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.
