Debates of March 25th, 1999

Division No. 363

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the parliamentary secretary.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me name the ridings of the Liberal members who attended as well and who laughed and joked when that bill was destroyed in five seconds.

Apart from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the member for Winnipeg South also thought it was a big joke. The member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford thought it was a big joke. The member for Simcoe North thought it was a big joke. The member for Oshawa thought it was a big joke. The member for Brossard—La Prairie thought it was a big joke. The member for Scarborough East thought it was a big joke. They all thought it was a big joke to destroy the private member's bill of the member for Mississauga East.

The Liberals voted overwhelmingly in favour of second reading and to go to committee. Did they mean it? Of course not. They did not want this bill. They wanted it to get to committee so that the government orders could be followed to destroy this bill in under five seconds in committee.

We have seen some disgusting things out of this government since 1993 and this one rates right near the top. Not only was this bill, which had a tremendous amount of merit and a tremendous amount of benefit to the public safety of this country, destroyed by this government, by the sheep that follow the orders of the whip, the House leader or the Minister of Justice, but this act has destroyed what little confidence the Canadian people might have in the effectiveness of private members' bills.

What happened yesterday sent a clear message out to every member of parliament, who represent millions of Canadians across the country, that if one puts a private member's bill forward, no matter what happens in the House in first and second reading, no matter if there is overwhelming consent or not, if it gets to committee and someone on the government benches, the cabinet, does not want this bill, it is destroyed. Is that democracy?

Is there any semblance of democracy in that process? The answer is no. This malicious, disgusting act by the Liberal government has destroyed whatever confidence Canadians had in the ability of their elected members to present a private member's bill in the House and have any chance of it going through if some member of the government benches does not want it. That is a crime in itself. That was a criminal act yesterday.

What the Liberal members did yesterday, following the orders from their dictator, whoever he or she was, was nothing less than a criminal act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If I heard the hon. member right, he said members committed a criminal act. If that is what he said I am sure he would want to withdraw those words. Members in their capacity as members of the House voting on bills and motions in committee or in the House surely are not committing such an act. I am sure the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley would want to withdraw any such suggestion.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will withdraw. What I said was in passion. What I should have said is that what the Liberal members did in committee could be described as nothing less than a criminal act. It was so vile and so disgusting that it could be accurately called an immoral act or an obscene act of power hungry dictators in the government having their orders carried out by their minions who show up for these committee meetings attempting to give some impression that they are actually interested in what is going on. They are attempting to give some impression that they actually care about business in committee.

The killing of this bill by the Liberals yesterday also had another effect. It had a profound effect on the ability of law-abiding Canadians to have a sense of security about the safety of their families.

This bill, had it passed, would have kept murderers and rapists and others who commit heinous violent crimes of that nature in jail. It would have ended the volume discounts for murderers, rapists and other violent criminals the Liberals government supports.

This act yesterday was a clear example of the Liberal government's supporting the most lenient treatment possible for violent criminals. That is what it did yesterday. It supported the most lenient treatment possible under the Criminal Code. That is what the Liberal government is all about. That is what it supports.

It is disgusting. How can any law-abiding Canadian citizen have any sense of security about the safety of their family when this worthless government does not have the guts, does not have the intestinal—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. member is perhaps overwrought today, but he is going beyond the bounds of proper discourse. He knows it has been ruled unparliamentary on numerous occasions to use the last words he used. I would invite him again to withdraw the words and perhaps show a little temperance in his language.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this issue it is very difficult to show temperance but I will try. I will withdraw that. What did I just withdraw?

I say this for the benefit of the Canadian people. The government killed Bill C-251, a bill that would keep in jail violent criminals, criminals who commit the most heinous and serious crimes, a bill that would end the volume discounts where, if a person commits three murders, they would only serve time for one and if a person rapes three or four or five women, they would only serve time for one. That is the way the law is now. This would have changed it. This would have provided for consecutive sentencing.

This government clearly displayed yesterday that it supports violent criminals being treated in the most lenient manner possible. That is the message it sent out yesterday. That is the message this government sent out yesterday when it destroyed Bill C-251.

I sat there in utter amazement as I watched this bill destroyed in under five seconds. All the efforts of the member for Mississauga East in putting this bill forward, the turncoating of the Liberal members who supported her bill in second reading, now cast aside as if it were some worthless piece of paper.

I think the Liberals showed no support for law enforcement officers. They have clearly demonstrated in everything they have done in justice terms that they do not support police forces in this country. They do not support law-abiding citizens. Who are they supporting? They appear to be supporting and have given credibility to the thought that the people they support are the people who commit crimes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move:

That the member from Mississauga East be now heard.

