament the member for Mississauga East accused the Liberal dominated, four-member committee that determines which private members' bills will be votable of short-circuiting controversial bills.

The Mississauga East MP, and I hope she does not mind me quoting her comments since they are on the record, said:

We supposedly have open government, but we have secret committees and I'd guarantee that no member of that committee would oppose the bill openly. They were just encouraged in secret. I'm not suggesting it's a kangaroo court; it's more like a cockroach court. You can't see them at work and they run.

In 1996 the hon. member was also quoted in the Hill Times as saying:

If I had a bill on lawn care, I bet I'd have success in getting it through the committee—. If I had a bill that offered better treatment for criminals it would race through the place in a week, but if you have a bill that wants to side with the victims or correct an obscene injustice in our system you can expect resistance and many years of effort and debate.

The member made these comments in reference to her private member's bill on consecutive sentencing, Bill C-321, which was rejected by her colleagues.

I commend the member for having the fortitude to once again bring this most important bill forward.

Harsher comments appeared in the Hill Times in reference to private members' business. These words, which I would like to reiterate, were from Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of murder victim Leslie Mahaffy. Mrs. Mahaffy said:

I am disgusted but not surprised by the heartless comments on the issue of consecutive sentencing that came out of the flapping mouths of government Liberal members as reported in your paper on November 11, “MPs Slag Private Members' Business.”

Mrs. Mahaffy went on to state:

—the Secretary of State for the Status of Women says she was not familiar with this serious issue for victims' families because she had not attended caucus that week and as a result had nothing to say. Could it be that the issue of consecutive sentencing has been at more caucus meetings than she? Or perhaps she simply doesn't read newspapers about serious issues of crime. Another cruel remark dealing with sentencing of serial predators made by another bright light, Liberal—. chair of the women's caucus is equally inane. Her diatribe that she might support consecutive sentencing if [the member from Mississauga East] brings the issue to the forefront again, is mindless and absurd to say the least.

Well, if the floor is hers again we will see what that member has to say.

Mrs. Mahaffy went to state:

The fact that she made this comment after consulting with [the] Justice Minister and the Liberal [member from Mississauga East] adds to the obscenity. With this calibre of consultants, I suggest it is time for [the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore] to seek better advisors.

I have omitted a small portion of Mrs. Mahaffy's letter to the Hill Times , but I would like to read her last paragraph:

Shame on all of you for adding to our pain and for your lack of humanity, and the lack of wisdom to make a difference.

When we talk about our justice system and those in this House who are responsible for amending our laws and bringing forth new initiatives I cannot help but be reminded of an article in yesterday's newspaper by Jeffrey Simpson. It is headed “A Justice Minister with a Lower Profile than a Groundhog in Winter”. That is not very flattering, but I think it strikes very close to the truth. The reason for that is because our justice minister has really done very little, if anything, during almost a year of holding one of the strongest portfolios in government. It is certainly one of the two portfolios that has the mandate and the responsibility to look into things like ending concurrent sentencing and moving toward more just and applicable pieces of legislation.

I would also like to read from an article which appeared on November 27, 1996 in a B.C. newspaper regarding the standing committee on justice's national forum on youth justice, which occurred at the end of the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act. For the record, I could not support the expenditure of $60,000 to host this meeting. That was what the estimate was. I do not know what the actual cost was, but that is what we were asked to support. I could not do that because I felt we would be going over old ground by hearing from a number of witnesses who had already appeared before our committee. My opposition to this wasteful use of taxpayers' money caused me to endure a bit of a berating from the chair of that committee, which is hard for me to forget, although I have forgiven that member for that type of an attitude toward me because of the feelings the member experienced at the time. Nevertheless, it did happen. That displays an attitude that is all too prevalent in those who are responsible for the direction that our justice system has been taking, certainly during the last five years since I have been a member of this House.

I quote from that article:

Ottawa was a bust for [the member for Surrey North]. [The member for Surrey North], whose teenage son Jesse was stabbed to death by another teen four years ago, was invited to speak before the federal standing committee of justice affairs last weekend in Canada's capital city. But the Guildford dad, who founded the victims' rights group Crime, Responsibility and Youth (CRY) after his son was murdered, says the trip was a waste of time. “I spoke maybe five minutes total,” he said. “It was a joke. I shouldn't have even bothered going.” The meeting was poorly chaired, he charged.

Of 33 participants, [the member for Surrey North] said, only himself and a representative of Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT), another victims' rights group, spoke from the victims' perspective. The other participations were lawyers, criminologists and members of groups like the John Howard Society, a group advocating convicts' rights. Everything else was geared to the rights of offenders [the member for Surrey North] said. “I was the only person in the whole damn bunch who took the victims' side to anything,” he said, “and someone from CAVEAT.” He said he appreciated being asked to attend, but added, “it was so obviously one-sided.”

It is certainly not the first time a witness or an observer has called the committee a bust or a sham. The mayor of Cornwall walked out on the committee, called it a complete waste of time and accused the committee of being predisposed. I was and remain a member of that committee and I cannot disagree with the observations of the member for Surrey North and the mayor of Cornwall.

By December 1996, three years after the 1993 election, 16 private members' bills were introduced to reform Canada's criminal justice system. None have become law. It is unfortunate that despite the hard work and effort of many parliamentarians from all sides of the House, a similar pattern is emerging in this parliament.

Included in those bills that died was one introduced by the member for York—South Weston, Bill C-234. This very necessary bill did not become law. It did not even come back to the floor of the House of Commons because the Liberal members of the justice standing committee killed it. They did this despite the fact that Bill C-234 had the overwhelming support of the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence. Bill C-234 most certainly had the support of the Reform Party because this private members' bill would have repealed section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would have quashed the killer's glimmer of hope for being released before serving his full sentence.

I commend my colleague from Mississauga East for her courage in standing in a caucus where there is not much support for what many people across this country are asking for. I assure her that she has my support on this bill and the support of my caucus.