She was standing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

I declare the motion carried.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been three full years since I first introduced my private member's bill.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

When you called for those in favour and those opposed, more than five members rose. I therefore call for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair did not see five members rising at the same time. Some members stood up and sat down, and then others stood up, but there were not five standing at one time that the Chair was able to see. Accordingly I declared the motion carried. The hon. member for Mississauga East has the floor.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been three full years since I first introduced my private member's bill on consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers and rapists.

It was blocked once by the subcommittee on private members' business. It was blocked again by the same committee six months later when I reintroduced the bill. Then again after the election it was finally permitted to be made votable and was voted at second reading and referred to the justice committee which did hear from many witnesses. Yesterday the bill's three year journey ended in three minutes.

The bill has the unfettered support of the attorney general and the solicitor general of Ontario, the justice minister of Alberta and the justice minister of Manitoba.

Bill C-251 passed second reading, as I mentioned, 81 to 3. The bill has the support of the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian police chiefs, the police services board and every major victims organization in the country. Bill C-251 has the support of both NAC and REAL Women. The bill has the support of the national Union of Solicitor General Employees.

The bill is the second of three key legislative requests made by the Canadian Police Association during its 1999 annual legislative conference and lobby day.

As this will likely be the last time in this parliament that concurrent sentences for multiple murderers and rapists are challenged, I would like to read into the record some of the arguments that were presented in opposition to the bill and respond to them.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association asked the question: Why does this particular offence, referring to sexual assault, have to attract consecutive sentences? Why is it centred out? Why do we not pick robbery, break and enters, car jackings, or home invasions? A convicted murderer who also presented to the justice committee had a similar problem distinguishing between rape and going through someone's drawers during a break and enter.

Sexual assault I would maintain is different from break and enter in that sexual assaults cause permanent, often catastrophic harm to the victim. From the perspective of the assailant or his legal representatives, this impact on the victim may not be of great importance. But again I remind the House that not long ago this House both supported consecutive sentences and mandatory minimums for offences involving firearms, including imitation firearms. Is a conviction for sexual assault any less important than a conviction for the use of an imitation firearm?

The myth that life is life was also perpetuated. The Criminal Lawyers' Association, the John Howard Society and Lifeline, a society of paroled murderers, all protested that a life sentence actually means life imprisonment: “The punishment for murder, regardless of whether it is first or second degree is imprisonment. There can be no greater term of imprisonment”.

Multiple murderers, according to Correctional Service Canada using its own statistics, serve an average of only 18.8 years in prison. That was the evidence of a witness from the Department of the Solicitor General who presented data to the committee showing that the largest group of multiple murderers in the system, 292 multiple murderers in total, can expect to spend only that long in prison.

I remind the House that Denis Lortie was luckier. He was released on full parole after 11 years after committing three murders. Three and one-half years for each murder. That is the reality of today's justice system. Once parole is granted, a life sentence can mean as little as one visit to a parole officer every three months. It usually means one visit a month according to one witness.

Even in the current law there is a degree of differentiation within a life sentence. The minimum parole ineligibility for first degree murder is 25 years, while the minimum for second degree is 10. Hence there is already ample precedent for applying different parole and eligibility periods for different crimes within a life sentence, as is called for in Bill C-251.

The assertion that a life sentence results in imprisonment for life is an Orwellian deception that serves to mislead Canadians.

The justice committee heard evidence of the extent of volume discounts in the current system. The committee was told that 321 multiple murderers had received concurrent sentences, and according to statistics, an average volume discount of 58%. That means the average multiple murderer will actually serve less than half his cumulative sentence in jail.

The committee also heard that 60% of all sex offenders admitted to federal prisons were multiple sex offenders who received concurrent sentences. The average volume discount was 68%. Time served under concurrent sentences was shown to be less than one-third of the time that would have been served under a consecutive sentence.

The committee also heard of the threat to society posed by paroled murderers. Various organizations claimed that released murderers posed no great threat to society but sadly, statistics tell a very different story. Paroled murderers, according to Correctional Service Canada, using its own statistics, are 100 times more likely to commit a future murder than the average Canadian.

Most Canadians would believe that a rehabilitated person should be no more likely to commit another murder than their neighbour. That is not the case. Paroled murderers remain a high risk group, 100 times more risky than any other Canadian. We were told in committee that five Canadians have been murdered because of the early release of murderers who were not genuinely rehabilitated.

The argument of constitutionality was raised. Various groups attempted to give the impression that Bill C-251 would not survive a charter challenge. But what the supreme court has actually said, and I cite Steel v Mountain:

It will only be on rare and unique occasions that a court will find a sentence so grossly disproportionate that it violates the provisions of section 12 of the charter which deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

And I cite Queen v Smith:

The test for review under section 12 is one of gross disproportionality because it is aimed at punishments that are more than merely excessive. We should be careful not to stigmatize every disproportionate or excessive sentence as being a constitutional violation.

The above cases and others demonstrate that there is no basis whatsoever to assume that consecutive sentences will fail a charter challenge. The only constitutional lawyer who testified before the committee expressed his legal opinion that there is no charter vulnerability.

There is no precedent anywhere in the world that would directly support a charter challenge. It is telling that no witness who spoke against the bill provided a legal opinion on the constitutional matter, choosing instead in large part to focus on matters of policy.

I would like to remind the House that Bill C-68, imposed by the same justice committee, imposed consecutive minimum prison terms for the use of a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of a crime. These consecutive minimums actually exceed the median time served for sexual assault.

Judicial discretion was raised. For multiple sexual offenders witnesses opposed to the bill could not agree among themselves as to the impact that the bill would have on the total sentence received by a multiple sex offender. Some said that it would cause a substantial increase. Others suggested that judges might adjust sentences for each offence to reach the same overall sentence.

Witnesses obviously have different views as to the impact of the bill on sentencing because they cannot predict the reaction of judges. Witnesses cannot predict the reaction of judges because judges will continue to maintain judicial discretion as to the overall sentences in these cases.

At present, in the case of multiple murderers there is no judicial discretion in sentences for first degree murder. Bill C-251 does not change that. A mandatory period of parole ineligibility will still apply but must be of a length that is proportional to the number of victims. Is that so unjust?

The question of costs was raised. Various organizations referred to cost and resource issues potentially associated with Bill C-251 in relation to multiple murderers. One presented a misleading figure that totalled the annual cost for the next 69 years. Bill C-251 can have no cost impact whatsoever for at least 10 years. The bill is not retroactive and can only have an impact on resources when future murderers come up for parole not less than 10 years from now.

Delayed parole for multiple murderers will cause an annual increase in prison population of about .1% per year for about 20 years beginning in the year 2010. This is derived from information provided to the justice committee by Mary Campbell of the Department of the Solicitor General.

With respect to the position of women's groups one witness claimed that the women's movement and NAC in particular were opposed to separate penalties for male offenders who victimized women and children. She said:

They have stopped short of calling for stiffer penalties or for longer periods of incarceration.

This statement is clearly intended to give the impression that NAC opposed the bill. As I mentioned earlier, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women sent a letter of support for Bill C-225. It supported the principle of my bill. REAL women also sent a letter of support.

Those were the arguments. The bill is supported by three provinces, police associations, women's groups and victims' groups. I leave it to the House as to whether it wishes to have a vote to provide Canadians with the view of parliamentarians on volume discounts for murderers and rapists.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga East for her words. I know how much this means to her. I know her persistence in trying to get it through for a number of years.

Does she have some thoughts on the impact this kind of legislation would have? Should we eventually get this kind of legislation, what does she feel the impact will be on Canadian society as a whole?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I know he has a particular sensitivity to this issue.

It is my fervent hope that the wisdom of the House will prevail and that legislation, whether it emanates from the department or whether it is translated by my bill, will come forward to ensure that the bulk rate for murder and volume discounts for rapists do not prevail. Currently that is the law in Canada today.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and questions. It is important for those watching today to understand exactly what has taken place.

We are debating today a private members' bill that has been before the House numerous times, as indicated by the actual mover of the debate who was the last speaker. She indicated a witness list. We should also indicate that of the witnesses that appeared before the committee many were opposed to it, including the National Association Active in Criminal Justice, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and the Church Council on Justice and Corrections.

I hear members of the Reform Party throwing jibes at these witnesses: the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Canadian Bar Association made up of prosecutors that prosecute those people who are charged, the John Howard Society, and the Elizabeth Fry Society. The John Howard Society said that the bill and the intimidation tactics used to support it were regrettable.

It is important for people to understand what debate was interrupted today by members of the Reform Party. It was a debate dealing with fish stocks. It is important for people and fishermen in British Columbia to understand that the important issues affecting them and affecting the fishermen in Atlantic Canada were interrupted by a tactical manoeuvre by the Reform Party, which says it is a populist party, to play games and get this issue before the House.

I make that comment so that fishermen on both sides of the country will understand that if we do not get to the fish stocks debate, which is crucial to the livelihood of fishermen, it is because members of the Reform Party wanted to play this game and make certain political points with a bill that has already been debated in the House numerous times.

I direct my comments in that vein. They are important for members to understand.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that fish stocks is a crucial issue and is pertinent to the lives of fishermen.

I thank the initiative of the Reform Party and my colleagues opposite in the Tory party who have chosen to highlight one of the obscenities in the Canadian justice system.

I remind the hon. member that despite the witness list he cites, I commissioned a Pollara poll which indicated nine out of ten Canadians agree with this position.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

So what?